Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 31983 

1See 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. 

3See 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. 

4See Final Results IDM at Comment 2. 

5 Id.; see also Hyundai Steel Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum at 5–6. 

6See 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. 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Export Administration on 

implementation of the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR) and 

provides for continuing review to 

update the EAR as needed. 

Agenda 

Public Session 

1. Opening remarks by the Chairman 

2. Opening remarks by the Bureau of 

Industry and Security 

3. Presentation of papers or comments 

by the Public 

4. Regulations Update 

5. Working Group Reports 

6. Automated Export System Update 

Closed Session 

7. Discussion of matters determined to 

be exempt from the provisions relating 

to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 

App. §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). 

The open session will be accessible 

via teleconference to participants on a 

first come, first serve basis. To join the 

conference, submit inquiries to Ms. 

Yvette Springer at Yvette.Springer@

bis.doc.gov, no later than June 7, 2022. 

To the extent that time permits, 

members of the public may present oral 

statements to the Committee. The public 

may submit written statements at any 

time before or after the meeting. 

However, to facilitate the distribution of 

public presentation materials to the 

Committee members, the Committee 

suggests that presenters forward the 

public presentation materials prior to 

the meeting to Ms. Springer via email. 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, with the concurrence of 

the delegate of the General Counsel, 

formally determined on February 14, 

2022, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. App. § 10(d)), that 

the portion of the meeting dealing with 

pre-decisional changes to the Commerce 

Control List and the U.S. export control 

policies shall be exempt from the 

provisions relating to public meetings 

found in 5 U.S.C. App. §§ 10(a)(1) and 

10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the 

meeting will be open to the public. 

For more information, contact Yvette 

Springer via email. 

Yvette Springer, 

Committee Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11299 Filed 5–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P 

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 nonexamined 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

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} 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

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
31984 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 

11See 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). 

12See 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). 

13The 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). 

14See 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. 

15See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Cold-Rolled Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea—Petitioners’ 

Partial Withdrawal of Administrative Review 

Request,’’ dated February 14, 2018. 

16See 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). 

17See Petitioners’ Case Brief at 2–7. 

18See Final Results IDM at Comment 8. 

19 Id. 

20See 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. 

26See 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. 

28See Hyundai Steel Co. et al. v. United States, 

Court No. 19–00099, Slip. Op. 22–46 (CIT May 13, 

2022) (Hyundai II). 

29See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 

341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

30See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 

United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 

(Diamond Sawblades). 

31See, 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). 

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. 

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 allothers 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

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 allothers rate to a non-producer or exporter 

violated the {Act}.’’ 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

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

On May 13, 2022, the Court sustained 

Commerce’s Redetermination, and 

entered a final judgment.28

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. 

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: 

Producer/exporter 

Weighted 

average 

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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES