[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65749-65750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23743]



[[Page 65749]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-502]


Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes From India: Notice 
of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results

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

SUMMARY: On October 24, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade 
(CIT) issued its final judgment in Garg Tube Export LLP and Garg Tube 
Limited v. United States, Court No. 20-00026, sustaining the U.S. 
Department of Commerce's (Commerce) second results of redetermination 
pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) 
order on welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes (pipe and tube) 
from India covering the period May 1, 2017, through April 30, 2018. 
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 
weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Garg Tube Export LLP and 
Garg Tube Limited (collectively, Garg Tube).

DATES: Applicable November 3, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dmitry Vladimirov, 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) 482-0665.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 16, 2020, Commerce published its Final Results of the 
2017-2018 AD administrative review of welded carbon steel standard 
pipes and tubes from India.\1\ In the Final Results, Commerce found 
that a particular market situation (PMS) existed in India concerning 
the cost of hot-rolled coil (an input into pipe and tube) and adjusted 
Garg Tube's reported cost of production (COP) to account for this 
PMS.\2\ Separately, Garg Tube purchased subject merchandise from 
several unaffiliated suppliers and Commerce requested COP information 
from two of Garg Tube's unaffiliated suppliers of pipe and tube, in 
response to which each supplier refused to provide the requested COP 
information. In the absence of COP information for the pipe and tube 
produced by these suppliers, Commerce filled the gap in the record 
(i.e., the missing COP data of these suppliers) using Garg Tube's 
reported COP for the supplier-produced pipe and tube (which includes 
Garg Tube's acquisition costs, further processing, general and 
administrative expenses, and financial expenses), adjusted based on 
Garg Tube's sale of the supplier-produced pipe and tube which realized 
the largest loss.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018, 
85 FR 2715 (January 16, 2020) (Final Results), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
    \2\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 1.
    \3\ Id. at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Garg Tube appealed Commerce's Final Results. On July 9, 2021, the 
CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce for further explanation or 
reconsideration, holding that: (1) Commerce is not authorized under the 
statute to make a particular market situation (PMS) adjustment to a 
respondent's COP for purposes of determining which of its home market 
sales were made below cost; and (2) it was not reasonably discernable 
from Commerce's analysis in the Final Results how it was applying 
partial adverse facts available under section 776 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), concerning missing COP data for a certain 
unaffiliated and uncooperative supplier.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Garg Tube Export LLP v. United States, 527 F. Supp. 3d 
1362 (CIT 2021) (Garg Tube I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its First Redetermination, issued in October 2021, Commerce 
recalculated Garg Tube's weighted-average dumping margin by: (1) 
reversing a PMS adjustment to Garg Tube's COP for purposes of the 
sales-below-cost test; and (2) relying on neutral facts available to 
fill the COP gap caused by a certain supplier's non-cooperation.\5\ In 
its First Redetermination, Commerce continued to find that a PMS 
existed in India during the POR concerning the price of hot-rolled coil 
and continued to apply a PMS adjustment when calculating the COP where 
normal value (NV) was based on constructed value (CV).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, 
Garg Tube Export LLP and Garg Tube Limited v. United States, Court 
No. 20-00026, Slip Op. 21-83 (CIT October 7, 2021) (First 
Redetermination), available at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/remands/21-83.pdf.
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT remanded for a second time, ordering Commerce to further 
explain or reconsider how its finding that a PMS existed during the POR 
was supported by substantial evidence, and its resultant use of a PMS 
adjustment to COP when determining NV on the basis of CV.\7\ In its 
Second Redetermination, Commerce declined to find that a PMS existed in 
India during the POR with respect to the price of hot-rolled coil and, 
as a result, recalculated Garg Tube's weighted-average dumping margin 
by removing the PMS adjustment when calculating normal value based on 
constructed value.\8\ Because of its negative PMS finding, Commerce 
deemed moot the remaining remanded issues concerning its calculation of 
the PMS adjustment.\9\ The CIT sustained Commerce's Second 
Redetermination.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Garg Tube Export LLP v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 3d 
1202 (CIT 2022) (Garg Tube II).
    \8\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, 
Garg Tube Export LLP and Garg Tube Limited v. United States, Court 
No. 20-00026, Slip Op. 22-18 (CIT March 11, 2022) (Second 
Redetermination), available at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/remands/22-18.pdf.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ See Garg Tube Export LLP and Garg Tube Limited v. United 
States, Court No. 20-00026, Slip Op. 22-120 (CIT October 24, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\11\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\12\ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held 
that, pursuant to section 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 October 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

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

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                    Producer or exporter                        dumping
                                                                margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garg Tube Export LLP and Garg Tube Limited..................        0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 65750]]

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because Garg Tube has 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: were produced and/or exported by Garg Tube 
and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during 
the period May 1, 2017, through April 30, 2018. These entries will 
remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction 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 produced and/or exported by Garg Tube, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). Because Garg Tube's ad valorem 
assessment rate is zero,\13\ we will instruct CBP to liquidate the 
appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unchanged from the Final Results, for entries of subject 
merchandise during the period of review produced by Garg Tube Limited 
or Garg Tube Export LLP for which neither company knew its 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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: October 26, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-23743 Filed 10-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P