[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31983-31984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11338]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-881]


Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of 
Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results, 
Notice of Amended Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Review

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

SUMMARY: On May 13, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the 
Court) issued a final judgment in Hyundai Steel Co. et al. v. United 
States, Court No. 19-00099, Slip. Op. 21-46 (Hyundai II), sustaining 
the U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce) redetermination pursuant 
to the remand pertaining to the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain cold-rolled steel flat products from 
the Republic of Korea. Commerce is notifying the public that the 
Court's final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's 
final results of the administrative review, published on May 24, 2019. 
Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the weighted-
average dumping margin assigned to Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai 
Steel) and has rescinded its review of one non-examined company.

DATES: Applicable May 13, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney, 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) 482-4475.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In the Final Results,\1\ Commerce identified discrepancies between 
product codes and product specifications reported by Hyundai Steel for 
certain sales.\2\ As a result, Commerce determined that Hyundai Steel 
had provided inconsistent product specification data for observations 
of certain U.S. sales within various control numbers.\3\ Because of the 
inconsistent product specification information, Commerce also 
determined that it could not confirm that Hyundai Steel accurately 
reported control number fields for the sales corresponding with the 
observations in question and all other sales of the same control 
number. As a result, Commerce was unable to match the control numbers 
of the affected U.S. sales to the appropriate control numbers in the 
Korean home market.\4\ Accordingly, in the Preliminary Results and 
Final Results, Commerce relied on facts available with an adverse 
inference (AFA) by applying the highest transaction-specific margin to 
the inconsistent sales observations of the affected control numbers 
created by Hyundai Steel.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the 
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2016-2017, 84 FR 24083 (May 24, 2019) (Final Results), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
    \2\ Id. at Comment 2.
    \3\ See Memorandum, ``Analysis for the Preliminary Results of 
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Certain Cold Rolled Steel 
Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Hyundai Steel Company,'' 
dated October 3, 2018 (Hyundai Steel Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum), at 5-6.
    \4\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 2.
    \5\ Id.; see also Hyundai Steel Preliminary Analysis Memorandum 
at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Hyundai I, the Court remanded Commerce's reliance on AFA.\6\ The 
Court held that the relevant statement in Commerce's June 18, 2018 
supplemental questionnaire was ``broadly drawn'' and did not satisfy 
the notice requirement under section 782(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (the Act), because Commerce ``failed to identify the nature 
of the alleged `deficiency' in {Hyundai Steel's{time}  response with 
any specificity.'' \7\ Further the Court explained that the word 
``accuracy'' in the supplemental questionnaire did not alert Hyundai 
Steel that its specification data were deficient.\8\ The Court also 
rejected the argument that Commerce's reliance on facts available in 
the immediately preceding investigation justified its use of facts 
available in the instant review.\9\ Therefore, the Court ordered 
Commerce to identify the sales and control numbers containing a 
discrepancy between the product code and product specifications, to 
clearly describe the nature of the deficiency, to provide Hyundai Steel 
with an opportunity to remedy the deficiency, and to reconsider whether 
facts available is warranted.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Hyundai Steel Co. et al. v. United States, 518 F. Supp. 
3d 1309, 1324-28, 1333 (CIT 2021) (Hyundai I).
    \7\ Id., 518 F. Supp. 3d at 1326.
    \8\ Id., 518 F. Supp. 3d at 1326-27.
    \9\ Id., 518 F. Supp. 3d at 1327 (citing Hyundai Steel Co. v. 
United States, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1327 (CIT 2018); and Hyundai Steel 
Co. v. United States, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (CIT 2019)).
    \10\ Id. at 1328, 1333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on Hyundai I, on June 2, 2021, we issued a supplemental 
questionnaire concerning Hyundai Steel's U.S. sales of products falling 
within the control

[[Page 31984]]

