[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56400-56401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19859]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-502]


Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review; 2016-2017

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

SUMMARY: On September 17, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade 
(CIT) issued its final judgment in Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company 
Ltd. et al. v. United States, 538 F. Supp. 3d 1350 (CIT 2021) (Saha 
Thai III), sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce) 
second and final results of redetermination pertaining to the 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded 
carbon steel pipes and tubes (pipes and tubes) from Thailand covering 
the period of review (POR) March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2017. 
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 of review with respect 
to the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Pacific Pipe Public 
Company Limited (Pacific Pipe), Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, 
Ltd. (Saha Thai), and Thai Premium Pipe Company Ltd. (Thai Premium).

DATES: Applicable September 27, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles DeFilippo, 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) 482-3797.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 15, 2018, Commerce published its Final Results of the 
2016-2017 antidumping duty administrative review of pipes and tubes 
from Thailand.\1\ In the Final Results, Commerce determined that a 
particular market situation (PMS) existed in the Thai pipes and tubes 
market related to purchases of hot-rolled coil during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from 
Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
2016-2017, 83 FR 51927 (October 15, 2018) (Final Results), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mandatory respondents Pacific Pipe, Saha Thai, and Thai Premium 
challenged Commerce's Final Results before the CIT. On December 18, 
2019, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce for further 
consideration, holding that the PMS adjustment was not in accordance 
with law.\2\ Specifically, the CIT stated that, although section 773(e) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) ``grants Commerce 
discretion to adjust a respondent's cost of production in an 
antidumping margin calculation upon finding a particular market 
situation, the margin calculation must be based on a comparison of U.S. 
prices to constructed value, not home-market or third-country prices.'' 
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 422 
F. Supp. 3d 1363, 1367-70, 1372 (CIT 2019).
    \3\ Id., 422 F. Supp. 3d at 1369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the First Redetermination issued in March 2020, Commerce 
continued to find that a cost-based PMS existed in Thailand that 
distorted the price of hot rolled coil.\4\ Also, in response to the 
CIT's decision in Saha Thai II that, where Commerce determined a PMS 
existed, the PMS adjustment is limited to situations where normal value 
is based on constructed value, Commerce revised the margin calculations 
by basing normal value entirely on constructed value, and it continued 
to adjust each respondent's hot-rolled coil costs to account for the 
cost-based PMS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court 
No. 18-00214, Slip Op. 19-165, dated March 10, 2020 (First 
Redetermination).
    \5\ See First Redetermination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2020, the CIT again remanded the issue to Commerce, 
holding that Commerce's First Redetermination was not in accordance 
with law. The CIT ordered Commerce to ``remove the cost-based 
{PMS{time}  determinations and recalculate the relevant margins without 
a {PMS{time}  adjustment.'' \6\ The CIT held that nothing in the Act 
grants Commerce ``authority to bypass the sales-below-cost test, and 
the specificity of the { {time}  test leaves no ambiguity.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 487 
F. Supp. 3d 1323, 1331-35 (CIT 2020) (Saha Thai II).
    \7\ Id., 487 F. Supp. 3d at 1331-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Second Redetermination, under protest, Commerce removed the 
cost-based PMS adjustments, and based normal value on each respondent's

[[Page 56401]]

respective home market sale prices.\8\ Commerce also reasserted its 
affirmative cost-based PMS determination and emphasized that ``the 
clear intent of Congress'' was for Commerce to remedy a PMS, despite 
its inability to provide such a remedy because of the CIT's order.\9\ 
On September 17, 2021, the CIT issued an opinion sustaining Commerce's 
Second Redetermination.\10\ The CIT held that Commerce's continued PMS 
finding in the Second Redetermination was moot because Commerce's 
recalculation of the respondents' weighted-average dumping margins, 
without a cost-based PMS adjustment, was consistent with the CIT's 
order and the affirmative PMS determination would have no practical 
significance.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, Court 
No. 18-00214, Slip Op. 20-181, dated March 15, 2020 (Second 
Redetermination).
    \9\ Id. at 2-3.
    \10\ See Saha Thai III.
    \11\ Id., 538 F. Supp. 3d at 1353-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\12\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\13\ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held 
that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of 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 September 17, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \13\ 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 Pacific Pipe, Saha Thai, and Thai 
Premium. The revised dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Final results
                                          of review:    Final results of
                                           weighted-    redetermination:
           Exporter/producer                average     weighted-average
                                            dumping      dumping  margin
                                            margin          (percent)
                                           (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited...           30.61             7.38
Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company,           28.00             0.00
 Ltd..................................
Thai Premium Pipe Company Ltd.........           30.98             5.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because Pacific Pipe, Saha Thai, and Thai Premium each 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). These amended final results of review will not affect the 
current cash deposit rates.

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

    At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from 
liquidating entries that: were produced and exported by Pacific Pipe, 
Saha Thai, and Thai Premium, and were entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption during the period March 1, 2016, through 
February 28, 2017. These entries will remain enjoined unless the 
injunction is lifted by the court, pursuant to the terms of the 
injunction, during the pendency of any appeals process.
    In the event the CIT's ruling is upheld by a final and conclusive 
court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review from Pacific 
Pipe, Saha Thai, and Thai Premium when the importer-specific ad valorem 
assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. Where either the 
respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis 
within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific ad 
valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we intend to instruct 
CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard antidumping 
duties.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Commerce's ``reseller policy'' will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these 
final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know 
that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 
68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: September 8, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-19859 Filed 9-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P