```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31281-31282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12313]

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

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 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).
    \2\ See Final Results IDM at Comment 1.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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.
    \5\ See 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).
    \6\ See 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).
    \7\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United 
States, 477 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (CIT 2020).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 31282]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 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.
    \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.
    \14\ See Carpenter Technology Corporation, et al. v. United 
States, Court No. 19-00200, Slip Op. 21-68 (June 2, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \16\ 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 judgment, Commerce is amending 
the Final Results with respect to Venus Group, Jindal, and Laxcon as 
follows: \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Final Remand Redetermination at 11-12.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                      Producer/exporter                         dumping
                                                                margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates Precision       24.60
 Metals, Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd., and
 Hindustan Inox Ltd.........................................
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 importer-specific 
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 all-others rate if there is 
no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
```