82982 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2024 / Notices 

7HTSUS subheading 4811.90.8000 was a 

classification used for LWTP until January 1, 2007. 

Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.8000 was 

replaced with 4811.90.8020 (for gift wrap, a nonsubject product) and 4811.90.8040 (for ‘‘other’’ 

including LWTP). HTSUS subheading 4811.90.9000 

was a classification for LWTP until July 1, 2005. 

Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.9000 was 

replaced with 4811.90.9010 (for tissue paper, a nonsubject product) and 4811.90.9090 (for ‘‘other,’’ 

including LWTP). 

8As of January 1, 2009, the ITC deleted HTSUS 

subheadings 4811.90.8040 and 4811.90.9090 and 

added HTSUS subheadings 4811.90.8030, 

4811.90.8050, 4811.90.9030, and 4811.90.9050 to 

the HTSUS (2009). See Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (2009), available at https://

www.usitc.gov. These HTSUS subheadings were 

added to the scope of the order in lightweight 

thermal paper’s LTFV investigation. 

9See Preliminary Results, 89 FR at 51500. 

10See Order, 73 FR at 70959. 11See Order, 73 FR at 70959. 

1We initiated this administrative review with 

respect to 112 companies. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 88 FR 38021 (June 12, 

2023). However, we are rescinding this review for 

83 companies that did not have reviewable entries 

under subheadings 3703.10.60, 

4811.59.20, 4811.90.8040, 4811.90.9090, 

4820.10.20, 4823.40.00, 4811.90.8030, 

4811.90.8050, 4811.90.9030, and 

4811.90.9050.7 8 Although HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

Order is dispositive. 

Final Results of Review 

Because we received no comments, 

we made no changes from the 

Preliminary Results. We continue to 

find that: (1) Guangdong Guanhao HighTech (Guangdong Guanhao); (2) 

Guangdong Polygon New Materials 

(Guangdong Polygon); (3) and Henan 

Jianghe Paper (Henan Jianghe) did not 

file separate rate applications or 

certifications and, thus, did not 

demonstrate their eligibility for separate 

rate status and, therefore, are part of the 

China-wide entity. As stated in the 

Preliminary Results, no party requested 

a review of the China-wide entity.9

Moreover, we did not self-initiate a 

review of the China-wide entity. 

Because no review of the China-wide 

entity is being conducted, the Chinawide entity’s entries are not subject to 

the review, and the weighted-average 

dumping margin for the China-wide 

entity (i.e., 115.29 percent) is not subject 

to change.10

Disclosure 

Normally, Commerce discloses to 

interested parties the calculations of the 

final results of an administrative review 

within five days of a public 

announcement or, if there is no public 

announcement, within five days of the 

date of publication of the notice of final 

results in the Federal Register, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

However, because we have made no 

changes from the Preliminary Results, 

there are no calculations to disclose. 

Assessment 

Consistent with section 751(a)(2)(C) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), upon 

completion of the administrative 

review, Commerce shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise covered this review. 

Because Commerce finds the three 

companies subject to this review, 

Guangdong Guanhao, Guangdong 

Polygon, and Henan Jianghe are part of 

the China-wide entity in the final 

results, Commerce will instruct CBP to 

liquidate entries containing subject 

merchandise exported by the companies 

under review at the China-wide entity 

rate of 115.29 percent. 

Commerce intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP no 

earlier than 35 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review in the Federal Register. If a 

timely summons is filed at the U.S. 

Court of International Trade, the 

assessment instructions will direct CBP 

not to liquidate relevant entries until the 

time for parties to file a request for a 

statutory injunction has expired (i.e., 

within 90 days of publication). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for previously 

investigated or reviewed Chinese and 

non-Chinese exporters for which a 

review was not requested and that 

received a separate rate in a prior 

segment of this proceeding, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all 

Chinese exporters of subject 

merchandise that have not been found 

to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 

deposit rate will be the rate for the 

China-wide entity (115.29 percent); 11

and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of 

subject merchandise that have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

Chinese exporter that supplied that nonChinese exporter. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice 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 the 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 to Interested Parties 

Commerce is issuing and publishing 

the final results of this review in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: October 8, 2024. 

Ryan Majerus, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive 

functions and duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23696 Filed 10–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–887] 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Threaded Rod 

From India: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, and Partial Rescission; 2022– 

2023 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) determines that 

carbon and alloy steel threaded rod 

(steel threaded rod) from India was sold 

in the United States at below normal 

value during the period of review (POR), 

April 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023. 

