Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 38979 

to Request Administrative Review, 85 FR 77431 

(December 2, 2020). 

2See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 86 FR 

8166 (February 4, 2021) (Initiation Notice). 

3The petitioner is the American Alliance for 

Solar Manufacturing. 

4See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Crystalline Silicon 

Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into 

Modules, from the People’s Republic of China: 

Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,’’ 

dated May 5, 2021. 

5These eight companies are Canadian Solar 

International Limited (Canadian Solar), Jinko Solar 

Co., Ltd., Jinko Solar Import and Export Co., Ltd. 

(collectively Jinko Solar), Shanghai JA Solar 

Technology Co., Ltd., JA Solar Technology 

Yangzhou Co., Ltd. JA Solar Co., Ltd. (a.k.a. JingAo 

Solar Co., Ltd.) (collectively JA Solar), Risen Energy 

Co., Ltd. (Risen), and Yingli Energy (China) Co., 

Ltd.(Yingli). 

6See Canadian Solar’s Letter, ‘‘Administrative 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on 

Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or 

Not Assembled into Modules from the People’s 

Republic of China: Request for Review,’’ dated 

December 29, 2020; see also Jinko Solar’s Letter, 

‘‘GDLSK Respondents Request for Administrative 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on 

Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or 

Not Assembled into Modules (C–570–980)(POR: 01/ 

01/19–12/31/19),’’ dated December 31, 2020; JA 

Solar’s Letter, ‘‘Administrative Review of the 

Countervailing Duty Order on Crystalline Silicon 

Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into 

Modules from the People’s Republic of China: 

Request for Review,’’ dated December 29, 2020; 

Risen’s Letter, ‘‘Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic 

Cells from the People’s Republic of China—Request 

for Administrative Review,’’ dated December 31, 

2020; and Yingli’s Letter, ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Order on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, 

Whether or Not Assembled into Modules: Yingli’s 

Request for Administrative Review,’’ dated 

December 22, 2020. 

7See BYD’s Letter, ‘‘Crystalline Silicon 

Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into 

Modules, from the People’s Republic of China: 

Withdrawal of Request for Review—2019 Review 

Period,’’ dated May 5, 2021. 8See Initiation Notice, 86 FR at 8172–73. 

interested parties, on February 4, 2021, 

Commerce published the notice of 

initiation of an administrative review 

with respect to 83 companies, in 

accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act).2 Subsequent to the initiation of the 

administrative review, the petitioner 3

timely withdrew its request for an 

administrative review of 19 companies 

on May 5, 2021.4 Eight 5 of the 19 

companies requested their own review 

of their entries and did not withdraw 

their requests for review.6 Thus, 

Commerce will only be rescinding this 

review with respect to the 11 companies 

for which a review request was received 

and subsequently withdrawn by the 

party(ies) requesting review. 

BYD (Shangluo) Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(BYD) also withdrew its self-requested 

review on May 5, 2021.7 However, the 

petitioner also requested a review of 

BYD and has not withdrawn the request; 

therefore, Commerce will not rescind 

the review with respect to BYD. There 

are active review requests on the record 

for the remaining 72 companies. 

Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 

Commerce will rescind an 

administrative review, in whole or in 

part, if the party that requested a review 

withdraws its request within 90 days of 

the date of publication of the notice of 

initiation. All requests for an 

administrative review were withdrawn 

by the established deadline of May 5, 

2021, for the companies listed in the 

appendix. As a result, Commerce is 

rescinding this review with respect to 

these companies, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(1). The administrative 

review will continue with respect to the 

remaining 72 companies listed in our 

Initiation Notice.8

Assessment 

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

countervailing duties on all appropriate 

entries. For the companies for which 

this review is rescinded, countervailing 

duties shall be assessed at rates equal to 

the cash deposit of estimated 

countervailing duties required at the 

time of entry, or withdrawal from 

warehouse for consumption, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). 

Commerce intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 

days after the date of publication of this 

rescission notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to 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, 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 terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

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

351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: July 19, 2021. 

James Maeder, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

Appendix 

Companies Rescinded From Review 

1. Anji DaSol Solar Energy Science & 

Technology Co., Ltd. 

2. Jiawei Solarchina (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. 

3. Jiawei Solarchina Co., Ltd. 

4. Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance 

Co., Ltd. 

5. Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. 

6. Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co., Ltd. 

7. Shenzhen Topray Solar Co., Ltd. 

8. Taizhou BD Trade Co., Ltd. 

9. Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd. 

10. Luoyang Suntech Power Co., Ltd. 

11. Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co., Ltd. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15742 Filed 7–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–909] 

Certain Steel Nails 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 July 12, 2021, the U.S. 

Court of International Trade (CIT) 

issued its final judgment in Midwest 

Fastener Corp. v. United States, Court 

No. 17–00231, sustaining the 

Department of Commerce’s 

(Commerce’s) remand redetermination 

pertaining to a scope ruling in which 

Commerce found Midwest Fastener 

Corp. (Midwest)’s strike pin anchors to 

be outside the scope of the antidumping 

duty (AD) order on certain steel nails 

from the People’s Republic of China. 

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 Midwest’s 

strike pin anchors are not covered by 

the order. 

DATES: Applicable July 22, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelsie Hohenberger, 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) 482–2517. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
38980 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 

1See Memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Steel Nails 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final Scope 

Ruling on Midwest Fastener Strike Pin Anchors,’’ 

dated August 2, 2017 (Final Scope Ruling); see also 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Steel 

Nails from the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 

44961 (August 1, 2008) (Order). 