numbers in question.\11\ On June 16, 2021, Hyundai Steel filed its 
response to our supplemental questionnaire.\12\ Based on Hyundai 
Steel's response to Commerce's Remand Supplemental Questionnaire, 
Commerce accepted the methodology that Hyundai Steel employed to report 
its sales by control number and no longer relied on AFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Request for Additional 
Information: Hyundai Steel v. United States Slip Op. 21-47, Court No 
19-00099,'' dated June 2, 2021 (Remand Supplemental Questionnaire).
    \12\ See Hyundai Steel's Letter, ``Remand Order of the United 
States Court of International Trade in Hyundai Steel Co. et al. v. 
United States (Court No. 19-00099): Hyundai Steel Company's 
Supplemental Questionnaire Response,'' dated June 16, 2021 (Hyundai 
Steel Remand Supplemental Response).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in the underlying administrative review, the 
petitioners \13\ requested a review of 16 companies, including 
``Company A,'' an affiliate of Hyundai Steel.\14\ Although the 
petitioners filed a timely withdrawal of their review request for 
certain companies, the petitioners did not include Company A in their 
withdrawal request.\15\ In the Preliminary Results, Commerce assigned 
the all-others rate to Company A.\16\ Subsequently, in a case brief, 
U.S. Steel for the first time requested that Commerce either rescind 
its review of Company A or collapse Company A with Hyundai Steel.\17\ 
The petitioners' request to withdraw the review for Company A was filed 
after the 90-day deadline established in 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). In the 
Final Results, Commerce continued to apply the all-others rate to 
Company A, and we declined to rescind its review or to collapse the 
company with Hyundai Steel.\18\ Commerce did, however, determine that 
Company A was neither a producer nor an exporter of subject 
merchandise.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The petitioners in this proceeding are ArcelorMittal USA 
LLC; AK Steel Corporation; Nucor Corporation; Steel Dynamics, Inc.; 
and United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) (collectively, 
petitioners).
    \14\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products 
from the Republic of Korea--Petitioners' Request for Administrative 
Review,'' dated October 2, 2017. Company A is identified on the 
record. See Petitioners' Letter, ``Case Brief to United States Steel 
Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA, Nucor Corporation, and AK Steel 
Corporation,'' dated November 20, 2018 (Petitioners' Case Brief); 
and Hyundai Steel's Letter, ``Rebuttal Brief of Hyundai Steel 
Company,'' dated November 28, 2018.
    \15\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products 
from the Republic of Korea--Petitioners' Partial Withdrawal of 
Administrative Review Request,'' dated February 14, 2018.
    \16\ See Certain Cold Rolled Steel Flat Products from the 
Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review; 2016-2017, 
83 FR 51661, 51662 (October 12, 2018) (Preliminary Results).
    \17\ See Petitioners' Case Brief at 2-7.
    \18\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 8.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Hyundai I, the Court sustained Commerce's determination that the 
petitioners' request to rescind review of Company A was untimely.\20\ 
The Court held that U.S. Steel failed to request an extension and did 
not satisfy the prerequisites for asking that Commerce rescind its 
review.\21\ Nevertheless, the Court concluded that ``assigning the all-
others rate to a non-producer or exporter violated the {Act{time} .'' 
\22\ Specifically, although the petitioners had earlier identified 
Company A as an exporter or producer of subject merchandise, once 
Commerce determined that Company A was neither, the Court explained 
that Commerce ``need not have waited for U.S. Steel to ask for 
rescission to find that it could not determine a rate for Company A.'' 
\23\ The Court further determined that the Act ``does not empower 
Commerce to assign a rate to a freight company.'' \24\ Thus, the Court 
determined that U.S. Steel's untimely rescission request was not 
consequential. Based on the foregoing, the Court directed Commerce to 
rescind its review with respect to Company A.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Hyundai I, 518 F. Supp. 3d at 1331.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id., 518 F. Supp. 3d at 1332.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id., 518 F. Supp. 3d at 1333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 24, 2021, Commerce filed its Redetermination.\26\ In 
the Redetermination, Commerce: (1) Accepted the control number 
reporting employed by Hyundai Steel and no longer relied on facts 
available with or without an adverse inference for transactions that 
Commerce had previously assigned AFA; and (2) rescinded review of 
Company A.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Hyundai Steel Co., et al. v. United States, Court No. 
19-00099, Slip. Op. 21-47 (CIT April 27, 2021), Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, dated September 24, 2021 
(Redetermination).
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 13, 2022, the Court sustained Commerce's Redetermination, 
and entered a final judgment.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Hyundai Steel Co. et al. v. United States, Court No. 
19-00099, Slip. Op. 22-46 (CIT May 13, 2022) (Hyundai II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\29\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\30\ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held 
that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a 
notice of a court decision not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce 
determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a 
``conclusive'' court decision. The Court's May 13, 2022 judgment 
sustaining the Redetermination constitutes a final decision of the 
Court that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. This notice 
is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken. 
Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of 
the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal 
or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
    \30\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, Commerce is amending 
the Final Results with respect to Hyundai Steel for the period March 7, 
2016, through August 31, 2017. Commerce is also rescinding its review 
of Company A. The revised rate for Hyundai Steel is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted
                                                              average
                    Producer/exporter                         dumping
                                                              margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Steel...........................................            1.82
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because Commerce has issued results for Hyundai Steel for periods 
subsequent to the instant March 7, 2016, through August 31, 2017 period 
of review,\31\ the cash deposit rate for Hyundai Steel is unchanged as 
a result of this Timken Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See, e.g., Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the 
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2019-2020, 87 FR 15371 (March 18, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516(A)(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 20, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-11338 Filed 5-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P