Further, we are rescinding this review 

with respect to 83 companies. 

DATES: Applicable October 15, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kabir Archuletta or Samuel Frost, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement 

and Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–2593 or (202) 482–8180, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This administrative review covers 29 

companies.1 Commerce selected two 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2024 / Notices 82983 

of subject merchandise during the POR. See 

‘‘Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part’’ 

section below. 2See Memorandum, ‘‘Respondent Selection,’’ 

dated June 28, 2023. Commerce preliminarily 

determined to treat Shree Luxmi Fasteners (SLF) 

and its affiliate The Emerging Impex (TEI) as a 

single entity for purposes of this review. Because 

no parties commented on this preliminary decision, 

for these final results Commerce continues to treat 

these companies as a single entity. See Carbon and 

Alloy Steel Threaded Rod from India: Preliminary 

Results and Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, in Part, 2022–2023, 89 

FR 37174 (May 6, 2024) (Preliminary Results), and 

accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

(PDM). 

3 Id. 

4See Sigma’s Letter, ‘‘Sigma Comments on 

Preliminary Results,’’ dated June 5, 2024 (Sigma’s 

Case Brief). 

5See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated 

June 10, 2024 (Petitioner’s Rebuttal Brief). 

6See Memorandum, ‘‘Tolling of Deadlines for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings,’’ dated July 22, 2024. 

7See Memoranda, ‘‘Extension of Deadline for 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2022–23,’’ dated August 14, 2024; and 

‘‘Extension of Deadline for Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2022– 

2023,’’ dated October 1, 2024. 

8See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Threaded Rod from India; 

2022–2023,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby 

adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision 

Memorandum). 

9See Carbon and Alloy Steel Threaded Rod from 

India: Amended Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 

85 FR 19925 (April 9, 2020) (Order). 

10See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

‘‘Scope of the Order.’’ 

11See, e.g., Forged Steel Fittings from Taiwan: 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2018–2019, 85 FR 71317, 71318 (November 

9, 2020); see also Certain Circular Welded NonAlloy Steel Pipe from Mexico: Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016– 

2017, 83 FR 54084 (October 26, 2018). 

12See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

13See Preliminary Results, 89 FR at 37175–76. 

14Appendix III identifies all companies for which 

we have rescinded this review. 

respondents for individual examination, 

Mangal Steel Enterprises Limited 

(Mangal) and Shree Luxmi Fasteners/ 

The Emerging Impex (SLF/TEI).2

On May 6, 2024, Commerce published 

the Preliminary Results of this 

administrative review and invited 

interested parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Results.3 On June 5, 2024, 

we received a timely-filed case brief 

from Sigma Piping Products (2019), LLC 

(Sigma), a U.S. importer of subject 

merchandise,4 and on June 10, 2024, we 

received a timely-filed rebuttal brief 

from Vulcan Threaded Products, Inc. 

(the petitioner).5

On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled 

certain deadlines in this administrative 

proceeding by seven days.6 Thereafter, 

Commerce partially extended the 

deadline for issuing the final results 

until October 8, 2024.7 For a complete 

description of the events that followed 

the Preliminary Results, see the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum.8

Commerce conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 9

The merchandise covered by the 

scope of this Order is carbon and alloy 

steel threaded rod from India. A 

complete description of the scope of the 

Order is provided in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum.10

Rescission of Administrative Review, in 

Part 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), 

when there are no reviewable entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

subject to the antidumping duty order 

for which liquidation is suspended, 

Commerce may rescind an 

administrative review, in whole or only 

with respect to a particular exporter or 

producer.11 At the end of the 

administrative review, any suspended 

entries are liquidated at the assessment 

rate computed for the review period.12

Therefore, for an administrative review 

to be conducted, there must be a 

reviewable, suspended entry to be 

liquidated at the newly calculated 

assessment rate. In the Preliminary 

Results, Commerce preliminarily 

rescinded this review with respect to 83 

companies because those companies 

had no reviewable, suspended entries of 

subject merchandise and invited parties 

to comment.13 We received no 

comments on our preliminary rescission 

of the review with respect to these 

companies. Accordingly, in the absence 

of suspended entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for these 

83 companies for which this review was 

initiated, we are hereby rescinding this 

administrative review, in part, with 

respect to these companies, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3).14

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs are addressed in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. A 

list of the issues that parties raised and 

to which we responded in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum is attached 

to this notice at Appendix I. The Issues 

and 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 http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a 

complete version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly at https://access.trade.gov/ 

public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on a review of the record, we 

made certain changes to the margin 

calculations for these final results. For 

a discussion of these changes, see the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

Rate for Non-Examined Companies 

The Act and Commerce’s regulations 

do not address the establishment of a 

rate to be applied to companies not 

selected for examination when 

Commerce limits its examination in an 

administrative review pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, 

Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of 

the Act, which provides instructions for 

calculating the all-others rate in a 

market economy investigation, for 

guidance when calculating the rate for 

companies which were not selected for 

individual examination in an 

administrative review. 

Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, 

the all-others rate is normally ‘‘an 

amount equal to the weighted average of 

the estimated weighted-average 

dumping margins established for 

exporters and producers individually 

investigated, excluding any zero and de 

minimis margins, and any margins 

determined entirely {on the basis of 

facts available}.’’ 

In this review, we have calculated 

weighted-average dumping margins of 

zero percent for Mangal and 10.94 

percent for SLF/TEI. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of 

the Act, we are applying SLF/TEI’s 

weighted average dumping margin of 

10.94 percent to the non-examined 

companies, because this is the only rate 

that is not zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on facts available. 

Final Results of the Review 

Commerce determines that the 

following estimated weighted-average 

dumping margins exist during the 

period April 1, 2022, through March 31, 

2023: 

Exporter/producer 

Weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

Mangal Steel Enterprises Limited 0.00 

Shree Luxmi Fasteners/The 

Emerging Impex ...................... 10.94 

Companies Not Selected for Individual Review 15 ................... 10.94 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
82984 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2024 / Notices 

15See Appendix II for a full list of these 

companies. 

16See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

17See Order, 85 FR at 19926. 

18See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). 19See Order, 85 FR at 19926. 

Disclosure 

Commerce intends to disclose the 

calculations performed in connection 

with these final results to interested 

parties within five days of any public 

announcement or, if there is no public 

announcement, within five days of the 

date publication of the notice of final 

results in the Federal Register.16

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 

Commerce shall determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. Because the weighted-average 

dumping margin for Mangal has been 

determined to be zero percent, we 

intend to instruct CBP to liquidate 

Mangal’s entries without regard to 

antidumping duties, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

SLF/TEI’s weighted average dumping 

margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., 

less than 0.5 percent). Therefore, we 

calculated importer-specific assessment 

rates based on the ratio of the total 

dumping calculated for the examined 

sales to the total entered value of the 

sales. Where an importer-specific 

assessment rate for SLF/TEI is either 

zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP 

to liquidate the appropriate entries 

without regard to antidumping duties. 

In accordance with Commerce’s 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ practice, for 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR produced by Mangal or SLF/ 

TEI for which these companies did not 

know that the merchandise was 

destined for the United States, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at 

the all-others rate established in the 

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 

investigation of 0.00 percent,17 if there 

is no rate for the intermediate 

company(ies) involved in the 

transaction.18 For the companies that 

were not selected for individual 

examination, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate entries at the rate established 

in these final results of review. 

For the companies for which this 

review is rescinded with these final 

results (see Appendix III), we will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on any suspended at a rate 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). 

We intend to issue instructions to 

CBP no earlier than 35 days after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this review in the Federal Register. If a 

timely summons is filed at the U.S. 

Court of International Trade, the 

assessment instructions will direct CBP 

not to liquidate relevant entries until the 

time for parties to file a request for a 

statutory injunction has expired (i.e., 

within 90 days of publication). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of these final results of 

review in the Federal Register, as 

provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the 

companies listed in these final results 

will be equal to the weighted-average 

dumping margin established in the final 

results of this administrative review; (2) 

for merchandise exported by producers 

or exporters not covered in this review 

but covered in a prior segment of the 

proceeding, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recentlycompleted segment of this proceeding in 

which they were reviewed; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the original 

investigation but the producer is, then 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding 

for the producer of the merchandise; 

and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 

producers or exporters will continue to 

be 0.00 percent, the all-others rate 

established in the LTFV investigation, 

adjusted for the export-subsidy rate in 

the companion countervailing duty 

investigation.19 These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice 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 the 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. 