2See Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States, 

348 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (CIT October 19, 2018). 

3See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand (First Remand Redetermination), 

Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States Court, No. 

17–00231, Slip Op. 18–142 (CIT October 19, 2018) 

(First Remand Redetermination). 

4See Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States, 

435 F. Supp. 3d 1262 (CIT March 4, 2020) (Second 

Remand Order). 

5See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United 

States, Court No. 17–00231, Slip Op. 20–28 (CIT 

March 4, 2020) (Second Remand Redetermination). 

6See OMG, Inc. v. United States, 972 F.3d 1358 

(Fed. Cir. 2020) (OMG). 

7See Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States, 

494 F. Supp. 3d 1335 (CIT January 21, 2021). 

8See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States, Court 

No. 17–00231, Slip Op. 21–07 (CIT January 21, 

2021), dated March 23, 2021. 

9See Midwest Fastener Corp., v. United States, 

Slip Op. 21–86, Court No. 17–00231 (CIT July 12, 

2021). 

10See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

11See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers 

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

2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 

1See Large Power Transformers from the 

Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review; 2015–2016, 83 FR 

11679 (March 16, 2018) (Final Results), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

Background 

On August 2, 2017, Commerce found 

Midwest’s strike pin anchors, which 

consist of four components—a steel pin, 

a threaded body, a nut, and a flat 

washer—to be within the scope of the 

AD order on certain steel nails from the 

People’s Republic of China.1

Midwest appealed Commerce’s Final 

Scope Ruling. On October 19, 2018, the 

CIT remanded Commerce’s scope ruling 

to Commerce for further consideration.2

On April 25, 2019, Commerce issued its 

First Remand Redetermination, 

determining that the ‘‘pin’’ portion ‘‘of 

the product is subject to the {Order}, 

while the additional pieces, i.e., the 

outer-body anchor, hex nut, and washer 

anchor, would not be subject.’’ 3

On March 4, 2020, the CIT again 

remanded Commerce’s scope 

determination.4 Pursuant to the Second 

Remand Order, on June 17, 2020, 

Commerce issued its Second Remand 

Redetermination, finding that Midwest’s 

strike pin anchors, in their entirety, are 

covered by the scope of the Order.5

On August 28, 2020, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 

issued its final decision in OMG.6 In 

light of the CAFC’s decision, on January 

21, 2021, the CIT remanded the Final 

Scope Ruling to Commerce.7

In its final remand redetermination, 

issued in March 2021, Commerce found 

Midwest’s strike pin anchors to be 

outside the scope of the Order.8 The CIT 

sustained Commerce’s final 

redetermination.9

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,10 as 

clarified by Diamond Sawblades,11 the 

CAFC held that, pursuant to sections 

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 

July 12, 2021, judgment constitutes a 

final decision of the CIT that is not in 

harmony with Commerce’s Final Scope 

Ruling. Thus, this notice is published in 

fulfillment of the publication 

requirements of Timken. 

Amended Final Scope Ruling 

In accordance with the CIT’s July 12, 

2021, final judgment, Commerce is 

amending its Final Scope Ruling and 

finds that the scope of the order does 

not cover the products addressed in the 

Final Scope Ruling. 

Liquidation of Suspended Entries 

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) that, 

pending any appeals, Midwest’s strike 

pin anchors will not be subject to a cash 

deposit requirement. 

In the event that the CIT’s final 

judgment is not appealed or is upheld 

on appeal, Commerce will instruct CBP 

to liquidate entries of Midwest’s strike 

pin anchors without regard to 

antidumping duties and to lift 

suspension of liquidation of such 

entries. 

At this time, Commerce remains 

enjoined by CIT from liquidating entries 

included in the scope of the Order by 

the Final Scope Ruling. These entries 

will remain enjoined pursuant to the 

terms of the injunction during the 

pendency of any appeals process. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(c) and 

(e) of the Act. 

Dated: July 19, 2021. 

Christian Marsh, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15741 Filed 7–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–867] 

Large Power Transformers From the 

Republic of Korea: Notice of Court 

Decision Not in Harmony With Final 

Results, Notice of Amended Final 

Results of Review; 2015–16 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 9, 2021, the Court of 

International Trade (CIT) sustained the 

final results of redetermination pursuant 

to remand pertaining to the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on large power 

transformers (LPTs) from the Republic 

of Korea (Korea) covering the period 

August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016. 

The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) is notifying the public that 

the final judgment is not in harmony 

with the final results of the 

administrative review, and that 

Commerce is amending the final results 

of review with respect to the weightedaverage dumping margin assigned to 

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., 

Hyosung Corporation, and the nonexamined company ILJIN Electric Co., 

Ltd. 

DATES: Applicable July 19, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

K. Drury, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

VI, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0195. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 16, 2018, Commerce issued 

the final results of the administrative 

review for the period August 1, 2015, 

through July 31, 2016.1 In the Final 

Results, Commerce determined a 

weighted-average dumping margin for 

the two mandatory respondents, 

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. 

(Hyundai) and Hyosung Corporation 

(Hyosung), based on total facts available 

with an adverse inference, of 60.81 

percent. Further, Commerce determined 

the weighted-average dumping margin 

for the three companies that were under 

review but not selected for individual 

examination, ILJIN, ILJIN Electric Co., 

Ltd. (ILJIN Electric), and LSIS Co., Ltd. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES