```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 305-307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31587]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-428-848]

Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks From Germany: Notice of Court 
Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination of Countervailing 
Duty Investigation; Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended 
Countervailing Duty Order

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

SUMMARY: On December 26, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade 
(CIT) issued its final judgment in BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United 
States, Court No. 21-00080, Slip Op. 24-148 (CIT December 26, 2024), 
sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce) fourth remand 
redetermination pertaining to the countervailing duty (CVD) 
investigation of Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks (FEBs) from the Germany 
covering the period of investigation, January 1, 2018, through December 
31, 2018. 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 
and resulting CVD order with respect to the countervailable subsidy 
rates assigned to BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (BGH Siegen), Schmiedewerke 
Gr[ouml]ditz GmbH (SWG), voestalpine Bohler Group (voestalpine Bohler), 
and all others.

DATES: Applicable January 3, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Palmer or Shane Subler, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068 or (202) 
482-6241, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 11, 2020, Commerce published its final determination in 
the CVD investigation of FEBs from Germany.\1\ Commerce calculated 
countervailable subsidy rates of 5.86 percent for BGH Siegen, 6.71 
percent for SWG, 14.81 percent for voestalpine Bohler, and 6.29 percent 
for all other producers/exporters of FEBs in Germany.\2\ Commerce 
subsequently published the CVD order on FEBs from Germany.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from the Federal Republic 
of Germany: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 85 
FR 80011 (December 11, 2020) (Final Determination), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
    \2\ Id., 85 FR at 80012.
    \3\ See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from the People's Republic 
of China, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, and Italy: 
Countervailing Duty Orders, and Amended Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination for the People's Republic of 
China, 86 FR 7535 (January 29, 2021) (Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BGH Siegen appealed Commerce's Final Determination. On October 12, 
2022, the CIT remanded the Final Determination to Commerce, directing 
Commerce to: (1) consider in the first instance whether to account for 
the compliance costs in its calculation of the CVD rates for subsidy 
programs under the Electricity Tax Act and Energy Tax Act; and (2) 
explain or reconsider its determination that the 
Konzessionsabgabenverordnung (KAV) Program is a specific subsidy.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GMBH v. United States, 600 
F.Supp.3d 1241 (CIT 2022) (First Remand Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the First Remand Results, issued in January 2023, Commerce 
explained its determination not to account for compliance costs in its 
calculation of the CVD rates for programs under the Electricity Tax Act 
and Energy Tax Act.\5\ Commerce also further explained its 
determination that the KAV Program is specific.\6\ However, Commerce 
made no changes to the final subsidy rates calculated during the 
investigation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the First 
Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 21-00080; Slip. Op. 22-117 (CIT October 12, 2022), dated 
January 9, 2023 (First Remand Results) at 18, available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Second Remand Order, the CIT sustained Commerce's First 
Remand Results with respect to the Electricity Tax Act and Energy Tax 
Act.\8\ However, with respect to the KAV Program, the CIT held that 
Commerce's First Remand Results failed to explain: (1) how the amount 
of electricity consumed or the electricity prices paid by companies are 
not economic in nature; and (2) how criteria based solely on 
electricity consumption and pricing are not horizontal in 
application.\9\ Regarding the latter, the CIT explained that for the 
KAV Program's criteria to be vertical in application, the criteria 
would need to expressly limit the program's application to specifically 
named enterprises or industries or a group of

[[Page 306]]

enterprises or industries.\10\ The CIT elaborated that the Government 
of Germany's (GOG) eligibility criteria for the KAV Program did not 
expressly limit the program's application to specific enterprises or 
industries or groups of enterprises or industries.\11\ Accordingly, the 
CIT, again, remanded for Commerce to further explain or reconsider its 
determination.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 639 
F.Supp.3d 1237, 1242 (CIT 2023) (Second Remand Order).
    \9\ Id., 639 F.Supp.3d at 1243-44.
    \10\ Id., 639 F.Supp.3d at 1244 (citing section 771(5A)(D)(i) 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act)).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Second Remand Results, Commerce found that the GOG's 
eligibility criteria for the KAV Program were not horizontal in 
application, and thus, not neutral, pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(ii) 
of the Act.\13\ Commerce explained that ``where an authority, by law, 
limits eligibility to a group of enterprises or industries (e.g., those 
that operate specific types of `stationary equipment'), it cannot 
{emphasis added{time}  do so uniformly.'' \14\ Further, Commerce 
explained that ``by expressly limiting eligibility to certain groups 
that the authority, itself, defines, the authority has, in effect, 
established criteria that are vertical in nature.'' \15\ On this basis, 
Commerce found the eligibility criteria for the KAV Program to be 
vertical in application.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the Second 
Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 21-00080; Slip. Op. 23-71 (CIT May 9, 2023), dated August 
7, 2023 (Second Remand Results) at 11, available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx.
    \14\ Id. (citing Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: 
Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of the Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 2020, 87 FR 48455 (August 9, 2022), and 
accompanying IDM at Comment 103).
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Third Remand Order, the CIT held that Commerce's position 
that a subsidy is de jure specific where ``implementing legislation 
expressly limit{s{time}  access to the `group' that the legislation 
itself created'' was contrary to law.\17\ The CIT elaborated that 
``{t{time} he statute allows a subsidy to be limited to fewer than all 
enterprises or industries in an economy, so long as that criteria 
creating that legislation is objective.'' \18\ On this basis, the CIT 
remanded for Commerce to further explain or reconsider its 
determination that the KAV Program is de jure specific.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 663 
F.Supp.3d 1378, 1384 (CIT 2023) (Third Remand Order).
    \18\ Id. (citing Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994), 
at 4242).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Third Remand Results, Commerce reconsidered its 
determination that the KAV Program is de jure specific.\20\ Commerce 
found, under respectful protest, that the KAV Program is not de jure 
specific pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.\21\ 
Consequently, Commerce determined that the KAV Program did not 
constitute a countervailable subsidy.\22\ Commerce removed the KAV 
Program from the overall subsidy rates for BGH Siegen, SWG, and 
voestalpine Bohler, and recalculated the all-others rate.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the Third 
Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 663 F. 
Supp. 3d 1378 (CIT 2023), dated February 12, 2024 (Third Remand 
Results) at 9, available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx.
    \21\ Id.; see also Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 
1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
    \22\ See Third Remand Results at 9.
    \23\ Id. at 9-10; see also Memorandum, ``Calculation of the Non-
Selected Rate,'' dated January 16, 2024 (All-Others Rate 
Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Fourth Remand Order, the CIT remanded for Commerce to 
further explain or reconsider its determination in the Third Remand 
Results.\24\ Specifically, the CIT held that Commerce ``failed to 
conduct a de facto specificity analysis despite there being reasons to 
believe the KAV Program is specific as a matter of fact.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 704 
F.Supp.3d 1372 (CIT 2024) (Fourth Remand Order).
    \25\ Id., 704 F. Supp.3d at 1380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Fourth Remand Results, Commerce further explained its 
determination that the KAV Program does not constitute a 
countervailable subsidy because it is neither de jure nor de facto 
specific.\26\ Commerce continued to find, based on facts otherwise 
available in accordance with 776(a)(1) of the Act, that the KAV Program 
does not constitute a countervailable subsidy.\27\ Commerce made no 
changes to the final subsidy rates calculated in the Third Remand 
Results.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to the Fourth 
Remand Order, BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, 704 F. 
Supp. 3d 1372 (CIT 2024), dated September 16, 2024 (Fourth Remand 
Results), available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx.
    \27\ Id. at 13.
    \28\ Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 26, 2024, the CIT sustained Commerce's Fourth Remand 
Results.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 21-00080, Slip Op. 24-148 (CIT December 26, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\30\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\31\ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held 
that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of 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 December 26, 2024, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \31\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United 
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Determination

    Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending 
its Final Determination with respect BGH Siegen, SWG, and voestalpine 
Bohler, and all others as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Subsidy
                                                                 rate
                          Company                              (percent
                                                             ad valorem)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH..................................         5.81
Schmiedewerke Gr[ouml]ditz GmbH............................         6.64
voestalpine Bohler Group...................................        14.74
All Others.................................................         6.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended CVD Order

    Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending 
its Final Determination and Order. As a result of this amended final 
determination, Commerce is hereby revising the subsidy rates for BGH 
Siegen, SWG, and voestalpine Bohler. Additionally, because the all-
others rate was based on BGH Siegen's and SWG's rates, Commerce is also 
revising the all-others rate.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See All-Others Rate Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because BGH Siegen has a superseding cash deposit rate, this notice 
will not affect the current cash deposit rate for BGH Siegen.\33\ For 
all companies that do not have a superseding cash deposit rate, 
Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Forged Steel Fluid End Blocks from Germany: Final 
Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2022, 89 
FR 64875 (August 8, 2024).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 307]]

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: December 30, 2024.
Abdelali Elouaradia,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024-31587 Filed 12-30-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```