Skip to Content

During the funding lapse, Federalregister.gov is not being supported. If data feeds are not available from GPO, FederalRegister.gov will not be updated, so please use the official edition of the Federal Register on Govinfo (https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/fr). If there is a technical issue with the Public Inspection List, you can view the documents on public inspection at our office in Washington, DC or on archives.gov.

Notice

Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 and Notice of Amended Final Results

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Document Statistics
Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are cumulative counts for this document including its time on Public Inspection. Counts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.
Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

AGENCY:

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

SUMMARY:

On October 24, 2018, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) entered final judgment sustaining the final results of remand redetermination pursuant to court order by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the antidumping duty (AD) administrative review of chlorinated isocyanurates (chlorinated isos) from the People's Republic of China (China). Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final results in the AD review of chlorinated isos from China.

DATES:

Applicable November 3, 2018.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Carey, 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) 482-4261.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 28, 2015, Commerce published its final results in the eighth AD review of chlorinated isos from China.[1] Commerce selected the two largest exporters, Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. and Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd., as the mandatory respondents, and determined that Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd. (Heze Huayi), Arch Chemicals (China) Co., Ltd., and Zucheng Taisheng Chemical Co., Ltd. demonstrated their eligibility for separate rate status.[2] On January 28, Start Printed Page 585332015, Commerce published the Final Results and assigned Heze Huayi the separate rate of 53.15 percent from the Seventh Review[3] consistent with our past practice because both mandatory respondents received zero margins and none of the separate rate companies had its own calculated rate from the segment immediately prior to the instant segment.

Heze Huayi appealed Commerce's decisions not to treat Heze Huayi as a mandatory or voluntary respondent and not to apply the zero rate of the mandatory respondents to Heze Huayi. While the case was pending before the CIT, in June 2016, Commerce voluntarily sought a remand [4] to consider the impact of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Albemarle Corp. v. United States.[5] On September 11, 2018, the Court held a telephone status conference and ordered that the Government “advise the court in one week from September 11, 2018, if they have any reason for anything other than a zero rate for all outstanding entries.” [6] Commerce responded within the one-week deadline that Commerce's request for a voluntary remand on this issue was still pending; however, in light of the Court's request, Commerce stated that it had identified no “reason for anything other than a zero rate” to be applied to Heze Huayi's entries.[7] On September 28, 2018, the Court ordered Commerce to assign Heze Huayi the mandatory respondents' weighted-average zero rate.[8] On remand, Commerce, under respectful protest, assigned Heze Huayi the mandatory respondents' weighted-average zero rate.[9] On October 24, 2018, the CIT sustained Commerce's Final Redetermination.[10]

Timken Notice

In its decision in Timken,[11] as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,[12] the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(c) 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 October 24, 2018, judgment constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue suspension of liquidation of subject merchandise pending expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Amended Final Results

Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending the Final Results and assigning Heze Huayi the mandatory respondents' weighted-average zero rate [13] for the period June 1, 2012, through May 31, 2013. In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate Heze Huayi's appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

Cash Deposit Rate

Heze Huayi has a superseding cash deposit rate (e.g., from a subsequent administrative review). Therefore, Commerce will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Start Signature

Dated: November 15, 2018.

Gary Taverman,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

Footnotes

1.  See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 4539 (January 28, 2015) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Results).

Back to Citation

2.  See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 43391 (July 25, 2014) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Decision Memorandum, at 5-6.

Back to Citation

3.  See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China; 2011-2012; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR 4875, 4876 (January 30, 2014) (Seventh Review).

Back to Citation

4.  See Heze Huayi Chemical Co. Ltd., v. United States, Ct. No. 15-27, Defendant's Supplemental Brief and Motion for Voluntary Remand, Docket #68, June 21, 2016 (“In light of the intervening legal decision in Albemarle, we respectfully request that the Court grant a voluntary remand for Commerce to consider the application of Albemarle to the facts of this case.”)

Back to Citation

5.  821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Back to Citation

6.  See Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd. v. United States, Ct. No. 15-27, Court Order, Docket #81, Sept. 12, 2018.

Back to Citation

7.  See Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd., v. United States, Defendant's Response to Court Order, Ct. No. 15-27, Docket #82, at 1-2, Sept. 18, 2018.

Back to Citation

8.  See Remand Order at 7.

Back to Citation

9.  See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 15-00027, Slip Op. 18-130 (CIT September 28, 2010), dated October 19, 2018 (Final Redetermination).

Back to Citation

10.  See Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 18-149, Consolidated Court No. 15-00027 (CIT 2018).

Back to Citation

11.  See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d. 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).

Back to Citation

12.  See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d. 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).

Back to Citation

13.  See Remand Order at 7.

Back to Citation

[FR Doc. 2018-25298 Filed 11-19-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P