```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8884-8885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02725]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A 533-810]

Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice of Court Decision Not in 
Harmony With Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order and Notice of Amended Final Results of Review

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

SUMMARY: On January 28, 2021, the U.S. Court of International Trade 
(the Court) entered final judgment sustaining the final results of 
remand redetermination pursuant to court order by the U.S. Department 
of Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the changed circumstances review 
of the antidumping duty (AD) order on stainless steel bar (SSB) from 
India. Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in this 
case is

[[Page 8885]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 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).
    \2\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 1.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 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.
    \6\ See Venus Wire I, Slip. Op. 19-170 at 22.
    \7\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, Court 
No. 18-00113, Slip Op. 20-118 (August 14, 2020).
    \10\ See 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).
    \11\ See Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, Court 
No. 18-00113, Slip Op. 21-9 (January 28, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \13\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Second Remand Redetermination at 10.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter or producer                        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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2018-2019, 85 FR 74985 
(November 24, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
```