Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Notices 8885 

1See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results 

of Changed Circumstances Review and 

Reinstatement of Certain Companies in the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 83 FR 17529 (April 20, 

2018) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum (IDM). 

2See Final Results IDM at Comment 1. 

3 Id. 

4See Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. United 

States, Court No. 18–00113, Slip Op. 19–170 

(December 20, 2019) (Venus Wire I). 

5 Id., at 15–21. The ‘‘NWR Test’’ refers to the 

analysis we used to determine whether a 

respondent was the producer of subject 

merchandise in Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Narrow Woven 

Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan, 75 FR 

41804 (July 19, 2010), and accompanying IDM at 

Comment 20. 

6See Venus Wire I, Slip. Op. 19–170 at 22. 

7See Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. United 

States, Court No. 18–00113, Slip Op. 19–170, 

‘‘Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 

Remand,’’ dated March 31, 2020 (First Remand 

Redetermination). 

8 Id. at 44. 

9See Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. United 

States, Court No. 18–00113, Slip Op. 20–118 

(August 14, 2020). 

10See Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. United 

States, Court No. 18–00113, Slip Op. 20–118, 

‘‘Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 

Remand,’’ dated November 9, 2020 (Second 

Remand Redetermination). 

11See Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. United 

States, Court No. 18–00113, Slip Op. 21–9 (January 

28, 2021). 

12See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

13See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 

United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 

(Diamond Sawblades). 

14See Second Remand Redetermination at 10. 

15 Id. at 15. 

16See, e.g., Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2018–2019, 85 FR 74985 (November 24, 

2020). 

not in harmony with Commerce’s final 

results in the changed circumstances 

review of SSB from India, and that 

Commerce is amending the final results. 

DATES: Applicable February 7, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0410. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 20, 2018, Commerce 

published its final results of the 

changed circumstances review of SSB 

from India.1 In the Final Results, we 

determined that Venus Wire Industries 

Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates Precision 

Metals, Sieves Manufacturers (India) 

Pvt. Ltd., and Hindustan Inox Ltd. 

(collectively, Venus) is not the 

manufacturer of the stainless steel bar 

(SSB) that it purchased from unaffiliated 

suppliers and processed in India prior 

to exportation to the United States.2

Because most of the unaffiliated 

suppliers did not provide their costs, we 

applied total adverse facts available 

(AFA) with respect to Venus.3

On December 20, 2019, the Court 

remanded aspects of the Final Results to 

Commerce for further consideration.4

The Court remanded Commerce’s 

determination in order to explain or 

reconsider its use of the NWR Test over 

the substantial transformation test.5 In 

this decision, the Court deferred 

consideration of Venus’ arguments 

regarding ‘‘Commerce’s use of total AFA 

pending Commerce’s redetermination 

on remand.’’ 6 In its First Remand 

Redetermination, issued in March 

2020,7 Commerce provided the 

explanation sought by the Court.8

On August 14, 2020, the Court 

sustained Commerce’s use of the NWR 

Test but the Court determined that 

Commerce’s use of AFA with respect to 

Venus to be unsupported by substantial 

evidence and remanded the Final 

Results a second time.9 In its second 

remand redetermination, issued in 

November 2020, Commerce explained 

that, although it continues to believe 

that the use of AFA is appropriate for 

Venus, it was complying with the 

Court’s opinion by calculating a margin 

for Venus without the use of AFA under 

respectful protest.10 The Court 

sustained the Second Remand 

Redetermination in full.11

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,12 as 

clarified by Diamond Sawblades,13 the 

Court of Appeals for 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 

Court’s January 28, 2021, 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 with respect to Venus. The 

revised antidumping duty margin for 

Venus for the period July 1, 2015 

through June 30, 2016 is as follows: 14

Exporter or producer 

Weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

Venus ........................................ 0.64 

Because the revised antidumping duty 

margin for Venus remains above de 

minimis, Venus will remain reinstated 

in the AD order on SSB from India.15

Amended Cash Deposit Rates 

Because Venus has been subject to a 

subsequent administrative review which 

established a revised cash deposit rate 

for Venus,16 Commerce will not issue 

revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 

751(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 3, 2021. 

