This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

9225 

Vol. 90, No. 26 

Monday, February 10, 2025 

1See Raw Honey from Brazil: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 87 FR 22182 

(April 14, 2022) (Final Determination), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 

(IDM). 

2See Final Determination IDM at 12–17. 

3 Id. at 12–14. 

4See Final Determination, 87 FR at 22183. 

5 Id. 

6See Raw Honey from Argentina, Brazil, India, 

and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Antidumping Duty Orders, 87 FR 35501 (June 10, 

2022) (Order). 

7See Apia ́rio Diamante Comercial Exportadora 

Ltda. and Apia ́rio Diamante Produc ̧a ̃o e Comercial 

de Mel Ltda. v. United States, Court No. 22–00185, 

Slip Op. 24–64 (CIT June 5, 2024) at 15–16. 

8 Id. at 43. 

9See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, Apia ́rio Diamante Comercial 

Exportadora Ltda. and Apia ́rio Diamante Produc ̧a ̃o 

e Comercial de Mel Ltda. v. United States, Court No. 

22–00185, Slip Op. 24–64 (CIT June 5, 2024), dated 

August 26, 2024. 

10See Apia ́rio Diamante Comercial Exportadora 

Ltda. and Apia ́rio Diamante Produc ̧a ̃ o e Comercial 

de Mel Ltda. v. United States, Court No. 22–00185, 

Slip Op. 25–10 (CIT January 24, 2025). 

11See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

12See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers 

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

2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–351–857] 

Raw Honey From Brazil: Notice of 

Court Decision Not in Harmony With 

the Final Determination of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation; 

Notice of Amended Final 

Determination; Notice of Amended 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 24, 2025, the U.S. 

Court of International Trade (CIT) 

issued its final judgment in Apia ́rio 

Diamante Comercial Exportadora Ltda. 

and Apia ́rio Diamante Produc ̧a ̃o e 

Comercial de Mel Ltda. v. United States, 

Court No. 22–00185, sustaining the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (Commerce)’s 

first remand redetermination pertaining 

to the antidumping (AD) duty 

investigation of raw honey (honey) from 

Brazil covering the period of 

investigation April 1, 2020, through 

March 31, 2021. Commerce is notifying 

the public that the CIT’s final judgment 

is not in harmony with Commerce’s 

final determination in the investigation, 

and that Commerce is amending the 

final determination and the resulting 

AD order with respect to the dumping 

margins assigned to Apia ́rio Diamante 

Comercial Exportadora Ltda/Apia ́rio 

Diamante Produc ̧a ̃o e Comercial de Mel 

Ltda (Supermel) and all other producers 

and/or exporters of subject 

merchandise. 

DATES: Applicable February 3, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Miranda Bourdeau, 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) 482–2021. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 14, 2022, Commerce 

published its Final Determination in the 

less-than-fair value investigation of 

honey from Brazil.1 In its Final 

Determination, Commerce found that 

Supermel: (1) failed to provide 

requested source documentation; 2 and 

(2) supplied cost of production (COP) 

data that were irreconcilable to the 

information supplied by its raw honey 

suppliers.3 Accordingly, Commerce 

found that Supermel’s COP data were 

unverifiable and that Supermel failed to 

act to the best of its ability in 

responding to Commerce’s requests for 

information. Commerce declined to rely 

on Supermel’s COP data for the Final 

Determination and, instead, Commerce 

relied entirely on facts otherwise 

available with adverse inferences (AFA) 

for assigning an estimated dumping 

margin to Supermel.4 Because the only 

rate from the Final Determination that 

was not zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on AFA was the rate calculated 

for another respondent, the rate 

calculated for the other respondent was 

also assigned as the rate for all other 

producers and exporters.5 Commerce 

subsequently published the AD order on 

honey from Brazil.6

Supermel appealed Commerce’s Final 

Determination. On June 5, 2024, the CIT 

remanded the Final Determination to 

Commerce, holding that the 

discrepancies between Supermel’s 

reported COP data and its suppliers’ 

COP data were: (1) relatively minor; (2) 

understandable given the beekeepers’ 

lack of recordkeeping; and (3) 

unnecessary for verifying Supermel’s 

COP information, given that copious 

information already existed on the 

record that Commerce could have used 

to support relying on Supermel’s COP.7

The CIT remanded the Final 

Determination to Commerce to 

reconsider, based on the existing record, 

its decision to apply AFA to Supermel 

and to determine a new estimated 

dumping margin for Supermel.8

In its remand redetermination, issued 

in August 2024, Commerce relied on the 

information already in existence on the 

record to support Supermel’s COP, and 

therefore Commerce calculated 

estimated weighted-average dumping 

margins for Supermel and all other 

producers and/or exporters rather than 

relying on AFA.9 The CIT sustained 

Commerce’s final redetermination.10

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,11 as 

clarified by Diamond Sawblades,12 the 

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 

January 24, 2025, 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 

Supermel and all other producers and/ 

or exporters as follows: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
9226 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 26 / Monday, February 10, 2025 / Notices 

1See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products 

from Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing 

Duty Investigations, 89 FR 80204 (October 2, 2024) 

(Initiation Notice). 

2See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products 

from Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations in the Countervailing Duty 

Investigations, 89 FR 89955 (November 14, 2024). 

3See Memorandum, ‘‘Decision Memorandum for 

the Preliminary Determination of the 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain 

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Mexico,’’ 

dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, 

this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). 

4See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 

Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) 

(Preamble). 

5See Initiation Notice, 89 FR at 80205. 

6The deadline for interested parties to submit 

scope case and rebuttal briefs will be established in 

the preliminary scope decision memorandum. 

7See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act 

regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) 

of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of 

the Act regarding specificity. 

Exporter 

Estimated 

weighted-average 

dumping margin 

(percent) 

Apia ́rio Diamante Comercial Exportadora Ltda/Apia ́rio Diamante Produc ̧a ̃o e Comercial de Mel Ltda (Supermel) ................. 10.52 

All Others ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9.38 

Amended AD Order 

Pursuant to 735(c)(2) of the Act, 

Commerce shall ‘‘issue an antidumping 

duty order under section 736(a)’’ of the 

Act when the final determination is 

affirmative. As a result of this amended 

final determination, Commerce is 

hereby amending the Order to revise the 

estimated weighted-average dumping 

margins assigned to Supermel and allother producers and/or exporters of 

subject merchandise, as noted above. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Because Supermel does not have a 

superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there 

have been no final results published in 

a subsequent administrative review, and 

because of the change to the rate 

assigned to all other producers and 

exporters of subject merchandise, 

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: February 4, 2025. 

Abdelali Elouaradia, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2025–02416 Filed 2–7–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–201–864] 

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel 

Products From Mexico: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, and Alignment of Final 

Determination With Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily 

determines that countervailable 

subsidies are being provided to 

producers and exporters of certain 

corrosion-resistant steel products 

(CORE) from Mexico. The period of 

investigation is January 1, 2023, through 

December 31, 2023. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on this 

preliminary determination. 

DATES: Applicable February 10, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Drew Jackson or Maria Teresa 

Aymerich, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

IV, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4406 or 

(202) 482–0499, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This preliminary determination is 

made in accordance with section 703(b) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act). On October 2, 2024, 

Commerce published the notice of 

initiation of this countervailing duty 

(CVD) investigation.1 On November 14, 

2024, Commerce postponed the 

preliminary determination until 

February 3, 2025.2

For a complete description of the 

events that followed the initiation of 

this investigation, see the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics 

discussed in the Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum is included as Appendix 

II to this notice. The Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file electronically 

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 https://access.trade.gov/public/ 

FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are CORE from Mexico. 

For a complete description of the scope 

of this investigation, see Appendix I. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the Preamble to 

Commerce’s regulations,4 the Initiation 

Notice set aside a period of time for 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage, (i.e., scope).5 Certain 

interested parties commented on the 

scope of the investigation as it appeared 

in the Initiation Notice. Commerce 

intends to issue its preliminary decision 

regarding comments concerning the 

scope of the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 

and CVD investigations in the 

preliminary determination of the 

companion LTFV investigations. We 

will incorporate the scope decisions 

from the LTFV investigations into the 

scope of the final CVD determination for 

this investigation after considering any 

relevant comments submitted in scope 

case and rebuttal briefs.6

Methodology 

Commerce is conducting this 

investigation in accordance with section 

701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy 

programs found countervailable, 

Commerce preliminarily determines 

that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial 

contribution by an ‘‘authority’’ that 

gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, 

and that the subsidy is specific.7 For a 

full description of the methodology 

underlying our preliminary 

determination, see the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum. 

Alignment 

In accordance with section 705(a)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), 

Commerce is aligning the final CVD 

determination in this investigation with 

the final determination in the 

concurrent LTFV investigation of CORE 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1