[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53457-53458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18803]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-809]


Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: 
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 August 24, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade 
(CIT) issued its final judgment in Hyundai Steel Company v. United 
States, Consol. Court No. 18-00154, sustaining the U.S. Department of 
Commerce (Commerce)'s fourth remand results pertaining to the 
administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on circular 
welded non-alloy steel pipe from the Republic of Korea (Korea) covering 
the period November 1, 2015, through October 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 
margins assigned to Hyundai Steel Company and SeAH Steel Corporation.

DATES: Applicable September 3, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, 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) 482-0410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 13, 2018, Commerce published its Final Results in the 2015-
2016 AD administrative review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe 
from Korea. Commerce found that a particular market situation (PMS) 
existed in Korea and calculated weighted-average dumping margins of 
30.85 percent for Hyundai Steel Company and 19.28 percent for SeAH 
Steel Corporation.\1\ Commerce also calculated a combined assessment 
rate for Hyundai's affiliated importers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic 
of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
2015-2016, 83 FR 27541 (June 13, 2018) (Final Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hyundai Steel Company and SeAH Steel Corporation appealed 
Commerce's Final Results. On November 25, 2019, the CIT remanded the 
Final Results to Commerce, finding that: (1) Commerce's determination 
of the existence of a PMS in the Final Results is unsupported by 
substantial evidence and remanded the issue to Commerce for further 
proceedings; and (2) Commerce's departure from its normal practice of 
calculating importer-specific assessment rates with respect to Hyundai 
Steel Company was unsupported by substantial evidence and remanded the 
issue to Commerce for further proceedings.\2\ In its first remand 
redetermination, issued on February 26, 2020, Commerce further 
considered its PMS determination and recalculated Hyundai Steel 
Company's assessment rates on an importer-specific basis.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, 415 F. Supp. 3d 
1293 (CIT 2019).
    \3\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of 
Korea, Consolidated Court No. 18-00154, Slip Op. 19-148 (CIT 
November 25, 2019), dated February 26, 2020 (First Remand), 
available at https://access.trade.gov/resources/remands/19-148.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT remanded for a second time, ordering Commerce to explain 
the statutory authority to conduct a cost-based PMS analysis when 
normal value is based on home market sales and to adjust the cost of 
production (COP) for purposes of the sales-below-cost test.\4\ In its 
second remand redetermination, issued on February 2, 2021, Commerce 
provided its interpretation of the statutory authority in accordance 
with the Court's order.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, 483 F. Supp. 3d 
1273 (CIT 2020).
    \5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of 
Korea, Consolidated Court No. 18-00154, Slip Op. 20-168 (CIT 
November 23, 2020), dated February 2, 2021 (Second Remand)), 
available at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/remands/20-168.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT remanded for a third time, ordering Commerce to reconsider 
its PMS determination and adjustment in light of its opinion that 
Commerce may not adjust the COP when using normal value based on home 
market sales, and that Commerce is not authorized to adjust the COP for 
purposes of the sales-below-cost test.\6\ In its third remand 
redetermination, issued on September 8, 2021, Commerce recalculated the 
weighted-average dumping margin of Hyundai Steel Company with no 
adjustment to account for the PMS that Commerce had found to have 
existed during the period of review; Commerce also recalculated the 
rate for the second mandatory respondent, Husteel Co., Ltd., for the 
sole purpose of calculating the rate for SeAH Steel Corporation, the 
non-examined company which is a party to this litigation but, in 
recalculating Husteel Co., Ltd.'s rate, Commerce continued to apply a 
PMS adjustment for normal value in situations where normal value was 
determined based on constructed value.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, 531 F. Supp. 3d 
1344 (CIT 2021).
    \7\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Consolidated Court No. 18-00154, Slip Op. 21-88 (CIT July 
19, 2021), dated September 8, 2021 (Third Remand), available at 
https://access.trade.gov/resources/remands/21-88.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT remanded for a fourth time, holding that Commerce 
calculated SeAH Steel Corporation's dumping margin improperly using an 
average of dumping rates based, in part, on a PMS determination that 
was unsupported by substantial evidence, and ordering Commerce to 
recalculate SeAH Steel Corporation's dumping margin in accordance with 
its opinion.\8\ In its final remand redetermination, issued in August 
2022, Commerce, under respectful protest, recalculated the weighted-
average dumping margin for SeAH Steel Corporation without making a 
cost-based PMS adjustment.\9\ The CIT

[[Page 53458]]

sustained Commerce's final redetermination.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Court No. 18-
00154, Slip Op. 22-67 (CIT June 15, 2022).
    \9\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of 
Korea, Consolidated Court No. 18-00154, Slip Op. 22-67 (CIT June 15, 
2022), dated August 2, 2022, available at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/remands/22-67.pdf. In the Third Redetermination, Commerce 
recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin of Hyundai Steel 
with no adjustment to account for the PMS. See Third Redetermination 
at 10.
    \10\ See Hyundai Steel Company v. United States, Court No. 18-
00154, Slip Op. 22-98 (CIT August 24, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\11\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\12\ 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 August 24, 2022, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \12\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United 
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results of Review

    Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending 
its Final Results with respect to Hyundai Steel Company and SeAH Steel 
Corporation as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                           Company                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Steel Company.......................................       12.92
SeAH Steel Corporation......................................        9.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because Hyundai Steel Company and SeAH Steel Corporation have a 
superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been final results 
published in a subsequent administrative review, we will not issue 
revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP). This notice will not affect the current cash deposit rate.

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

    At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from 
liquidating entries that: (1) were produced by Hyundai Steel Company 
(also known as Hyundai Steel Corporation and Hyundai Steel and the 
successor-in-interest to Hyundai HYSCO) and exported by Hyundai Steel 
Company or Hyundai Corporation, and imported by Hyundai Steel USA, Inc. 
or Hyundai Corporation USA; or (2) were produced and/or exported by 
SeAH Steel Corporation; and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption during the period November 1, 2015, through October 31, 
2016. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the 
injunctions during the pendency of any appeals process.
    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 CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of 
subject merchandise that: (1) were produced by Hyundai Steel Company 
(also known as Hyundai Steel Corporation and Hyundai Steel and the 
successor-in-interest to Hyundai HYSCO) and exported by Hyundai Steel 
Company or Hyundai Corporation, and imported by Hyundai Steel USA, Inc. 
or Hyundai Corporation USA; or (2) were produced and/or exported by 
SeAH Steel Corporation in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will 
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review 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,\13\ we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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: August 25, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-18803 Filed 8-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P