James Maeder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02725 Filed 2–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–869] 

Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck 

Tires From Taiwan: Amended 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 6, 2021, the 

Department of Commerce (Commerce) 

published its preliminary determination 

in the less-than-fair-value investigation 

of passenger vehicle and light truck 

(PVLT) tires from Taiwan in the Federal 

Register. Commerce is amending this 

preliminary determination to correct a 

significant ministerial error. 

DATES: Applicable February 10, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chien-Min Yang or Lauren Caserta, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

8886 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Notices 

1See Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires 

from Taiwan: Preliminary Affirmative 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Postponement of Final Determination, and 

Extension of Provisional Measures, 86 FR 508 

(January 6, 2021) (Preliminary Determination). 

2See Petitioner’s Letters, ‘‘Passenger Vehicle and 

Light Truck Tires from the Republic of Taiwan: 

Ministerial Error Comments—Nankang Preliminary 

Margin,’’ dated January 5, 2021 (Petitioner’s 

Nankang Ministerial Allegations) and ‘‘Passenger 

Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the Republic of 

Taiwan: Ministerial Error Comments—Cheng Shin 

Preliminary Margin,’’ dated January 5, 2021 

(Petitioner’s Cheng Shin Ministerial Allegations). 

3See Nankang’s Letter, ‘‘Antidumping 

Investigation of Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck 

Tires from Taiwan—Comments on Ministerial Error 

in Preliminary Determination,’’ dated January 5, 

2021 (Nankang Ministerial Allegations). 

4See Cheng Shin’s Letter, ‘‘Passenger Vehicle and 

Light Truck Tires from Taiwan: Cheng Shin Rubber 

Ind. Co. Ltd., Significant Ministerial Error 

Comments,’’ dated January 5, 2021 (Cheng Shin 

Ministerial Allegations). 

5See 19 CFR 351.224(g)(1) and (2). 

6See Petitioner’s Nankang Ministerial Allegations 

at 2. 

7See Petitioner’s Cheng Shin Ministerial 

Allegations at 2–3. 

8See Nankang Ministerial Allegations at 1–4. 

9See Cheng Shin Ministerial Allegations at 2–9. 

10See Memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck 

Tires from Taiwan: Allegations of Significant 

Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary 

Determination,’’ dated January 29, 2021 (Ministerial 

Error Memorandum). 11See Ministerial Error Memorandum. 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–5484 or (202) 482–4737, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 6, 2021, Commerce 

published in the Federal Register the 

Preliminary Determination in the lessthan-fair-value investigation of PVLT 

tires from Taiwan.1 Commerce disclosed 

all calculations to interested parties on 

December 30, 2020. On January 5, 2021, 

the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union (the petitioner) filed 

timely ministerial error allegations 

concerning the Preliminary 

Determination for respondents Nankang 

Rubber Tire Corp. Ltd. (Nankang) and 

Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. (Cheng 

Shin).2 Commerce also received 

ministerial comments filed on behalf of 

Nankang 3 and Cheng Shin.4

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is April 1, 

2019, through March 31, 2020. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The product covered by this 

investigation is PVLT tires from Taiwan. 

For a complete description of the scope 

of the investigation, see the Appendix. 

