This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.
The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.
The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 23, 2019, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment sustaining the final results of redetermination pertaining to the 2015-2016 antidumping duty (AD) administrative review of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from India. The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results of the AD administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Jindal Poly Films Limited of India.
Applicable July 23, 2019.
Jacqueline Arrowsmith, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance—International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5255.
On February 13, 2018, Commerce published the Final Results.[1] Subsequently, Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal), a mandatory respondent in the underlying proceeding, filed suit at the CIT to challenge certain aspects of the Final Results. On March 11, 2019, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce, to further explain its decision to deny Jindal's claimed Financing Charges Discount and the Exclusive Dealer Discount post-sale adjustments, finding that Commerce had failed to articulate its reasoning for denying the adjustments.[2] On July 10, 2019, Commerce issued its Remand Results, in which it granted post-sale price adjustments for Jindal's Financing Charges Discount and Exclusive Dealer Discount.[3] On July 23, 2019, the CIT sustained Commerce's Remand Results, and entered final judgment.[4]
In its decision in Timken,[5] as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,[6] the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a 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 July 23, 2019, judgment sustaining Commerce's Remand Results 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. Commerce 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.
Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending its Final Results with respect to Jindal's weighted-average dumping margin. The revised weighted-average dumping margin for Jindal for the July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016, period of review is as follows:
| Producer or exporter | Weighted- average dumping margin (percent) |
|---|---|
| Jindal Poly Films Limited of India 7 | 0.87 |
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised rates calculated by Commerce in the Remand Results and listed above.
Because the cash deposit rate for the company listed above, has been superseded by a cash deposit rate calculated in an intervening administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET Film from India,[8] we will not alter the cash deposit rate currently in effect for these respondents based on these amended final results. Effective March 13, 2019, the cash deposit rate applicable to entries of subject merchandise exported by Jindal is 5.95 percent.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e), 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 30, 2019.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
1. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016,83 FR 6162 (February 13, 2018) ( Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
Back to Citation2. See Jindal Poly Films Limited of India v. United States, Court No. 18-00038, Slip Op. 19-31 (CIT 2019).
Back to Citation3. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Jindal Poly Films Limited of India v. United States, Court No. 18-00038 (July 10, 2019) ( Remand Results).
Back to Citation4. See Jindal Poly Films Limited of India v. United States, Court No. 18-00038, Slip Op. 19-91 (CIT 2019).
Back to Citation5. See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ( Timken).
Back to Citation6. See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ( Diamond Sawblades).
Back to Citation7. The Initiation Notice also lists the company as Jindal Poly Films Ltd. (India). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,81 FR 62720, (September 12, 2016). As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memoranda, dated concurrently with the Federal Register notice, the Department has determined that Jindal Poly Films Limited of India is the same company as Jindal Poly Films Ltd. (India). See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-201682 FR 36735 (August 7, 2017).
Back to Citation8. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017,84 FR 9092 (March 13, 2019), and accompanying IDM.
Back to Citation[FR Doc. 2019-16656 Filed 8-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P