[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53392-53393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14029]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-848, A-570-972]


Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan and the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the 
Results of Antidumping Sunset Reviews, Reinstatement of Antidumping 
Duty Orders, and Reconduction of Sunset Reviews

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

SUMMARY: On May 28, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) 
issued its final judgment in Archroma U.S., Inc., v. United States et 
al., Court No. 22-00354, finding that the regulatory provision upon 
which the U.S. Department of Commerce relied to revoke the antidumping 
duty orders on stilbenic optical brightening agents (OBAs) from Taiwan 
and the People's Republic of China (China) violates section 751(c) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and ordering the U.S. 
Department of Commerce (Commerce) to: accept the domestic interested 
party Archroma U.S., Inc.'s (Archroma) substantive response; and 
conduct a full sunset reviews of these orders. Commerce is notifying 
the public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with 
Commerce's final results of the sunset reviews, and that Commerce 
intends to: reinstate the antidumping duty orders on OBAs from Taiwan 
and China; accept Archroma's substantive response; and conduct full 
sunset reviews of these orders under section 751(c)(1) and (d)(2) of 
the Act. Commerce will begin reconducting the sunset reviews on July 1, 
2024.

DATES: Applicable June 7, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Weiner, 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) 482-3902.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 10, 2012, Commerce published the antidumping duty orders on 
OBAs from Taiwan and China in the Federal Register.\1\ On October 3, 
2022, Commerce initiated the sunset reviews of the Orders.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from 
Taiwan: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 27419 (May 10, 2012); and Certain 
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's Republic of 
China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 27423 (May 10, 2012) 
(collectively, Orders).
    \2\ See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 87 FR 59779 
(October 3, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d), the publication of a sunset review 
notice of initiation in the Federal Register establishes two deadlines: 
a 15-day notice of intent to participate; and a 30-day submission of 
``complete substantive responses.'' On October 24, 2022, six days after 
the 15-day deadline (i.e., October 18, 2022), Archroma submitted its 
notice of intent to participate in the sunset reviews of the Orders; 
Archroma submitted its substantive response by the requisite deadline. 
Consequently, Commerce rejected Archroma's notice of intent to 
participate because it was untimely, and consequently rejected 
Archroma's substantive response as unsolicited due to Archroma's 
failure to submit a timely notice of intent to participate.\3\ Despite 
Archroma's subsequent requests for reconsideration,\4\ Commerce made no 
change to its decisions in this regard.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Five-Year (``Sunset'') Review of 
the Antidumping Duty Orders on Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents 
from China and Taiwan: Rejection of Notice of Intent to 
Participate,'' dated October 28, 2022; see also Memorandum, 
``Rejection of Certain Documents in ACCESS,'' dated November 9, 
2022.
    \4\ See Archroma's Letters, ``Request for Reconsideration,'' 
dated November 11, 2022; and ``Supplemental Request for 
Reconsideration,'' dated November 17, 2022.
    \5\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Rejection of Request for 
Reconsideration,'' dated November 30, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 29, 2022, Commerce issued its final results in the 
sunset reviews of the Orders.\6\ Because no domestic interested party 
responded to Commerce's notice of initiation by the applicable 
deadline, Commerce revoked the Orders consistent with section 
751(c)(3)(A) of the Act.\7\ Archroma subsequently challenged Commerce's 
Final Results at the CIT on that same day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from People's 
Republic of China and Taiwan: Final Results of Sunset Reviews and 
Revocation of Order, 87 FR 80162 (December 29, 2022) (Final 
Results).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT held that Commerce could not lawfully revoke the Orders 
solely due to a domestic interested party's untimely filing of a notice 
of intent to participate.\8\ The CIT elaborated that section 751(c) of 
the Act allows for Commerce to revoke an order only if no domestic 
interested party provides an ``answer to a solicitation for the 
substantive content that {section

[[Page 53393]]

751(c)(2) of the Act{time}  instructs the agency to seek.'' \9\ 
According to the CIT, because Archroma's timely substantive response 
satisfied the request for substantive material pursuant to section 
751(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the agency was obligated to conduct the sunset 
reviews of the Orders.\10\ Additionally, the CIT held that Commerce's 
regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1), which sets the 15-day procedural 
deadline for a notice of intent to participate, violates section 
751(c)(2)-(3) of the Act, because it removes from domestic interested 
parties the statutory right to submit substantive information in a 
sunset review if, as here, a timely notice of intent is not filed.\11\ 
Consequently, the CIT issued a declaratory judgment and injunction, 
ordering Commerce to accept Archroma's substantive response, and 
conduct full sunset reviews of the Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Archroma U.S., Inc., v. United States et al., Court No. 
22-00354, Slip Op. 24-61 (CIT May 28, 2024).
    \9\ Id. at 16.
    \10\ Id. at 18.
    \11\ Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 section 516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce must 
publish a notice of court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with an 
agency determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a 
``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's May 28, 2024, judgment 
constitutes a final decision 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reinstatement of Antidumping Duty Orders

    Pursuant to the CIT's May 28, 2024, final decision, Commerce is 
reinstating the Orders.

Reconduction of Sunset Reviews

    Through this notice, we are notifying the public that Commerce is 
reconducting its sunset reviews of the Orders in accordance with the 
CIT's judgment. Commerce will begin reconducting the sunset review on 
July 1, 2024, to coordinate with the U.S. International Trade 
Commission's sunset reviews, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

    At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from 
liquidating entries of OBAs China and Taiwan that are or were entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after November 27, 
2022. 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 U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on 
unliquidated entries of OBAs China and Taiwan that are or were entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after November 27, 
2022, as appropriate.

Cash Deposit Rates

    At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order to require 
cash deposits at a rate of zero percent for entries of OBAs from China 
and Taiwan that are or were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after November 27, 2022. Upon a final and conclusive 
court decision in the litigation, Commerce intends to issue revised 
cash deposit instructions to CBP as appropriate.

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: June 20, 2024.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the 
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024-14029 Filed 6-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P