Significant Ministerial Error 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(e), Commerce ‘‘will analyze any 

comments received and, if appropriate, 

correct any significant ministerial error 

by amending the preliminary 

determination . . . .’’ A ministerial 

error is defined in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as 

‘‘an error in addition, subtraction, or 

other arithmetic function clerical error 

resulting from inaccurate copying, 

duplication, or the like, and any other 

similar type of unintentional error 

which the Secretary considers 

ministerial.’’ A significant ministerial 

error is defined as a ministerial error, 

the correction of which, singly or in 

combination with other errors, would 

result in: (1) A change of at least five 

absolute percentage points in, but not 

less than 25 percent of, the weightedaverage dumping margin calculated in 

the original preliminary determination; 

or (2) a difference between a weightedaverage dumping margin of zero or de 

minimis and a weighted-average 

dumping margin of greater than de 

minimis or vice versa.5

Ministerial Error Allegations 

The petitioner timely alleged that 

Commerce made a ministerial error 

involving one of Nankang’s programs 

but noted that the error was not 

significant.6 For Cheng Shin, the 

petitioner alleged that Commerce made 

significant ministerial errors regarding 

Cheng Shin’s arm’s-length test results 

and inclusion of Channel 3 sales in the 

home market sales database.7 Nankang 

alleged that Commerce committed a 

ministerial error by failing to use a 

home market of ‘‘viable’’ size as the 

basis for normal value.8 Finally, Cheng 

Shin alleged that Commerce failed to 

exclude certain ‘‘out-of-scope’’ sales in 

the dumping margin calculation, did not 

match similar CONNUMs based on 

similarity of product characteristics, did 

not exclude Channel 3 sales from the 

home market sales database, and failed 

to deduct certain selling prices in Cheng 

Shin’s margin calculation.9 After 

analyzing these allegations, we 

determine that we made a significant 

ministerial error in the Preliminary 

Determination with respect to the sales 

used to calculate Cheng Shin’s margin.10

For a detailed discussion of the 

aforementioned ministerial error 

allegations, as well as Commerce’s 

analysis of these comments, see the 

Ministerial Error Memorandum. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(g)(1), 

Commerce’s error in the application of 

the arm’s-length test for Cheng Shin is 

significant because its correction results 

in a change of at least five absolute 

percentage points in, but not less than 

25 percent of, the estimated weightedaverage dumping margin calculated in 

the Preliminary Determination (i.e., a 

change from an estimated weightedaverage dumping margin of 52.42 

percent to 30.21 percent). Therefore, we 

are correcting the ministerial error and 

amending our Preliminary 

Determination accordingly.11

Amended Preliminary Determination 

We are amending the Preliminary 

Determination to reflect the correction 

of a significant ministerial error made in 

the margin calculation for Cheng Shin 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e). 

In addition, because the preliminary allothers rate was based on the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margin 

calculated for Cheng Shin, we are also 

amending the all-others rate. As a result 

of the correction of the ministerial error, 

the revised estimated weighted-average 

dumping margins are as follows: 

Exporter/producer 

Estimated 

weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. 

Ltd ..................................... 33.33 

All Others .............................. 84.83 

Amended Cash Deposits and 

Suspension of Liquidation 

The collection of cash deposits and 

suspension of liquidation will be 

revised according to the rates 

established in this amended preliminary 

determination, in accordance with 

section 773(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). Because these 

amended rates result in reduced cash 

deposit rates, they will be effective 

retroactively to January 6, 2021, the date 

of publication of the Preliminary 

Determination. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 773(f) of 

the Act, we intend to notify the 

International Trade Commission of our 

amended preliminary determination. 

Disclosure 

We intend to disclose the calculations 

performed to parties in this proceeding 

within five days after public 

announcement of the amended 

preliminary determination, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 10, 2021 / Notices 8887 

1See Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, 

Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, 

the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and 

Ukraine: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value 

Investigations, 85 FR 47176 (August 4, 2020) 

(Initiation Notice). 

2See Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, 

Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Republic of Korea, 

the Russian Federation, and Ukraine: 

Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the 

Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 85 FR 73687 

(November 19, 2020). 

3See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for 

the Preliminary Affirmative Determination in the 

Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Seamless 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and 

Pressure Pipe from the Republic of Korea,’’ dated 

concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this 

notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 

4See Initiation Notice. 

5See Memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Investigations of Seamless 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and 

Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, the 

Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and 

Ukraine: Preliminary Scope Decision 

Memorandum,’’ dated January 13, 2021 

(Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum). 

6Case briefs, other written comments, and 

rebuttal briefs submitted in response to this 

preliminary LTFV determination should not 

include scope-related issues. See Preliminary Scope 

Decision Memorandum; and ‘‘Public Comment’’ 

section of this notice. The deadline for case briefs 

on scope-related issues is no later than 30 days after 

the issuance of Preliminary Scope Decision 

Memorandum. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This amended preliminary 

determination is issued and published 

in accordance with sections 773(f) and 

777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e). 

Dated: February 3, 2021. 

James Maeder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2021–02726 Filed 2–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–909] 

Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel 

Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe 

From the Republic of Korea: 

Preliminary Affirmative Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) preliminarily determines 

that seamless carbon and alloy steel 

standard, line, and pressure pipe 

(seamless pipe) from the Republic of 

Korea (Korea) is being, or is likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value (LTFV). The period of 

investigation is July 1, 2019, through 

June 30, 2020. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on this preliminary 

determination. 

DATES: Applicable February 10, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua DeMoss, AD/CVD Operations 

Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–3362. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This preliminary determination is 

made in accordance with section 733(b) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act). Commerce published the 

notice of initiation of this investigation 

on August 4, 2020.1 On November 19, 

2020, Commerce postponed the 

preliminary determination of this 

investigation and the revised deadline is 

now February 3, 2021.2 For a complete 

description of the events that followed 

the initiation of this investigation, see 

the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum.3 A list of topics included 

in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum is included as Appendix 

II to this notice. The Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is made available to the 

public via Enforcement and 

Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 

ACCESS is available to registered users 

at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a 

complete version of the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ 

frn/. The signed and the electronic 

versions of the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are seamless pipe from 

Korea. For a complete description of the 

scope of this investigation, see 

Appendix I. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

Commerce’s regulations, the Initiation 

Notice set aside a period of time for 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage (i.e., scope). Certain interested 

parties commented on the scope of the 

investigation as it appeared in the 

Initiation Notice.4 For a summary of the 

product coverage comments and 

rebuttal responses submitted to the 

record for this preliminary 

determination, and accompanying 

discussion and analysis of all comments 

timely received, see the Preliminary 

Scope Decision Memorandum.5

Commerce is preliminarily modifying 

the scope language as it appeared in the 

Initiation Notice. See the revised scope 

in Appendix I to this notice. 

The deadline to submit scope case 

briefs was established in the 

Preliminary Scope Decision 

Memorandum.6 There will be no further 

opportunity for comments on scoperelated issues. 

Methodology 

Commerce is conducting this 

investigation in accordance with section 

731 of the Act. Commerce has 

calculated export price in accordance 

with section 772 of the Act. Commerce 

has calculated normal value in 

accordance with section 773 of the Act. 

For a full description of the 

methodology underlying our 

preliminary determination, see the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 

All-Others Rate 

Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) 

of the Act provide that, in the 

preliminary determination, Commerce 

shall determine an estimated all-others 

rate for all exporters and producers not 

individually examined. This rate shall 

be an amount equal to the weighted 

average of the estimated weightedaverage dumping margins established 

for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero and de minimis margins, and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. 

Commerce calculated an individual 

estimated weighted-average dumping 

margin for ILJIN, the only individually 

examined exporter/producer in this 

investigation. Because the only 

individually calculated dumping margin 

is not zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on facts otherwise available, the 

estimated weighted-average dumping 

margin calculated for ILJIN is the 

margin preliminarily assigned to all 

other producers and exporters, pursuant 

to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination 

Commerce preliminarily determines 

that the following estimated weightedaverage dumping margins exist: