63080 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Notices 

3See Artisan Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 978 F. 

Supp. 2d 1334 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (‘‘Remand 

Order’’). 

4See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant 

To Court Remand, Artisan Manufacturing Corp. v. 

United States, Court No. 13–00169; Slip Op. 14–52 

(CIT 2014), dated June 4, 2014, available at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/index.html. 

1See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 78 

FR 72061 (December 2, 2013) (Initiation Notice). 

2See Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the 

Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order, 79 FR 40062 (July 11, 2014) (2014 Sunset 

Review). 

3See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 

United States, 626 F.3d 1374, 1382–1383 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 

4See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ 

Coalition v. United States, Court No. 13–00391, slip 

op. 2014–111, 2014 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 112 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade Sep. 23, 2014) (Diamond Sawblades 

Manufacturers’ Coalition). 

On May 5, 2014, the Court issued a 

remand order to the Department 

regarding the assignment of the 76.53 

percent PRC-wide rate to Kehuaxing, 

which resulted from the Department’s 

rejection of Kehuaxing’s untimely filed 

quantity and value questionnaire 

response, and the Department’s 

subsequent rejection of Kehuaxing’s 

separate rate application.3 Pursuant to 

the Court’s directive in the Remand 

Order, we requested and Kehuaxing 

timely provided these submissions for 

the record. We conducted a separate rate 

analysis and found that Kehuaxing 

demonstrated the absence of both de 

jure and de facto government control 

over its export activities and is thus 

eligible for a separate rate.4

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 

341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 

the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 

516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department 

must publish a notice of a court 

decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with 

a Department determination and must 

suspend liquidation of entries pending 

a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s 

June 27, 2014 judgment in this case 

constitutes a final decision of that court 

that is not in harmony with the 

Department’s Final Determination. This 

notice is published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Amended Final Determination 

Because there is now a final court 

decision with respect to this case, the 

Department is amending the Final 

Determination with respect to 

Kehuaxing’s weighted-average dumping 

margin, effective July 7, 2014. The 

revised weighted-average dumping 

margin is as follows: 

Exporter Producer Percent margin 

Shenzen Kehuaxing Industrial Ltd ............................................ Shenzen Kehuaxing Industrial Ltd ........................................... 33.51% 

Because no party appealed the CIT’s 

decision before the period of appeal 

expired on August 26, 2014, the CIT’s 

decision is now final and conclusive. 

Accordingly, the Department will 

instruct CBP to collect cash deposits for 

entries of subject merchandise exported 

and produced by Kehuaxing equal to the 

weighted-average dumping margin 

listed above, effective July 7, 2014, 

adjusted, where appropriate, for export 

subsidies and domestic subsidy passthrough offsets. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(e), 

751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: October 14, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25209 Filed 10–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Notice of Court Decision Not in 

Harmony With Final Results of Sunset 

Review, Notice of Rescission of Sunset 

Review, and Advance Notification of 

New Sunset Review 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: 

(202) 482–4136. 

Background 

Every five years, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act), the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) and the 

International Trade Commission 

automatically initiate and conduct a 

review to determine whether revocation 

of a countervailing or antidumping duty 

order or termination of an investigation 

suspended under section 704 or 734 of 

the Act would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

or a countervailable subsidy (as the case 

may be) and of material injury. 

In December 2013, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order on diamond 

sawblades and parts thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China five years 

from the imposition of the order in 

January 2009.1 On July 11, 2014, The 

Department published the 2014 Sunset 

Review.2 Notwithstanding the holding of 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that ‘‘the 

statutory scheme impose{d} a 

mandatory duty on Commerce to issue 

antidumping duty orders covering the 

subject entries’’ as of January 2009,3 the 

U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) 

held, on September 23, 2014, that the 

2014 Sunset Review was unlawful and 

premature, agreeing with the plaintiff 

that the five-year period should have 

been counted from November 2009. 

Thus, the CIT ordered the Department to 

rescind the 2014 Sunset Review and to 

re-initiate the sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order on diamond 

sawblades and parts thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China on 

November 4, 2014.4

Consistent with the decision of the 

CAFC in Timken Co. v. United States, 

893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), 

as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the 

Department is notifying the public that 

the final judgment in this case is not in 

harmony with the Department’s 2014 

Sunset Review. The Department is 

therefore rescinding the 2014 Sunset 

Review. 