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to parties subject to an 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), 

which continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials, or conversion to 

judicial protective order, is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and the terms of an APO is 

a sanctionable violation. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: October 8, 2024. 

Ryan Majerus, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive 

functions and duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. 

Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

V. Discussion of the Issues 

Comment 1: Whether Commerce Should 

Redetermine the Cash Deposit Rate for 

Kanika Exports (Kanika) 

Comment 2: Whether Commerce Should 

Use a Different Methodology To 

Determine Kanika’s Dumping Margin 

VI. Recommendation 

Appendix II—List of Companies Not 

Individually Examined 

1. Aadi Shree Fastener Industries 

2. Babu Exports 

3. Bhansali Inc. 

4. Chirag International 

5. Everest Industrial Corporation 

6. Fence Fixings 

7. Fine Thread Form Industries 

8. Ganpati Fastners Pvt., Ltd. 

9. GDPA Fasteners 

10. Goodgood Manufacturers 

11. Idea Fasteners Pvt., Ltd. 

12. Kanika Exp. 

13. Kapson India 

14. Kapurthala Industrial Corporation 

15. Kova Fasteners Pvt., Ltd. 

16. Maharaja International 

17. Maya Enterprises 

18. Nishant Steel Industries 

19. Nuovo Fastenings Pvt., Ltd. 

20. R A Exp 

21. R K Fasteners (India) 

22. Rods & Fixing Fasteners 

23. S K Overseas 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2024 / Notices 82985 

1See Memorandum, ‘‘Scope Ruling on Modified 

Vertical Shaft Engines,’’ dated December 22, 2022 

(Final Scope Ruling). 

2See Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 687 F. Supp. 3d 1282 (CIT 2024). 

3See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, Zhejiang Amerisun Technology 

Co., Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 23– 

00011, Slip Op. 24–20 (CIT February 20, 2024), 

dated April 11, 2024, available at https://access.

trade.gov/public/FinalRemand

Redetermination.aspx. 

4See Zhejiang Amerisun Technology Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, Court No. 23–00011, Slip. Op. 24– 

104 (CIT October 2, 2024). 

