70644 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2023 / Notices 

8See Non-Market Economy Antidumping 

Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 

FR 65694 (October 24, 2011), for a full discussion 

of this practice. 

9See Order, 86 FR at 13886. 

1See Certain Metal Lockers and Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 86 FR 35737 (July 7, 2021) (Final 

Determination). 

2 Id., 86 FR at 35737–38. 

3 Id. 

4 Id.; see also Certain Metal Lockers and Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: 

statutory injunction has expired (i.e., 

within 90 days of publication). 

Pursuant to Commerce’s assessment 

practice,8 for entries that were not 

reported in the U.S. sales data submitted 

by Qingsong, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate such entries at the China-wide 

rate. For Zhejiang Sanmei, the 

respondent for which we are rescinding 

the administrative review, antidumping 

duties shall be assessed at rates equal to 

the cash deposit of estimated 

antidumping duties required at the time 

of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, 

for consumption, during the POR, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(i). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of 

administrative review for all shipments 

of subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on, or after, the 

publication date of the final results of 

review, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash 

deposit rate for Qingsong will be equal 

to the dumping margin established in 

the final results of this review; (2) for a 

previously investigated or reviewed 

exporter of subject merchandise not 

listed in the final results of review that 

has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate 

will continue to be the exporter’s 

existing cash deposit rate; (3) for all 

Chinese exporters of subject 

merchandise that do not have a separate 

rate, the cash deposit rate will be the 

cash deposit rate established for the 

China-wide entity, 221.06 percent; 9 and 

(4) for all exporters of subject 

merchandise that are not located in 

China and that are not eligible for a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the China 

exporter(s) that supplied that nonChinese exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this POR. 

Failure to comply with this requirement 

could result in Commerce’s 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties occurred and the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as the final 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results of administrative review 

and notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: October 3, 2023. 

Lisa W. Wang, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Margin Calculations 

IV. Discussion of the Issues 

Comment 1: Selection of Surrogate Country 

and Surrogate Values 

Comment 2: Whether To Apply Partial 

Adverse Facts Available (AFA) to 

Qingsong’s Energy Factors of Production 

(FOPs) 

Comment 3: Whether To Grant a ByProduct Offset to Qingsong 

Comment 4: Whether to Account for 

Qingsong’s Bank Charges 

Comment 5: Whether Zhejiang Sanmei 

Chemical Industries Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang 

Sanmei) is Part of the China-Wide Entity 

V. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2023–22451 Filed 10–11–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–133] 

Certain Metal Lockers and Parts 

Thereof From the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Court Decision Not in 

Harmony With the Final Determination 

of Antidumping Duty Investigation; 

Notice of Amended Final 

Determination 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 28, 2023, the 

U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) 

issued its final judgment in List 

Industries, Inc. v. United States, Court 

No. 21–00521, Slip Op. 23–143 (CIT 

September 28, 2023), sustaining the U.S. 

Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) 

first final results of redetermination 

pertaining to the antidumping duty (AD) 

investigation of certain metal lockers 

and parts thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China (China) covering the 

period of investigation January 1, 2020, 

through June 30, 2020. Commerce is 

notifying the public that the CIT’s final 

judgment is not in harmony with 

Commerce’s final determination in that 

investigation, and that Commerce is 

amending the final determination with 

respect to the weighted-average 

dumping margins assigned to the 

mandatory respondent, Zhejiang Xingyi 

Metal Products Co., Ltd./Xingyi 

Metalworking Technology (Zhejiang) 

Co., Ltd. (collectively, Zhejiang Xingyi/ 

Xingyi Metalworking) and certain nonselected separate rate respondents. 

DATES: Applicable October 8, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel LaCivita, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4243. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 7, 2021, Commerce published 

its Final Determination in the AD 

investigation of certain metal lockers 

and parts thereof from China.1

Commerce calculated an estimated 

weighted-average dumping margin and 

cash deposit rate (adjusted for subsidy 

offsets) of 0.00 percent for Hangzhou 

Xline Machinery & Equipment Co., Ltd. 

(Hangzhou Xline).2 Commerce 

determined a weighted-average 

dumping margin of 21.25 percent and a 

cash deposit rate (adjusted for subsidy 

offsets) of 10.71 percent for Zhejiang 

Xingyi/Xingyi Metalworking, which it 

applied to all the separate companies 

identified below.3 Commerce applied 

the highest calculated petition margin of 

322.25 percent reported in the Initiation 

Notice, as adverse facts available (AFA), 

as the AD margin applicable to the 

China-wide entity.4 Commerce 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2023 / Notices 70645 

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 85 

FR 47343, 47346 (August 5, 2020) (Initiation 

Notice). 5See Certain Metal Lockers and Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders, 86 FR 46826 

(August 20, 2021). 

6See Certain Metal Lockers and Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures, 86 FR 9051 

(February 11, 2021) (Preliminary Determination), 

and accompanying Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum. 7See List Industries, Inc. v. United States, Court 

No. 21–00521, Slip Op. 23–83 (CIT May 30, 2023) 

(Remand Order). 

8See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, List Industries, Inc. v. United 

States, Court No. 21–00521, Slip Op. 23–83 (CIT 

May 30, 2023), dated August 23, 2023, available at 

https://access.trade.gov/resources/remands/23- 

83.pdf. 

9 Id. 

10 Id. 

11 Id. 

12See List Industries, Inc. v. United States, Court 

No. 21–00521, Slip Op. 23–143 (CIT September 28, 

2023). 

13See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

14See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers 

Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 

subsequently published the AD order 

with respect to certain metal lockers and 

parts thereof from China.5

List Industries, Inc. (the petitioner) 

appealed Commerce’s Final 

Determination. On May 20, 2023, the 

CIT remanded the Final Determination 

to Commerce either to reconsider or 

further explain: (1) the disparate 

treatment of shipping in the calculation 

of Ayes Celikhasir VE CT’s (Ayes) 

financial ratios, where shipping 

expenses were excluded from the 

selling, general, and administrative 

(SG&A) expense ratio, but shipping 

revenues were included as an offset to 

SG&A, in view of Commerce’s stated 

practice of seeking ‘‘consistency in the 

treatment of both the revenue and 

expense side of line items on Ayes’ 

financial statements’’; (2) the inclusion 

of incentive income as an offset to 

SG&A for the Final Determination (but 

not the Preliminary Determination 6) 

without identifying the corresponding 

expense category or explaining the 

reason for the change; (3) the inclusion 

of rental income as an offset to SG&A in 

the Final Determination (but not the 

Preliminary Determination) without 

explaining the reason for the change; 

and (4) the treatment of interest income 

in the calculation of the financial ratios, 

with a precise description of its 

calculations, including a demonstration 

that any interest income excluded from 

the SG&A ratio is also excluded from 

profit.7

In its final results of redetermination, 

issued in August 2023, Commerce 

provided further explanation for its 

treatment of shipping revenue, incentive 

income, interest income, and rental 

income in the determination of the 

SG&A expense ratio using Ayes’ audited 

financial statements.8 In addition, we 

excluded shipping revenue from the 

determination of the SG&A ratio, and 

reduced profit by interest income.9

Consequently, we recalculated the 

weighted-average dumping margins for 

both mandatory respondents in the 

investigation, which resulted in a 

change from 21.25 percent to 21.38 

percent for Zhejiang Xingyi/Xingyi 

Metalworking, and no change to the 

0.00 percent margin calculated for 

Hangzhou Xline.10 Moreover, as 

Zhejiang Xingyi/Xingyi Metalworking is 

the only individually-examined 

respondent with an above-de minimis 

margin in the investigation, and the 

weighted-average dumping margin 

calculated for Zhejiang Xingyi/Xingyi 

Metalworking is, thus, the sole basis for 

the non-selected separate rate margin, 

we revised the exporter/producer 

combination rates for the respondents 

that are eligible for a separate rate in 

this investigation to reflect the revision 

to Zhejiang Xingyi/Xingyi 

Metalworking’s weighted-average 

dumping margin.11

On September 28, 2023, the CIT 

sustained Commerce’s final results of 

redetermination.12

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,13 as 

clarified by Diamond Sawblades,14 the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit held that, pursuant to section 

516A(c) and (e) 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 

September 28, 2023, judgment 

constitutes a final decision of the CIT 

that is not in harmony with Commerce’s 

Final Determination. Thus, this notice is 

published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Amended Final Determination 

Because there is now a final court 

judgment, Commerce is amending its 

Final Determination with respect to the 

companies below, as follows: 

Exporter Producer 

Estimated 

weightedaverage 

dumping margin 

(percent) 

Cash deposit rate 

(adjusted for 

subsidy offsets) 

(percent) 

Zhejiang Xingyi Metal Products Co., Ltd./Xingyi 

Metalworking Technology (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.

Zhejiang Xingyi Metal Products Co., Ltd./Xingyi 

Metalworking Technology (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.

21.38 10.84 

Geelong Sales (Macao Commercial Offshore) Limited (a.k.a. Geelong Sales (MCO) Limited, 

Geelong Sales (Macao Commercial) Limited, 

and Geelong Sales (MC) Limited).

Zhongshan Geelong Manufacturing Co. Ltd .......... 21.38 10.84 

Hangzhou Evernew Machinery & Equipment Company Limited.Zhejiang Yinghong Metalworks Co., Ltd ................ 21.38 10.84 

Hangzhou Zhuoxu Trading Co., Ltd ....................... Shanghai ASI Building Materials Co., Ltd ............. 21.38 10.84 

Hangzhou Zhuoxu Trading Co., Ltd ....................... Luoyang Mingxiu Office Furniture Co., Ltd ............ 21.38 10.84 

Hangzhou Zhuoxu Trading Co., Ltd ....................... Luoyang Wandefu Import and Export Trading Co. 

Ltd.

21.38 10.84 

Hangzhou Zhuoxu Trading Co., Ltd ....................... Zhejiang Xingyi Metal Products Co., Ltd ............... 21.38 10.84 

Jiaxing Haihong Mechanical and Electrical Technology Co. Ltd.Zhejiang Steelrix Office Furniture Co., Ltd ............ 21.38 10.84 

Kunshan Dongchu Precision Machinery Co., Ltd ... Kunshan Dongchu Precision Machinery Co., Ltd .. 21.38 10.84 

Luoyang Hynow Import and Export Co., Ltd .......... Luoyang Jiudu Golden Cabinet Co., Ltd ............... 21.38 10.84 

Luoyang Shidiu Import and Export Co., Ltd ........... Luoyang Yuabo Office Machinery Co., Ltd ............ 21.38 10.84 

Luoyang Steelart Office Furniture Co., Ltd ............ Luoyang Yongwei Office Furniture Co., Ltd .......... 21.38 10.84 

Luoyang Steelart Office Furniture Co., Ltd ............ Luoyang Zhuofan Steel Product Factory ............... 21.38 10.84 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
70646 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2023 / Notices 

1See Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of 

Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2017–2018, 85 FR 76517 

(November 30, 2020) (Final Results), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

2 Id. 

3See NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, 

569 F. Supp. 3d 1354 (CIT 2022). 

4See Final Results of Remand Redetermination 

Pursuant to Court Remand, NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. et 

al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 20–03898, 

Slip Op. 22–37 (CIT April 19, 2022), dated July 15, 

2022 (First Remand Results), available at https://

access.trade.gov/resources/remands/22-37.pdf. 

5 Id. at 2. 

6See NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, 

601 F. Supp. 3d 1373 (CIT 2022). 

7 Id. 

8See Final Results of Remand Redetermination 

Pursuant to Court Remand, NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. et 

al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 20–03898, 

Slip Op. 22–135 (CIT December 6, 2022), dated 

March 3, 2023 (Second Remand Results), available 

at https://access.trade.gov/resources/remands/22- 

135.pdf, at 2. 

Exporter Producer 

Estimated 

weightedaverage 

dumping margin 

(percent) 

Cash deposit rate 

(adjusted for 

subsidy offsets) 

(percent) 

Luoyang Steelart Office Furniture Co., Ltd ............ Luoyang Flyer Office Furniture Co., Ltd ................ 21.38 10.84 

Pinghu Chenda Storage Office Co., Ltd ................. Pinghu Chenda Storage Office Co., Ltd ................ 21.38 10.84 

Tianjin Jia Mei Metal Furniture Ltd ......................... Tianjin Jia Mei Metal Furniture Ltd ........................ 21.38 10.84 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Commerce will 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(c) and 

(e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: October 4, 2023. 

Lisa W. Wang, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22453 Filed 10–11–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–876] 

Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of 

Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in 

Harmony With the Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; Notice of Amended Final 

Results 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 14, 2023, the U.S. 

Court of International Trade (CIT) 

issued its final judgment in NEXTEEL 

Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, Slip. Op. 

23–103, Consol. Court No. 20–03898 

(CIT 2023), sustaining the U.S. 

Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) 

second final results of redetermination 

pertaining to the administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

welded line pipe (WLP) from the 

Republic of Korea (Korea) covering the 

period of review (POR) December 1, 

2017, through November 30, 2018. 

Commerce is notifying the public that 

the CIT’s final judgment is not in 

harmony with Commerce’s Final Results 

of the administrative review and that 

Commerce is amending the Final 

Results with respect to the dumping 

margins assigned to NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. 

(NEXTEEL), SeAH Steel Corporation 

(SeAH), and non-selected respondents 

Husteel Co., Ltd. (Husteel) and Hyundai 

Steel Company/Hyundai HYSCO 

(Hyundai Steel). 

DATES: Applicable July 24, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Simons, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6172. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 30, 2020, Commerce 

published its final results in the 2017– 

2018 antidumping duty administrative 

review of WLP from Korea.1 Commerce 

calculated weighted-average dumping 

margins of 15.07 percent for NEXTEEL, 

9.33 percent for SeAH, and 11.60 

percent for the non-selected 

respondents.2

Husteel, Hyundai Steel, NEXTEEL, 

and SeAH appealed Commerce’s Final 

Results. On April 19, 2022, the CIT 

remanded the Final Results to 

Commerce regarding its: (1) particular 

market situation (PMS) determination 

and resulting adjustment to the reported 

cost of production (COP) for WLP for 

SeAH and for purposes of calculating 

constructed value (CV) for NEXTEEL; 

(2) application of the PMS adjustment to 

SeAH for purposes of the sales-below 

COP test; (3) adjustment to NEXTEEL’s 

CV to account for sales of non-prime 

products; (4) reclassification of 

NEXTEEL’s reported losses relating to 

the suspended production of certain 

product lines; (5) denial of a constructed 

export price (CEP) offset for SeAH; and 

(6) calculation of the rate assigned to 

non-examined companies in light of any 

adjustments made to the calculations for 

either of the mandatory respondents 

stemming from the remand.3

In its First Remand Results, issued on 

July 18, 2022, Commerce recalculated 

NEXTEEL and SeAH’s weighted-average 

dumping margins without making a 

PMS adjustment.4 In addition, 

Commerce recalculated NEXTEEL’s 

weighted-average margin based on the 

actual costs of prime and non-prime 

merchandise reported by NEXTEEL. The 

revised weighted-average dumping 

margins for NEXTEEL and SeAH were 

1.12 percent and zero percent, 

respectively, and the resulting reviewspecific rate for the non-selected 

respondents was 1.12. percent.5

The CIT sustained Commerce’s First 

Remand Results on all issues except for 

the reclassification of NEXTEEL’s 

reported losses relating to the 

suspended production of certain 

product lines.6 The CIT again remanded 

the Final Results to Commerce for: (1) 

clarification on whether NEXTEEL 

suspended production on the lines in 

question for all or only part of the POR; 

and (2) explanation of why NEXTEEL’s 

costs as reported for those lines would 

not be ‘‘reasonably reflective of the cost 

associated with the production and sale 

of merchandise,’’ if NEXTEEL 

suspended production for only part of 

the POR, consistent with section 

773(f)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act).7 In its Second 

Remand Results, issued on March 3, 

2023, Commerce provided clarification 

on the period of suspension for certain 

of NEXTEEL’s production lines and 

explanation of why it is appropriate to 

include the suspension losses as part of 

NEXTEEL’s general and administrative 

expenses. Because Commerce made no 

changes to the calculation of the 

weighted-average dumping margin for 

NEXTEEL, the weighted-average 

dumping margin for NEXTEEL did not 

change from that presented in the First 

Remand Results (i.e., 1.12 percent).8


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1