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 

341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 

the CAFC has held that, pursuant to 

section 516A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended, the Department must 

publish a notice of a court decision that 

is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department 

determination and must suspend 

liquidation of entries pending a 

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s 

September 23, 2014, judgment 

constitutes a final decision of that court 

that is not in harmony with the 

Department’s 2014 Sunset Review. This 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Notices 63081 

1We determine that Gerdau is the successor-ininterest to Sidenor Industrial S.L. For further 

discussion, see the memorandum from Christian 

Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul 

Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Stainless Steel Bar from Spain; 2012–2013’’ 

dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this 

notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 

2See Stainless Steel Bar From Spain: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2012–2013, 79 FR 22622 (April 23, 2014) 

(Preliminary Results). 

3See memorandum from Sandra Dreisonstok, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, to 

Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

‘‘Stainless Steel Bar from Spain: Extension of 

Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2012–2013’’ dated July 16, 

2014. In this memorandum, we inadvertently 

calculated an extended deadline of October 14, 

2014 (60 days from the date of signature) instead 

of October 20, 2014 (60 days from the date of 

publication). See September 10, 2014, 

memorandum to the file from Sandra Dreisonstok, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, clarifying 

this error. 

4A full description of the scope of the order is 

contained in the Preliminary Results, and 

accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 

notice is published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

The effective date of this Timken notice 

is October 3, 2014. 

Rescission of the 2014 Sunset Review 

Pursuant to the CIT order in Diamond 

Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition, we 

are hereby rescinding the 2014 Sunset 

Review, effective September 23, 2014. 

Upcoming Sunset Review for November 

2014 Pursuant to the CIT Order 

Pursuant to the CIT order in Diamond 

Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition, 

the first sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order on diamond 

sawblades and parts thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China is now 

scheduled for initiation on November 4, 

2014 and will appear in a notice of 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review (Notice of Initiation). 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of a sunset review are set forth 

in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of 

Initiation provides further information 

regarding what is required of all parties 

to participate in the sunset review. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for this sunset 

review. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list, it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to this sunset 

review contact the Department in 

writing within 10 days of the 

publication of the Notice of Initiation. 

If the Department receives a Notice of 

Intent to Participate from a member of 

the domestic industry within 15 days of 

the date of initiation, the sunset review 

will continue. Thereafter, any interested 

party wishing to participate in the 

sunset review must provide substantive 

comments in response to the notice of 

initiation no later than 30 days after the 

date of initiation. 

We are publishing this notice 

pursuant to the CIT order in Diamond 

Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition for 

the rescission of the 2014 Sunset Review 

and as a service to the international 

trading community for the advance 

notification of the re-initiation of the 

sunset review. The advanced 

notification of a sunset review is not 

required by statute. 

Dated: October 16, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25206 Filed 10–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–469–805] 

Stainless Steel Bar From Spain: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2012–2013 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel bar (SSB) from Spain. The period 

of review (POR) is March 1, 2012, 

through February 28, 2013. The review 

covers one producer/exporter of the 

subject merchandise, Gerdau Aceros 

Especiales Europa, S.L. (Gerdau).1 We 

determine that subject merchandise has 

not been sold at less than normal value 

during the POR. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1690. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 23, 2014, the Department 

published the Preliminary Results and 

invited interested parties to comment.2

Carpenter Technology Corporation, 

Crucible Industries LLC, Universal 

Stainless & Alloy Products Inc., and 

Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. 

(collectively, the petitioners) filed a case 

brief on May 30, 2014. Gerdau filed a 

rebuttal brief on June 4, 2014. 

The deadline for the final results of 

this review was August 21, 2014. On 

July 16, 2014, we extended the deadline 

for the final results to October 20, 2014.3

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is SSB. The SSB subject to the order is 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00, 

7222.20.00, 7222.30.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes.4

The written description is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case briefs by 

parties to this administrative review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. A list of the issues raised 

is attached to this notice as an 

appendix. The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is a public document and 

is on file electronically via Enforcement 

and Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 

Access to IA ACCESS is available to 

registered users at http:// 

iaaccess.trade.gov and is available to all 

parties in the Central Records Unit, 

Room 7046 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum can be found at 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/

index.html. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we did not make 

any revisions to the margin calculations 

for Gerdau. 

Final Results of Review 

As a result of this review, we 

determine that a weighted-average 

dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists 

for Gerdau for the period March 1, 2012, 

through February 28, 2013. 

Disclosure 

We intend to disclose the calculations 

performed to parties in this proceeding 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES