[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20659-20661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08259]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-016]


Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final 
Results

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

SUMMARY: On January 29, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade 
(CIT) issued its final judgment in Shandong Yongtai Group Co., Ltd. v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 18-00077, sustaining the Department of 
Commerce (Commerce)'s first remand results pertaining to the 
administrative review

[[Page 20660]]

of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain passenger vehicle and 
light truck tires (passenger tires) from the People's Republic of China 
(China) covering the period of review (POR) January 27, 2015, through 
July 31, 2016. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final 
judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's final results of the 
administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the final results 
with respect to the dumping margin assigned to Shandong Yongtai 
Chemical Co., Ltd. and its successor-in-interest Shandong Yongtai Group 
Co., Ltd.

DATES: Applicable February 8, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1398.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 16, 2018, Commerce published its Final Results in the 
2015-2016 AD administrative review of passenger tires from China.\1\ In 
that proceeding, Commerce granted separate rate status to Shandong 
Yongtai Group Co., Ltd. (Yongtai Group), but did not grant separate 
rate status to Shandong Yongtai Chemical Co., Ltd. (Yongtai Chemical) 
because Yongtai Group did not identify any record information that 
would allow Commerce to determine that Yongtai Chemical merited a 
separate rate or whether Yongtai Group was the successor-in-interest of 
Yongtai Chemical.\2\ Yongtai Group argued that it was the successor-in-
interest of Yongtai Chemical and that Commerce should have granted 
separate status to Yongtai Chemical as well.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-
2016, 83 FR 11690 (March 16, 2018) (Final Results), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
    \2\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 12.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Yongtai Group appealed Commerce's Final Results. On November 27, 
2019, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce to further 
consider the separate rate status of Yongtai Chemical and/or to 
consider whether Yongtai Group was the successor-in-interest to Yongtai 
Chemical.\4\ Following the CIT's Passenger Tires AR1 Remand Order, 
Commerce determined it was appropriate to reopen the record for this 
remand to solicit information from Yongtai Group to determine whether 
it is the successor-in-interest to Yongtai Chemical. On January 28, 
2020, Commerce issued a supplemental questionnaire to Yongtai Group 
soliciting information needed to perform our successor-in-interest 
analysis.\5\ On February 11, 2020, Yongtai Group filed its response to 
Commerce's questionnaire.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Shandong Yongtai Group Co. v. United States, 415 F. 
Supp. 3d. 1303 (CIT 2019) (Passenger Tires AR1 Remand Order).
    \5\ See Yongtai Group's Letter, ``Certain Passenger Vehicle and 
Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China Supplemental 
Questionnaire Re: Shandong Yongtai Group Co., Ltd.,'' dated January 
28, 2020.
    \6\ See Yongtai Group's Letter, ``Supplemental Questionnaire 
Response of Shandong Yongtai Group Co., Ltd. (formerly Shandong 
Yongtai Chemical Co., Ltd.), First Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck 
Tires from the People's Republic of China (REMAND),'' dated February 
11, 2020 (Yongtai Group Remand SQR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its final remand redetermination, issued in March 2020, Commerce 
determined, after reconsidering the record evidence submitted by 
Yongtai Group in its separate rate application and in the Yongtai Group 
Remand SQR, that there was sufficient information on the record to find 
Yongtai Group to be the successor-in-interest to Yongtai Chemical and 
grant separate rate status to Yongtai Chemical.\7\ The CIT sustained 
Commerce's final redetermination and severed this action from the 
consolidated action with Qingdao Sentury Co. Ltd. v. United States, 
Court No. 18-00079 and Pirelli Tyre Co. Ltd. v. United States, Court 
No. 18-00080.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Shandong Yongtai Group Co. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 
18-00077, Slip Op. 19-150 (March 3, 2020).
    \8\ See Shandong Yongtai Group Co. v. United States, Consol. Ct. 
No. 18-00077, CIT Slip Op. 21-10 (January 29, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\9\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\10\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, 
pursuant to section 516A(c) and (e) 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 January 29, 2021, judgment constitutes a final decision of 
the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. Thus, 
this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements 
of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \10\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United 
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending 
its Final Results with respect to Yongtai Group and Yongtai Chemical as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Estimated       Estimated
                                            weighted-       weighted-
                                             average     average dumping
          Exporter or producer           dumping margin     margin for
                                           from final         remand
                                          determination  redetermination
                                            (percent)       (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shandong Yongtai Group Co., Ltd.                      *             2.96
 formerly known as Shandong Yongtai
 Chemical Co., Ltd.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Only Yongtai Group received a separate rate of 2.96 percent in the
  Final Results.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

    Previously, the CIT enjoined Commerce from liquidating entries that 
were: (1) Exported by Shandong Yongtai Chemical Co., Ltd.; (2) the 
subject of the United States Department of Commerce's final 
determination in certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from 
the PRC, 83 FR 11,690 (Mar. 16, 2018); (3) entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse for consumption, on or after: (a) January 27, 2015, up to and 
including July 25, 2015; and (b) August 6, 2015, up to and including 
July 31, 2016. Because the CIT's ruling was not

[[Page 20661]]

appealed and was upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the 
injunction enjoying liquidation of such entries has dissolved. Commerce 
intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on such entries, 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on all such entries when the importer-specific ad 
valorem assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. Where an import-
specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis,\11\ we will 
instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to 
antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

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

    Dated: April 14, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-08259 Filed 4-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P