Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Notices 78037 

2See sections 771(5)(B)and (D) of the Act 

regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) 

of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of 

the Act regarding specificity. 

3See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. 

4 19 CFR 351.224(b) calls for the Department to 

disclose calculations performed in connection with 

the final results of an administrative review within 

five days after the publication of the final results. 

1See Drill Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 11757 

(March 3, 2011); Drill Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 

FR 11758 (March 3, 2011); Drill Pipe and Drill 

Collars from China, Investigation Nos. 701–TA–474 

and 731–TA–1176 (Final), USITC Publication 4213 

(February 2011). 

and under statistical categories 

5806.32.1080; 5810.92.9080; 

5903.90.3090; and 6307.90.9889. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description, 

available in Narrow Woven Ribbons 

with Woven Selvedge from the People’s 

Republic of China: Countervailing Duty 

Order, 75 FR 53642 (September 1, 2010), 

remains dispositive. 

A full description of the scope of the 

order is contained in the Decision 

Memorandum. 

Methodology 

We conducted this review in 

accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act). For each of the subsidy programs 

found countervailable, we have 

determined that there is a subsidy, i.e., 

a government-provided financial 

contribution by an ‘‘authority’’ that 

gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, 

and that the subsidy is specific.2

In making these findings, we relied on 

facts available and, because Bestpak and 

the Government of the PRC did not act 

to the best of their ability to respond to 

our requests for information, we have 

drawn adverse inferences in selecting 

from among the facts otherwise 

available.3 For further information, see 

‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 

Adverse Inferences’’ in the Decision 

Memorandum. 

For a full description of the 

methodology underlying our 

conclusions, see the Decision 

Memorandum. 

Changes from the Preliminary Results 

No party submitted comments with 

respect to the Preliminary Results. 

Because we have identified more 

appropriate information for use as 

adverse facts available, we have revised 

the net subsidy rate for Bestpak 

accordingly. For a full description of 

that updated information and 

accompanying changes, see the Decision 

Memorandum. 

Final Results of the Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an 

individual subsidy rate for Bestpak for 

the period January 1, 2012, through 

December 31, 2012. 

We find that the net subsidy rate for 

Bestpak is as follows: 

Producer/exporter 

Net subsidy 

rate 

% 

Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & 

Crafts Co., Ltd ................... 88.49 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

All calculations for these final results 

are contained in the Decision 

Memorandum and have been thereby 

disclosed.4

Assessment Rates 

Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon 

issuance of the final results, we shall 

determine, and the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, 

countervailing duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review. We 

intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 

days after publication of these final 

results of this review in the Federal 

Register. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

We intend to instruct CBP to collect 

cash deposits of countervailing duties in 

the amount shown above for Bestpak. 

For all non-reviewed firms, we will 

instruct CBP to continue to collect cash 

deposits of estimated countervailing 

duties at the most recent companyspecific or all-others rate applicable to 

the company. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

This administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.213. 

Dated: December 19, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in 

the Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and 

Adverse Inferences 

A. Application of AFA to Bestpak 

B. Subsidy Rate Chart 

V. Disclosure 

VI. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2014–30390 Filed 12–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–965; C–570–966] 

Drill Pipe From the People’s Republic 

of China: Notice of Court Decision Not 

in Harmony With International Trade 

Commission’s Injury Determination, 

Revocation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders Pursuant 

to Court Decision, and Discontinuation 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 10, 2014, the 

Court of International Trade (CIT) 

entered its final judgment sustaining the 

International Trade Commission’s (ITC) 

remand redetermination that imports of 

drill pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC) do not materially injure or 

threaten to materially injure the United 

States domestic industry. As a result, we 

are notifying the public that this court 

decision is not in harmony with the 

ITC’s original affirmative determination 

that the domestic industry was 

threatened with material injury by 

reason of imports of drill pipe from the 

PRC, and pursuant to the ITC’s 

publication of its negative remand 

redetermination in the Federal Register, 

we are hereby revoking these orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 20, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

Hancock or Kristen Johnson, 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) 482–1394 or (202) 

482–4793, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 3, 2011, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) published 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders on imports of drill pipe from the 

PRC, based, in part, on the final 

affirmative determination of the ITC that 

the domestic industry was threatened 

with material injury by reason of 

imports of drill pipe from the PRC.1


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
78038 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Notices 

2See Downhole Pipe v. United States, CIT No. 

11–00080, Slip Op. 14–130 (November 10, 2014). 

3See sections 516A(c)(1) and (e) of the Act. 

4See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 

United States, 626 F.3d 1374, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 

2010). 

5See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 79 FR 24398 (April 

30, 2014). The Department received a request to 

conduct a countervailing duty administrative 

review from Shanxi Yida Special Steel Imp. & Exp. 

Co., Ltd., a Chinese exporter of drill pipe. 

1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 79 FR 18260 

(April 1, 2014). 

The respondent, Downhole Pipe, a 

Chinese producer of subject 

merchandise, subsequently challenged 

the ITC’s final injury determination in 

Downhole Pipe v. United States, CIT No. 

11–00080, and the ITC reversed its 

injury determination on remand, finding 

no material injury or threat thereof. On 

November 10, 2014, the CIT affirmed 

the ITC’s remand and entered judgment 

in the case.2 Therefore, there is now a 

final CIT decision in the case sustaining 

the ITC’s negative injury determination 

concerning drill pipe from the PRC. The 

November 10, 2014, decision by the CIT 

in Downhole Pipe constitutes a final CIT 

decision that is not in harmony with the 

ITC’s original affirmative injury 

determination. 

Statutory Notice 

In its decision in Timken Co. v. 

United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990), the Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that, 

pursuant to section 516A 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 an ITC determination and must 

suspend liquidation of entries pending 

a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision.3 The 

November 10, 2014, decision by the CIT 

in Downhole Pipe constitutes a final CIT 

decision that is not in harmony with the 

ITC’s original affirmative injury 

determination on drill pipe from the 

PRC. Thus, this notice is published in 

fulfillment of the publication 

requirement in Timken and section 

516A of the Act. 

Accordingly, the Department intends 

to issue instructions to U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend 

liquidation of all unliquidated entries of 

subject merchandise which are entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption after November 20, 2014, 

which is ten days after the court’s 

decision in accordance with section 

516A of the Act. Pursuant to Timken, all 

entries entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption after 

November 20, 2014, that remains 

unliquidated, will be suspended during 

the pendency of the appeals process so 

that they may be liquidated in 

accordance with the ‘‘conclusive’’ court 

decision. 

Revocation of the Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders and 

Discontinuation of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review 

The ITC published notice of its 

negative determination in the Federal 

Register, pursuant to sections 705(d) 

and 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act).4 See International 

Trade Commission, Investigation Nos. 

701–TA–474 and 731–TA–1176 (Final 

Remand): Drill Pipe and Drill Collars 

from China, 79 FR 75592 (December 18, 

2014); sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the 

Act (‘‘. . . the Commission . . . shall 

publish notice of its determination in 

the Federal Register.’’). 

Pursuant to sections 705(c)(2) and 

735(c)(2) of the Act, ‘‘the investigation 

shall be terminated upon publication of 

that negative determination’’ and the 

Department shall ‘‘terminate the 

suspension of liquidation’’ and ‘‘release 

any bond or other security, and refund 

any cash deposit.’’ Sections 705(c)(2)(A) 

and (B) of the Act; sections 735(c)(2)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. As a result of the 

ITC’s publication, the Department is 

hereby revoking the antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders and releasing 

any bonds or other security and 

refunding cash deposits. 

While sections 705(c)(2)(A) and 

735(c)(2)(A) of the Act instruct the 

Department to terminate suspension of 

liquidation, here, because suspension of 

liquidation must continue during the 

pendency of the appeals process (in 

accordance with Timken and as 

discussed above), we will instruct CBP 

at this time to (A) continue suspension 

at a cash deposit rate of 0.0 percent until 

instructed otherwise; and (B) release 

any bond or other security, and refund 

any cash deposit made pursuant to Drill 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 

11757 (March 3, 2011); Drill Pipe from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 11758 

(March 3, 2011). In the event the court’s 

ruling in Downhole Pipe is not 

appealed, or if appealed and upheld by 

the CAFC, the Department will instruct 

CBP to terminate the suspension of 

liquidation and to liquidate those 

entries of subject merchandise without 

regard to antidumping or countervailing 

duties. Notwithstanding the continued 

suspension described above, the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders on drill pipe from the PRC are 

hereby revoked. As a result of this 

revocation, the Department is 

discontinuing the ongoing 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order covering the 

period January 1, 2013, through 

December 31, 2013,5 and will not 

initiate any new administrative reviews 

of the antidumping and countervailing 

duty orders. 

This notice is published pursuant to 

section 516A of the Act. See sections 

516A(c)(1) and (e). 

Dated: December 18, 2014. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30384 Filed 12–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–821–811] 

Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium 

Nitrate From the Russian Federation: 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2013–2014 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 29, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood or David Crespo, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office II, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3874 and (202) 482–3693, 

respectively. 

Background: 

On April 1, 2014, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative 

Review’’ of the antidumping duty order 

on solid fertilizer grade ammonium 

nitrate (ammonium nitrate) from the 

Russian Federation (Russia) covering 

the period of review of April 1, 2013, 

through March 31, 2014.1 During the 

anniversary month of April 2014, the 

Department received a timely request, in 

accordance with section 751(a) of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES