This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 10/30/2013 at 08:45 am.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 11, 2013, the United States Court of International Trade (“Court” or “CIT”) issued its final judgment in Advanced Technology & Materials v. United States, sustaining the Department of Commerce's (Department) Second Remand Results. Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) in Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Timken”), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Diamond Sawblades”), the Department is notifying the public that the final CIT judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's Final Determination  and is amending the Final Determination with respect to the AT&M Entity's  eligibility for a separate Start Printed Page 65290rate in the less-than-fair-value investigation.
Effective Date: October 21, 2013.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2312.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On May 6, 2013, the Department filed the Second Remand Results, in which the Department determined that the AT&M Entity was not entitled to a rate separate from that of the People's Republic of China (“PRC”)-wide entity. On October 11, 2013, the Court sustained the Department's Second Remand Results.
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the Federal Circuit has held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision not “in harmony” with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The Court's October 11, 2013, judgment constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement 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. Since the Final Determination, the Department has established a new cash deposit rate for the AT&M entity. Therefore, this amended final determination does not change the AT&M entity's cash deposit rate.
Amended Final Determination
Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the Final Determination with respect to the AT&M entity's separate rate status. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 735, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.Start Signature
Dated: October 23, 2013
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
1. Advanced Technology & Materials v. United States, Court No. 09-511, Slip Op. 13-129 (CIT October 11, 2013) (“AT&M v. United States”).Back to Citation
2. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd., Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company, and Gang Yan Diamond Products, Inc. with Bosun Tools Group Co. Ltd. v. United States and Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition, Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd., and Qingdao Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd., Consol. Court No. 09-00511, Slip op. 12-147 (CIT2012), dated May 6, 2013 (“Second Remand Results”).Back to Citation
3. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) (“Final Determination”).Back to Citation
4. The AT&M entity includes: Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. (“AT&M”), Beijing Gang Yan Diamond Products Company (“BGY”), and Yichang HXF Circular Saw Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Yichang HXF”).Back to Citation
5. See AT&M v. United States.Back to Citation
[FR Doc. 2013-26006 Filed 10-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P