[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 52 (Friday, March 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14868-14869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05760]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-900]


Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of 
the 2015-2016 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of 
Amended Final Results of Review

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

SUMMARY: On February 24, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade 
(the Court) entered final judgment sustaining the final results of 
remand redetermination pursuant to court order by the U.S. Department 
of Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the 2015-2016 antidumping duty 
(AD) administrative review on diamond sawblades and parts thereof 
(diamond sawblades) from the People's Republic of China (China). 
Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case 
is not in harmony with Commerce's final results in the 2015-2016 AD 
administrative review of diamond sawblades from China, and that 
Commerce is amending the final results.

DATES: Applicable March 6, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Hollander, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2805.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 20, 2018, Commerce published its final results of the 
2015-2016 AD administrative review for diamond sawblades from China.\1\ 
In the Final Results, we determined the dumping margin for both 
mandatory respondents, Chengdu Huifeng New Material Technology Co., 
Ltd. (Chengdu Huifeng) and the Jiangsu Fengtai Single Entity,\2\ based 
entirely on adverse facts available (AFA). Because all the mandatory 
respondents' rates were based on AFA (and were both the same at 82.05 
percent), we applied the mandatory respondents' rate to the companies 
eligible for a separate rate that were not selected for individual 
examination, consistent with section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act) and the ``expected method'' of the SAA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2015-2016, 83 FR 17527 (April 20, 2018) (Final Results), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    \2\ The Jiangsu Fengtai Single Entity is comprised of Jiangsu 
Fengtai Diamond Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Fengtai Diamond 
Tools Co., Ltd., and Jiangsu Fengtai Sawing Industry Co., Ltd.
    \3\ See Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994) at 
883 (SAA); see also Albemarle Corp. v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345 
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 23, 2019, the Court remanded aspects of the Final 
Results to Commerce for further consideration.\4\ The Court remanded 
Commerce's decision to reject as untimely a supplemental questionnaire 
response submitted by Chengdu Huifeng and directed Commerce to consider 
Chengdu Huifeng's response in calculating Chengdu Huifeng's individual 
dumping margin.\5\ If this resulted in a change to Chengdu Huifeng's 
margin, the Court ordered Commerce to adjust the separate rate 
respondents' rates accordingly.\6\ In its first remand redetermination, 
issued in March 2020,\7\ Commerce accepted Chengdu Huifeng's response 
and calculated an individual dumping margin of zero percent for Chengdu 
Huifeng.\8\ Because all the mandatory respondents' rates were either 
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA, Commerce continued to 
determine the separate rate pursuant to the ``expected method.'' \9\ 
Specifically, Commerce averaged the zero percent margin for Chengdu 
Huifeng with the 82.05 percent margin for the Jiangsu Fengtai Single 
Entity to determine a 41.03 percent rate for the separate rate 
companies.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Bosun Tools v. United States, Court No. 18-00102, Slip 
Op. 19-125 (September 23, 2019).
    \5\ Id. at 14-15.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ See Bosun Tools v. United States, Court No. 18-00102, Slip 
Op. 19-125, ``Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand,'' dated March 9, 2020 (First Remand Redetermination).
    \8\ Id. at 6.
    \9\ Id. at 7-8.
    \10\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 14, 2020, the Court sustained Commerce's calculation of 
Chengdu Huifeng's zero percent individual margin but remanded 
Commerce's determination of the separate rate, finding that Commerce 
improperly did not consider lower margins from prior administrative 
reviews in determining whether the separate rate reasonably reflects 
the separate rate companies' potential dumping behavior.\11\ In its 
Second Remand Redetermination, issued in October 2020, Commerce 
considered the rates from prior reviews, under respectful protest, and 
determined that the prior rates support continuing to use the expected 
method to determine the separate rate.\12\ Accordingly, Commerce 
continued to calculate a separate rate of 41.03. The Court sustained 
the Second Remand Redetermination in full.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Bosun Tools v. United States, Court No. 18-00102, Slip 
Op. 20-97 (July 14, 2020).
    \12\ See Bosun Tools v. United States, Court No. 18-00102, Slip 
Op. 20-97, ``Final Second Remand Redetermination,'' dated October 
13, 2020 (Second Remand Redetermination).
    \13\ See Bosun Tools v. United States, Court No. 18-00102, Slip 
Op. 21-23 (February 24, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\14\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\15\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, 
pursuant to section 516A(c) of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice 
of court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce

[[Page 14869]]

determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a 
``conclusive'' court decision. The Court's February 24, 2021 judgment 
constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with 
Commerce's Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of 
the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will 
continue suspension of liquidation of subject merchandise pending 
expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and 
conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending 
the Final Results with respect to Chengdu Huifeng and the separate rate 
companies that are party to the litigation. The revised AD margins for 
the period November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016, are as 
follows:\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Second Remand Redetermination at 2-3.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                          Exporter                              dumping
                                                                margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chengdu Huifeng New Technology Co., Ltd.....................        0.00
Bosun Tools Co., Ltd........................................       41.03
Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd...................       41.03
Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd................       41.03
Guilin Tebon Superhard Marterial Co., Ltd...................       41.03
Hangzhou Deer King Industrial and Trading Co., Ltd..........       41.03
Jiangsu Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd....................       41.03
Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd.....................       41.03
Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd....................................       41.03
Zhejiang Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd.........................       41.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Cash Deposit Rates

    Because all of the companies have been subject to a subsequent 
administrative review which established revised cash deposit rates,\17\ 
Commerce will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2016-2017, 83 FR 64331 (December 14, 2018); Diamond 
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018, 
85 FR 71308 (November 9, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

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

    Dated: March 15, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-05760 Filed 3-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P