[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 163 (Friday, August 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51680-51681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18384]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-501]


Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Amended Final Results of 
Review; Amended Final Results of Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube 
Products From the Republic of Turkey, 2014-2015

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

SUMMARY: On July 28, 2020, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) 
sustained the Department of Commerce (Commerce)'s third remand 
redetermination pertaining to the administrative review of welded 
carbon steel standard pipe and tube products (welded pipe and tube) 
from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) covering the period of review 
(POR) May 1, 2014 through April 30, 2015. Commerce is notifying the 
public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with the amended 
final results of the administrative review, and that Commerce is 
amending the weighted-average dumping margin for Toscelik Profil ve Sac 
Endustrisi A.S. (Toscelik).

DATES: Applicable August 7, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4475.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 20, 2016, Commerce published the Final Results in the 
2014-2015 administrative review of welded pipe and tube from Turkey, in 
which Commerce calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of 1.91 
percent.\1\ After correcting ministerial errors contained in the Final 
Results, on February 17, 2017, Commerce published the Amended Final 
Results, and calculated a revised weighted-average dumping margin of 
3.40 percent for Toscelik.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from 
Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; 2014-
2015, 81 FR 92785 (December 20, 2016) (Final Results), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    \2\ See Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from 
Turkey: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2014-2015, 82 FR 11002 (February 17, 2017) (Amended Final 
Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Toscelik and the JMC Steel Group (a domestic interested party) 
appealed Commerce's Final Results, as amended by the Amended Final 
Results, to the CIT. On June 6, 2018, the CIT issued its First Remand 
Order, directing Commerce to: (1) Reconsider the calculation of 
Toscelik's duty drawback adjustment; and (2) provide further 
explanation for granting Toscelik a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for 
warehousing expenses.\3\ On October 4, 2018, Commerce submitted its 
final results of redetermination, recalculating Toscelik's duty 
drawback adjustment, under respectful protest,\4\ and providing further 
explanation for granting a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for 
warehousing expenses.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, 
321 F. Supp. 3d 1270 (CIT 2018) (First Remand Order) at 17-18.
    \4\ See Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371 (Fed. 
Cir. 2003).
    \5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, 
Court No. 17-00018, Slip Op. 18-66 (CIT June 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 1, 2019, the CIT issued its Second Remand Order, 
sustaining Commerce's explanation of Toscelik's circumstance-of-sale 
for adjustment for warehousing expenses, but remanding Commerce's 
modified calculation of Toscelik's duty drawback adjustment.\6\ In 
particular, the CIT found that Commerce's additional circumstance-of-
sale adjustment to correct a perceived imbalance in Toscelik's dumping 
margin calculation ``negates the statutory duty drawback adjustment 
that Toscelik earned by exporting its finished product to the United 
States and impinges on the agency's ability to make a fair 
comparison.'' \7\ On May 30, 2019, Commerce submitted its second final 
results of redetermination, recalculating Toscelik's duty drawback 
adjustment, including a circumstance-

[[Page 51681]]

of-sale adjustment to account for the imbalance between the amount of 
import duties included in U.S. price as a result of the duty drawback 
adjustment and the amount of import duties reflected in normal 
value.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, 
375 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (CIT 2019) (Second Remand Order).
    \7\ See Second Remand Order, 375 F. Supp. 3d at 1316.
    \8\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, 
Court No. 17-00018, Slip Op. 19-41 (CIT April 1, 2019) (Second 
Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 18, 2019, in its Third Remand Order, the CIT ordered 
Commerce to recalculate normal value without making a circumstance-of-
sale adjustment related to the duty drawback adjustment made to U.S. 
price.\9\ On March 13, 2020, in the third results of redetermination, 
Commerce granted Toscelik a duty drawback adjustment, without making a 
circumstance-of-sale adjustment to account for the imbalance between 
the U.S. duty drawback adjustment and the amount of import duties 
reflected in normal value.\10\ Additionally, Commerce added an imputed 
cost for import duties to the cost of production.\11\ This amount is 
based on Toscelik's cost of manufacturing during the POR for pipe and 
tube and was calculated as the ratio of the total amount of Toscelik's 
exempted import duties and its cost of manufacturing during the POR. On 
July 28, 2020, the CIT sustained Commerce's third results of 
redetermination, and entered final judgment.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, 
415 F. Supp. 3d 1395 (CIT 2019) (Third Remand Order).
    \10\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, 
Court No. 17-00018, Slip Op. 19-166 (CIT December 18, 2019) (Third 
Redetermination).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ See Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United 
States, Court No., 17-00018, Slip Op. 20-105 (CIT July 28, 2020) 
(CIT Final Judgment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\13\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\14\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, 
pursuant to section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), Commerce must publish a notice of court decision that is not ``in 
harmony'' with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of 
entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's July 28, 
2020, final judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is 
not in harmony with Commerce's Amended Final Results.\15\ Thus, this 
notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of 
Timken and section 516A of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \14\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United 
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
    \15\ See CIT Final Judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results of Review

    Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending 
its Amended Final Results with respect to Toscelik as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                    Exporter or producer                       dumping
                                                                margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S......................        0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because Toscelik has a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there 
have been final results published in a subsequent administrative review 
for Toscelik, this notice will not affect the current cash deposit rate 
for Toscelik.

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

    If the CIT's final judgment is not appealed, or if appealed and 
upheld, because Toscelik's amended weighted-average dumping margin is 
zero percent, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of 
liquidation, and to liquidate and to assess duties at a rate of zero 
for entries during the POR that were produced and exported by Toscelik.
    Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice, for entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR produced by Toscelik for which 
Toscelik did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United 
States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 
all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) 
involved in the transaction.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 
68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, at this time, Commerce remains enjoined by Court order from 
liquidating entries that: (1) Were the subject of the administrative 
determination published in the Final Results, as amended by the Amended 
Final Results; \17\ (2) were produced and/or exported by any of the 
following: Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S.; Tosyali Dis Ticaret 
A.S.; Tubeco Pipe and Steel Corporation; and Toscelik Metal Ticaret 
A.S.; (3) were entered, or were withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after May 1, 2014 through and including April 30, 
2015; and (4) remain unliquidated as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on 
February 17, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Final Results, 81 FR at 92785; see also Amended Final 
Results, 82 FR at 11002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

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

    Dated: August 13, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-18384 Filed 8-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P