5See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

6See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers 

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

2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 

24. Singhania International Ltd. 

25. The Technocrats Co. 

26. Viraj Profiles Ltd. 

27. Yogendra International 

Appendix III—List of Companies for 

Which We Are Rescinding the 

Administrative Review 

1. A H Enterprises 

2. Aanjaney Micro Engy Pvt., Ltd. 

3. Accurate Steel Forgings (I) Ltd. 

4. Alps Industries Ltd. 

5. Apex Thermocon Pvt., Ltd. 

6. Ash Hammer Union 

7. Astrotech Steels Pvt., Ltd. 

8. Atlantic Container Line Pvt., Ltd. 

9. Ats Exp. 07 

10. Atz Shipping Trade & Transport Pvt. 

11. BA Metal Processing 

12. Boston Exp. & Engineering Co. 

13. C.H.Robinson International (India) 

14. C.P.World Lines Pvt., Ltd. 

15. Century Distribution Systems Inc. 

16. Charu Enterprises 

17. Daksh Fasteners 

18. Dedicated Imp. & Exp. Co. 

19. Dhiraj Alloy & Stainless Steel 

20. Dsv Air and Sea Pvt., Ltd. 

21. Eastman Industries Ltd. 

22. Eos Precision 

23. ESL Steel Ltd 

24. Everest Exp. 

25. Farmparts Company 

26. Galorekart Marketplace Pvt., Ltd. 

27. Ganga Acrowools Ltd. 

28. Gateway Engineering Solution 

29. Gee Pee Overseas 

30. Geodis India Pvt., Ltd. (Indel) 

31. Jindal Steel And Power Ltd. 

32. JSW Steel Ltd. 

33. Kanchan Trading Co. 

34. Kanhaiya Lal Tandoor (P) Ltd. 

35. Karna International 

36. Kei Industries Ltd. 

37. King Exports 

38. Linit Exp. Pvt., Ltd. 

39. Mahajan Brothers 

40. Meenakshi India, Ltd. 

41. Metalink 

42. MKA Engineers And Exporters Pvt., Ltd. 

43. National Cutting Tools 

44. NJ Sourcing 

45. Noahs Ark International Exp. 

46. Oia Global India Pvt., Ltd. 

47. Otsusa India Pvt., Ltd. 

48. Paloma Turning Co. Pvt., Ltd. 

49. Patton International Ltd. 

50. Perfect Tools & Forgings 

51. Permali Wallace Pvt., Ltd. 

52. Polycab India Ltd. 

53. Pommada Hindustan Pvt., Ltd. 

54. Poona Forge Pvt., Ltd. 

55. Raajratna Ventures Ltd. 

56. Raashika Industries Pvt., Ltd. 

57. Rajpan Group 

58. Rambal Ltd. 

59. Randack Fasteners India Pvt., Ltd. 

60. Ratnveer Metals Ltd. 

61. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. 

62. S.M Forgings & Engineering 

63. Sandip Brass Industries 

64. Sandiya Exp. Pvt., Ltd. 

65. Sansera Engineering Pvt., Ltd. 

66. Silverline Metal Engineering Pvt. Lt 

67. Sri Satya Sai Enterprises 

68. Steampulse Global Llp 

69. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. 

70. Suchi Fasteners Pvt., Ltd. 

71. Supercon Metals Pvt., Ltd. 

72. Tekstar Pvt., Ltd. 

73. Tijiya Exp. Pvt., Ltd. 

74. Tijiya Steel Pvt., Ltd. 

75. Tong Heer Fasteners 

76. Trans Tool Pvt., Ltd. 

77. Universal Engineering and Fabricat 

78. V.J Industries Pvt., Ltd. 

79. Vidushi Wires Pvt., Ltd. 

80. Vrl Automation 

81. VV Marine Pvt., Ltd. 

82. Zenith Precision Pvt., Ltd. 

83. Zenith Steel Pipes And Industries L 

[FR Doc. 2024–23774 Filed 10–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–124, C–570–125] 

Certain Vertical Shaft Engines Between 

99cc and Up to 225cc and Parts 

Thereof From the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Court Decision Not in 

Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and 

Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling 

Pursuant to Court Decision 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 2, 2024, the U.S. 

Court of International Trade (CIT) 

issued its final judgment in Zhejiang 

Amerisun Technology Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, Court No. 23–00011, 

sustaining the U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s (Commerce) remand 

redetermination pertaining to the scope 

ruling for the antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders on certain 

vertical shaft engines between 99cc and 

up to 225cc and parts thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China finding 

modified vertical shaft engines, such as 

the modified R210–S engine 

manufactured by Chongqing Rato 

Technology Co., Ltd. (Chongqing Rato) 

to be excluded from the orders. 

Commerce is notifying the public that 

the CIT’s final judgment is not in 

harmony with Commerce’s scope ruling, 

and that Commerce is amending the 

scope ruling to find that certain engines, 

such as Chongqing Rato’s R210–S 

engine, manufactured by Chongqing 

Rato is excluded from the orders. 

DATES: Applicable October 12, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ajay 

K. Menon, 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) 482–0208. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 22, 2022, Commerce 

found that modified vertical shaft 

engines, such as the R210–S engine 

manufactured by Chongqing Rato, were 

included in the scope of the orders.1

Zhejiang Amerisun Technology, Co., 

Ltd. appealed Commerce’s Final Scope 

Ruling. On February 20, 2024, the CIT 

remanded the Final Scope Ruling to 

Commerce, holding that: (1) because the 

scope does not specify that a right-angle 

gearbox connected to the horizontal 

crankshaft may be part of the engine, 

Commerce’s finding that the scope did 

not contain an exhaustive list of 

components that may comprise an 

engine was unsupported by substantial 

evidence and not in accordance with 

law; (2) the Wikipedia articles 

submitted by Briggs & Stratton 

Corporation (the petitioner) on which 

Commerce relied to support its factual 

conclusions were unreliable and 

irrelevant; and (3) an academic article 

submitted by the petitioner on which 

Commerce also relied to support its 

factual conclusions was irrelevant 

because it did not specifically address 

walk-behind lawn mowers or discuss 

secondary drive shafts.2

In its final remand redetermination, 

issued in April 2024, Commerce found 

that certain engines, such as Chongqing 

Rato’s R210–S engine at issue in the 

Final Scope Ruling to be excluded from 

the scope of the orders.3 The CIT 

sustained Commerce’s final 

redetermination.4

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,5 as clarified 

by Diamond Sawblades,6 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES