[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 123 (Monday, June 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37320-37321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16067]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-810]
Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes From the Republic of Korea:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of
Administrative Review and Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 26, 2011, the United States Court of International
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce's (the Department's)
results of redetermination as applied to respondent SeAH Steel
Corporation (SeAH) pursuant to the CIT's remand order in SeAH Steel
Corporation v. United States and Bristol Metals, Slip Op. 11-33 (March
29, 2011) (SeAH II). SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, Court No.
09-00248 (Ct. Int'l Trade May 26, 2011) (SeAH III) (affirming the
Department's Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, Court
No. 09-00248, dated April 26, 2011, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands). Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. United States,
893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 612 F.3d. 1348 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (Diamond Sawblades), the Department is notifying the public that
the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's
Final Results and is amending the final results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain welded stainless steel
pipes from the Republic of Korea covering the period of review (POR) of
December 1, 2006, through November 30, 2007 with respect to SeAH. See
Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes From the Republic of Korea: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 31242 (June
30, 2009) (Final Results)
[[Page 37321]]
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Lobo or Milton Koch, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2371 or (202) 482-2584, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 30, 2009, the Department issued its final results in the
antidumping duty review of certain welded stainless steel pipes from
the Republic of Korea covering the POR of December 1, 2006, through
November 30, 2007. See Final Results. SeAH challenged the following
aspects of the Department's Final Results: (1) The decision to depart
from its practice of using an annual cost averaging period and to
instead rely on quarterly costs for the sales below cost test; (2) the
decision not to apply its normal ``90/60'' day window period for
comparing home market and U.S. sales; (3) the use of an adjusted
weighted average annual cost recovery test that incorporated an
indexing methodology; and (4) the application of the major input rule
with regard to hot-rolled stainless steel coils purchased from a
company affiliated with SeAH.
In SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1353
(Ct. Int'l Trade 2010), the CIT affirmed the Department's decisions to
rely on quarterly average costs and to not apply the ``90/60'' day
window in making price-to-price comparisons. The CIT granted the
Department's request for a voluntary remand to consider steel
specification data for the major input analysis and remanded to the
Department for further explanation the adjusted weighted average annual
cost recovery test that incorporated an indexing methodology.
On September 17, 2010, the Department filed its first remand
redetermination explaining its indexed cost recovery methodology in
detail. The Department also determined in its remand redetermination
that it was appropriate to consider SeAH's steel specification data in
its major input analysis, and accordingly adjusted and recalculated the
major input analysis conducted in the Final Results.
On March 29, 2011, the CIT concluded in SeAH II that the adjusted
cost recovery methodology which was employed by the Department in the
Final Results and further explained in the first remand
redetermination, was inconsistent with the text of the cost recovery
statutory provision. The Court directed the Department to employ a cost
recovery test using an unadjusted annual weighted average per unit cost
of production. The CIT also affirmed the Department's use of the steel
specification data in the first remand redetermination with respect to
the Department's major input analysis.
On April 26, 2011, the Department filed its second remand
redetermination (Remand Results). In accordance with the Court's
instructions, the Department recalculated SeAH's dumping margin by
employing an unadjusted annual weighted average per unit cost of
production for the POR in its cost recovery test.
On May 26, 2011, the CIT sustained the Department's Remand Results
in SeAH III. As a result of the two remand redeterminations, SeAH's
antidumping margin changed from 9.05 percent to 6.01 percent.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a
notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Department
determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a
``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's holding in SeAH III,
sustaining the Department's Remand Results, constitutes a final
decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department's
Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will
continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise
pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending
a final and conclusive court decision. The cash deposit rate will
remain the company-specific rate established for the subsequent and
most recent period during which the respondents were reviewed. See
Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes From the Republic of Korea: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 27987 (May 19,
2010).
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to SeAH,
the dumping margin is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH).............................. 6.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed,
upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on entries of the
subject merchandise during the POR from SeAH based on the revised
assessment rates calculated by the Department.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 20, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-16067 Filed 6-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P