Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Notices 31281 

5See Barium Chloride from China, 86 FR 30332 

(June 7, 2021). 

6The scope reflects the HTSUS subheading 

currently in effect. 

1See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Final Results 

of Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order; 2017–2018, 84 FR 56179 (October 21, 2019) 

(Final Results), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum (IDM). 

2See Final Results IDM at Comment 1. 

3 Id. 

4The petitioners are: Carpenter Technology 

Corporation; Crucible Industries LLC; Electralloy, a 

Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc.; North American 

Stainless; Universal Stainless Alloy Product, Inc.; 

and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. 

5See Plaintiff’s Rule 56.2 Motion for Judgment 

upon the Agency Record, in Carpenter Technology 

Corporation, et al. v. United States, Court No. 19– 

00200 (filed May 5, 2020). 

6See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Preliminary 

Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2017–2018, 84 FR 15582 (April 16, 2019) 

(Preliminary Results), and accompanying 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM). 

7See Government’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Judgment upon the Agency Record, in Carpenter 

Technology Corporation, et al. v. United States, 

Court No. 19–00200 (filed August 4, 2020). 

8See Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. 

United States, 477 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (CIT 2020). 

9 Id. 

10See Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 

Court Remand, Carpenter Technology Corporation, 

et al. v. United States, Court No. 19–00200, Slip Op. 

20–158, dated January 27, 2021 (Remand 

Redetermination). 

11 Id. at 6 through 11. 

751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that 

revocation of the Order would likely 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to an industry in the 

United States within a reasonably 

foreseeable time.5

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the 

Order is barium chloride, a chemical 

compound having the formulas BaCl2 or 

BaCl2-2H20, currently classifiable under 

subheading 2827.39.4500 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS).6 Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

Order is dispositive. 

Continuation of the Order 

As a result of the determinations by 

Commerce and the ITC that revocation 

of the Order would likely lead to a 

continuation or a recurrence of 

dumping, as well as material injury to 

an industry in the United States, 

pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce 

hereby orders the continuation of the 

Order. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

will continue to collect AD cash 

deposits at the rates in effect at the time 

of entry for all imports of subject 

merchandise. The effective date of the 

continuation of the Order will be the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of continuation. 

Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce 

intends to initiate the next five-year 

sunset review of the Order not later than 

30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of 

the effective date of continuation. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This five-year sunset review and this 

notice are in accordance with sections 

751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and 

published in accordance with section 

777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(f)(4). 

Dated: June 7, 2021. 

Christian Marsh, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12314 Filed 6–10–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A 533–810] 

Stainless Steel Bar From India: Notice 

of Court Decision Not in Harmony With 

the Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; Notice of 

Amended Final Results 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 2, 2021, the U.S. 

Court of International Trade (the CIT) 

issued its final judgment in Carpenter 

Technology Corporation, et al. v. United 

States, Court No. 19–00200, sustaining 

the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce)’s remand results pertaining 

to the administrative review of the 

antidumping duty (AD) order on 

stainless steel bar (SSB) from India 

covering the period February 1, 2017 

through January 31, 2018. Commerce is 

notifying the public that the CIT’s final 

judgment is not in harmony with 

Commerce’s final results of the 

administrative review, and that 

Commerce is amending the final results 

with respect to the dumping margins 

assigned to Venus Wire Industries Pvt. 

Ltd. and its affiliates Precision Metals, 

Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 

and Hindustan Inox Ltd. (collectively, 

the Venus Group), Jindal Stainless 

(Hisar) Limited (Jindal), and Laxcon 

Steels Limited (Laxcon). 

DATES: Applicable June 12, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hermes Pinilla, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3477. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 21, 2019, Commerce 

published its Final Results in the 2017– 

2018 AD administrative review of SSB 

from India.1 In the Final Results, we 

determined that the Venus Group is not 

the manufacturer of the SSB that it 

purchased from unaffiliated suppliers 

and processed in India prior to 

exportation to the United States.2

Because most of the unaffiliated 

suppliers did not provide their costs, we 

applied partial adverse facts available 

(AFA) with respect to the Venus 

Group.3

The petitioners 4 appealed 

Commerce’s Final Results.5 On August 

4, 2020, Commerce requested a 

voluntary remand to reconsider or 

further explain the application of its 

partial AFA methodology to address 

missing cost of production data from the 

Venus Group’s unaffiliated suppliers, 

the change in the partial AFA 

methodology between the Preliminary 

Results 6 and the Final Results, and, if 

appropriate, to reconsider the 

appropriate AD rates assigned to Jindal 

and Laxcon.7

On November 4, 2020, the CIT granted 

Commerce’s motion for a voluntary 

remand finding that there was a 

compelling justification for the remand 

request, that the need to accurately 

calculate margins was not outweighed 

by the interest in finality, and that the 

scope of the requested remand was 

appropriate.8 Specifically, the CIT 

remanded the Final Results to 

Commerce to further explain or 

reconsider its partial AFA methodology 

in the Final Results.9

In its Remand Redetermination, 

issued in January 2021,10 Commerce 

further explained its revised partial 

AFA methodology, and made certain 

corrections in the Venus Group’s margin 

program. Specifically, Commerce 

included all of the Venus Group’s U.S. 

