Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results |
|---|
|
Christian Marsh
Department of Commerce
21 April 2021
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20659-20661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08259]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-016]
Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's
Republic of China: 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 January 29, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(CIT) issued its final judgment in Shandong Yongtai Group Co., Ltd. v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 18-00077, sustaining the Department of
Commerce (Commerce)'s first remand results pertaining to the
administrative review
[[Page 20660]]
of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain passenger vehicle and
light truck tires (passenger tires) from the People's Republic of China
(China) covering the period of review (POR) January 27, 2015, through
July 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 margin assigned to Shandong Yongtai
Chemical Co., Ltd. and its successor-in-interest Shandong Yongtai Group
Co., Ltd.
DATES: Applicable February 8, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Page, 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) 482-1398.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 16, 2018, Commerce published its Final Results in the
2015-2016 AD administrative review of passenger tires from China.\1\ In
that proceeding, Commerce granted separate rate status to Shandong
Yongtai Group Co., Ltd. (Yongtai Group), but did not grant separate
rate status to Shandong Yongtai Chemical Co., Ltd. (Yongtai Chemical)
because Yongtai Group did not identify any record information that
would allow Commerce to determine that Yongtai Chemical merited a
separate rate or whether Yongtai Group was the successor-in-interest of
Yongtai Chemical.\2\ Yongtai Group argued that it was the successor-in-
interest of Yongtai Chemical and that Commerce should have granted
separate status to Yongtai Chemical as well.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-
2016, 83 FR 11690 (March 16, 2018) (Final Results), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
\2\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 12.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yongtai Group appealed Commerce's Final Results. On November 27,
2019, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce to further
consider the separate rate status of Yongtai Chemical and/or to
consider whether Yongtai Group was the successor-in-interest to Yongtai
Chemical.\4\ Following the CIT's Passenger Tires AR1 Remand Order,
Commerce determined it was appropriate to reopen the record for this
remand to solicit information from Yongtai Group to determine whether
it is the successor-in-interest to Yongtai Chemical. On January 28,
2020, Commerce issued a supplemental questionnaire to Yongtai Group
soliciting information needed to perform our successor-in-interest
analysis.\5\ On February 11, 2020, Yongtai Group filed its response to
Commerce's questionnaire.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Shandong Yongtai Group Co. v. United States, 415 F.
Supp. 3d. 1303 (CIT 2019) (Passenger Tires AR1 Remand Order).
\5\ See Yongtai Group's Letter, ``Certain Passenger Vehicle and
Light Truck Tires from the People's Republic of China Supplemental
Questionnaire Re: Shandong Yongtai Group Co., Ltd.,'' dated January
28, 2020.
\6\ See Yongtai Group's Letter, ``Supplemental Questionnaire
Response of Shandong Yongtai Group Co., Ltd. (formerly Shandong
Yongtai Chemical Co., Ltd.), First Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck
Tires from the People's Republic of China (REMAND),'' dated February
11, 2020 (Yongtai Group Remand SQR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its final remand redetermination, issued in March 2020, Commerce
determined, after reconsidering the record evidence submitted by
Yongtai Group in its separate rate application and in the Yongtai Group
Remand SQR, that there was sufficient information on the record to find
Yongtai Group to be the successor-in-interest to Yongtai Chemical and
grant separate rate status to Yongtai Chemical.\7\ The CIT sustained
Commerce's final redetermination and severed this action from the
consolidated action with Qingdao Sentury Co. Ltd. v. United States,
Court No. 18-00079 and Pirelli Tyre Co. Ltd. v. United States, Court
No. 18-00080.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Shandong Yongtai Group Co. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No.
18-00077, Slip Op. 19-150 (March 3, 2020).
\8\ See Shandong Yongtai Group Co. v. United States, Consol. Ct.
No. 18-00077, CIT Slip Op. 21-10 (January 29, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\9\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\10\ 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 January 29, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\10\ 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 Yongtai Group and Yongtai Chemical as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated
weighted- weighted-
average average dumping
Exporter or producer dumping margin margin for
from final remand
determination redetermination
(percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shandong Yongtai Group Co., Ltd. * 2.96
formerly known as Shandong Yongtai
Chemical Co., Ltd.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Only Yongtai Group received a separate rate of 2.96 percent in the
Final Results.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
Previously, the CIT enjoined Commerce from liquidating entries that
were: (1) Exported by Shandong Yongtai Chemical Co., Ltd.; (2) the
subject of the United States Department of Commerce's final
determination in certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from
the PRC, 83 FR 11,690 (Mar. 16, 2018); (3) entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption, on or after: (a) January 27, 2015, up to and
including July 25, 2015; and (b) August 6, 2015, up to and including
July 31, 2016. Because the CIT's ruling was not
[[Page 20661]]
appealed and was upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the
injunction enjoying liquidation of such entries has dissolved. Commerce
intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on such entries,
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all such entries 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,\11\ we will
instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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: April 14, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-08259 Filed 4-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P