[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 124 (Friday, June 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38362-38363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13814]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-918]


Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results 
of Review Pursuant to Court Decision; 2012-2013

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On June 11, 2020, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) sustained the final results of redetermination pertaining 
to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel 
wire garment hangers from the People's Republic of China (China) 
covering the period of review (POR) October 1, 2012 through September 
31, 2013. The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public 
that the CIT's final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the 
final results of the administrative review, and that Commerce is 
amending the final results with respect to Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., 
Ltd. (Shanghai Wells).

DATES: Applicable June 21, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 13, 2015, Commerce published its Final Results in the 
2012-2013 administrative review of steel wire garment hangers from 
China.\1\ During the review, Commerce selected Thailand as the primary 
surrogate country, finding that data from Thailand provided the best 
available information on the record to value Shanghai Wells' reported 
factors of production (FOPs). In particular, Commerce found that the 
import data (including the surrogate value (SV) for wire rod, the 
primary material input FOP) and the labor SV for Thailand were superior 
to the SV data available from the Philippines, and the

[[Page 38363]]

Thai financial statements were usable.\2\ Therefore, Commerce selected 
Thailand as the primary surrogate country, consistent with section 
773(c) of the Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and used the Thai SV 
data as the basis for its dumping analysis.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
2012-2013, 80 FR 13332 (March 13, 2015) (Final Results), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
    \2\ See Final Results, and accompanying IDM at Comments 2 and 3.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shanghai Wells challenged the Final Results, and, on March 2, 2017, 
the CIT remanded that determination to Commerce, questioning Commerce's 
decision to rely on ``usable'' Thai financial statements based on a 
preference to ``stay within the primary surrogate country,'' because 
Commerce must first ``evaluate the available data {sources{time} , 
which includes an acknowledgement that on this record a reasonable mind 
would not select the Thai financial statements as better than the 
Philippine {financial{time}  statements.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Shanghai Wells Hanger Co. v. United States, 211 F. Supp. 
3d 1377, 1381 (CIT 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 7, 2017, Commerce issued the First Redetermination 
Results,\5\ continuing to select Thailand as the primary surrogate 
country and to value all FOPs with data from the primary surrogate 
country, in accordance with the established regulatory preference.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand in Shanghai Wells Co., Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Court 
No. 15-00103, CIT Slip Op. 17-24, dated June 7, 2017 (First 
Redetermination Results).
    \6\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2); see also First Redetermination 
Results at 2, 4-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 7, 2020, the CIT granted Commerce's request for a 
voluntary remand in order to further examine concerns raised by the CIT 
and the parties to this litigation.\7\ In the Second Redetermination 
Results, Commerce determined that the Philippine financial statements 
on the record were the best available information for valuing the 
financial FOPs and recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin for 
Shanghai Wells.\8\ On June 11, 2020, the CIT sustained Commerce's 
Second Redetermination Results.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Shanghai Wells Co., Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Court 
No. 15-00103, Order (CIT, February 7, 2020).
    \8\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand in Shanghai Wells Co., Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Court 
No. 15-00103 (Second Redetermination Results).
    \9\ See Shanghai Wells Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, 
Consol. Court No. 15-00103, Slip Op 20-82 (CIT, June 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\10\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\11\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, 
pursuant to section 516A of the Act, Commerce must publish notice of a 
court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce determination 
and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court 
decision.\12\ The CIT's June 11, 2020 judgment sustaining the Second 
Redetermination Results constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is 
not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. This notice is published 
in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken and section 
516A of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Timken Co. v United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \11\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
    \12\ See section 516A(c) and (e) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results of Review

    Because there is now a final CIT decision, Commerce is amending its 
Final Results with respect to Shanghai Wells for the POR as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Shanghai Wells consists of Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd., 
and Hong Kong Wells Ltd. See Final Results, 80 FR at 13333.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                          Exporter                             dumping
                                                                margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.\13\........................        2.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------



Assessment Instructions

    In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, 
upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 
duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise exported by 
Shanghai Wells in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Commerce will 
calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates on the basis of 
the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's 
examined sales and the total entered value of those sales, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We will instruct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review 
when the importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate calculated is not 
zero or de minimis. Where an importer-specific ad valorem assessment 
rate is zero or de minimis,\14\ we will instruct CBP to liquidate the 
appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Commerce's assessment practice, for entries that were 
not reported in the U.S. sales data submitted by Shanghai Wells during 
this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 
the China-wide entity rate.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The cash deposit rate for Shanghai Wells has been superseded by 
cash deposit rates calculated in intervening administrative reviews of 
the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from China. 
Thus, we will not alter Shanghai Wells' cash deposit rate as a result 
of these amended final results of review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 19, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-13814 Filed 6-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P