sales in its margin calculation; matched 

sales and costs by manufacturer; and 

made AFA adjustments not only to cost 

of production, but also other 

components of cost, including variable 

cost of manufacture and fixed and 

variable overhead.11 Accordingly, 

Commerce made changes to the margin 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
31282 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Notices 

12 Id. 13 Jindal’s total AFA rate was based on one of the 

Venus Group’s highest transaction-specific margins. 

Because Commerce made changes to the computer 

programs for the Venus Group, this resulted in a 

change to the highest transaction-specific rate 

calculated for the Venus Group, which was 

assigned as the revised total AFA rate for Jindal. 

Laxcon, as a non-selected respondent, received the 

Venus Group’s revised rate on remand. See Remand 

Redetermination at 11–13. 

14See Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. 

United States, Court No. 19–00200, Slip Op. 21–68 

(June 2, 2021). 

15See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

16See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 

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

(Diamond Sawblades). 

17See Final Remand Redetermination at 11–12. 18See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

1See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 

Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 

39263 (July 6, 2011). 

calculations for the Venus Group.12

Commerce also made changes to the 

rates assigned to Jindal and Laxcon.13

The CIT sustained Commerce’s Remand 

Redetermination and also denied a 

motion to intervene that was filed by 

Laxcon.14

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,15 as 

clarified by Diamond Sawblades,16 the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

held that, pursuant to section 516A(c) 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 

June 2, 2021, judgment constitutes a 

final decision of the CIT that is not in 

harmony with Commerce’s Final 

Results. Thus, this notice is published 

in fulfillment of the publication 

requirements of Timken. 

Amended Final Results 

Because there is now a final court 

judgment, Commerce is amending the 

Final Results with respect to Venus 

Group, Jindal, and Laxcon as follows: 17

Producer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. 

and its affiliates Precision Metals, Sieves Manufacturers 

(India) Pvt. Ltd., and Hindustan Inox Ltd ........................... 24.60 

Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Limited .. 92.10 

Laxcon Steels Limited ................ 24.60 

Cash Deposit Rates 

Because the Venus Group has a 

superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there 

have been final results published in a 

subsequent administrative review, we 

will not issue revised cash deposit 

instructions to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP). This notice will not 

affect the current cash deposit rate for 

Venus Group. For Jindal and Laxcon, 

which do not have a superseding cash 

deposit rate, Commerce will issue 

revised cash deposit instructions to 

CBP. 

Liquidation of Suspended Entries 

At this time, Commerce remains 

enjoined by the CIT order from 

liquidating entries that: Were produced 

and/or exported by the Venus Group, 

Jindal, or Laxcon, and were entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption during the period 

February 1, 2017, through January 31, 

2018. These entries will remain 

enjoined pursuant to the terms of the 

injunction during the pendency of any 

appeals process. 

In the event the CIT’s ruling is not 

appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a 

final and conclusive court decision, 

Commerce intends to instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on 

unliquidated entries of subject 

merchandise produced and/or exported 

by the Venus Group, Jindal, or Laxcon 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). 

We will instruct CBP to apply the ad 

valorem assessment rates listed above to 

all entries of subject merchandise 

during the period of review which were 

produced and/or exported by Jindal and 

Laxcon. For the Venus Group, we will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review when the importerspecific ad valorem assessment rate is 

not zero or de minimis. Where an 

import-specific ad valorem assessment 

rate is zero or de minimis,18 we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate 

entries without regard to antidumping 

duties. For entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review produced by the Venus Group 

for which it did not know its 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. 

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: June 7, 2021. 

Christian Marsh, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12313 Filed 6–10–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) has received requests to 

conduct administrative reviews of 

various antidumping duty (AD) and 

countervailing duty (CVD) orders and 

findings with April anniversary dates. 

In accordance with Commerce’s 

regulations, we are initiating those 

administrative reviews. 

DATES: Applicable June 11, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda E. Brown, AD/CVD Operations, 

Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 

(202) 482–4735. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Commerce has received timely 

requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), for administrative reviews of 

various AD and CVD orders and 

findings with April anniversary dates. 

All deadlines for the submission of 

various types of information, 

certifications, or comments or actions by 

Commerce discussed below refer to the 

number of calendar days from the 

applicable starting time. 

Notice of No Sales 

If a producer or exporter named in 

this notice of initiation had no exports, 

sales, or entries during the period of 

review (POR), it must notify Commerce 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. All 

submissions must be filed electronically 

at https://access.trade.gov, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such 

submissions are subject to verification, 

in accordance with section 782(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES