Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 46219 

2See also the Enforcement and Compliance Web 

site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/. 

3See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement 

of Change in Department Practice for Respondent 

Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and 

Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy 

Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 

FR 65963 (November 4, 2013). 

4 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties 

should specify that they are requesting a review of 

entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to 

the extent possible, include the names of such 

exporters in their request. 

5See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 

Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 

39263 (July 6, 2011). 

finding or an antidumping or 

countervailing duty order or suspension 

agreement for which it is requesting a 

review. In addition, a domestic 

interested party or an interested party 

described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act 

must state why it desires the Secretary 

to review those particular producers or 

exporters. If the interested party intends 

for the Secretary to review sales of 

merchandise by an exporter (or a 

producer if that producer also exports 

merchandise from other suppliers) 

which was produced in more than one 

country of origin and each country of 

origin is subject to a separate order, then 

the interested party must state 

specifically, on an order-by-order basis, 

which exporter(s) the request is 

intended to cover. 

Note that, for any party the 

Department was unable to locate in 

prior segments, the Department will not 

accept a request for an administrative 

review of that party absent new 

information as to the party’s location. 

Moreover, if the interested party who 

files a request for review is unable to 

locate the producer or exporter for 

which it requested the review, the 

interested party must provide an 

explanation of the attempts it made to 

locate the producer or exporter at the 

same time it files its request for review, 

in order for the Secretary to determine 

if the interested party’s attempts were 

reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.303(f)(3)(ii). 

As explained in Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and NonMarket Economy Antidumping 

Proceedings: Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 

(October 24, 2011), the Department 

clarified its practice with respect to the 

collection of final antidumping duties 

on imports of merchandise where 

intermediate firms are involved. The 

public should be aware of this 

clarification in determining whether to 

request an administrative review of 

merchandise subject to antidumping 

findings and orders.2

The Department no longer considers 

the non-market economy (NME) entity 

as an exporter conditionally subject to 

an antidumping duty administrative 

reviews.3 Accordingly, the NME entity 

will not be under review unless the 

Department specifically receives a 

request for, or self-initiates, a review of 

the NME entity.4 In administrative 

reviews of antidumping duty orders on 

merchandise from NME countries where 

a review of the NME entity has not been 

initiated, but where an individual 

exporter for which a review was 

initiated does not qualify for a separate 

rate, the Department will issue a final 

decision indicating that the company in 

question is part of the NME entity. 

However, in that situation, because no 

review of the NME entity was 

conducted, the NME entity’s entries 

were not subject to the review and the 

rate for the NME entity is not subject to 

change as a result of that review 

(although the rate for the individual 

exporter may change as a function of the 

finding that the exporter is part of the 

NME entity). Following initiation of an 

antidumping administrative review 

when there is no review requested of the 

NME entity, the Department will 

instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all 

exporters not named in the initiation 

notice, including those that were 

suspended at the NME entity rate. 

All requests must be filed 

electronically in Enforcement and 

Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS) on 

Enforcement and Compliance’s ACCESS 

Web site at http://access.trade.gov.5

Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request 

must be served on the petitioner and 

each exporter or producer specified in 

the request. 

The Department will publish in the 

Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation 

of Administrative Review of 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation’’ for requests received by 

the last day of October 2017. If the 

Department does not receive, by the last 

day of October 2017, a request for 

review of entries covered by an order, 

finding, or suspended investigation 

listed in this notice and for the period 

identified above, the Department will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping or 

countervailing duties on those entries at 

a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or 

bond for) estimated antidumping or 

countervailing duties required on those 

entries at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption and to continue to collect 

the cash deposit previously ordered. 

For the first administrative review of 

any order, there will be no assessment 

of antidumping or countervailing duties 

on entries of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption during the relevant 

provisional-measures ‘‘gap’’ period of 

the order, if such a gap period is 

applicable to the period of review. 

This notice is not required by statute 

but is published as a service to the 

international trading community. 

Dated: September 28, 2017. 

James Maeder, 

Senior Director perfoming the duties of 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21339 Filed 10–3–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–016] 

Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light 

Truck Tires From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Court 

Decision Not in Harmony With the 

Amended Final Determination of the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation and 

Notice of Second Amended Final 

Determination 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 25, 2017, the 

United States Court of International 

Trade (CIT or the Court) entered a final 

judgment sustaining the Department of 

Commerce’s (Department) results of 

remand redetermination concerning the 

antidumping duty (AD) investigation of 

certain passenger vehicle and light truck 

tires (passenger tires) from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). The 

Department is notifying the public that 

the Court’s final judgment in this case 

is not in harmony with the Department’s 

amended final determination, and is 

therefore amending that determination 

with respect to the cash deposit rate for 

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Cooper 

(Kunshan) Tire Co., Ltd., and Cooper 

Chengshan (Shandong) Tire Co., Ltd. 

(collectively, Cooper), exporters and 

producers of subject merchandise. 

DATES: Applicable: October 5, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni 

Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, 

Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
46220 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2017 / Notices 

1See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 

Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, In Part, 80 

FR 34893 (June 18, 2015), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum (IDM) (AD Final 

Determination). 

2See Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck 

Tires from the People’s Republic of China: 

Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty 

Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; and 

Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 80 

FR 47902 (August 10, 2015) (First Amended AD 

Final Determination). 

3See Amended AD Final Determination, 80 FR at 

47904. 

4See Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, et al., v. 

United States, Court No. 15–00251, Slip Op. 17–32 

(March 29, 2017) (Remand Order). 

5See Results of Remand Redetermination 

Pursuant to Remand, Court No. 15–00251, dated 

April 13, 2017, available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

remands/17-32.pdf (Results of Remand 

Redetermination). 

6See Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, et al., v. 

United States, Court No. 15–00251, Slip. Op. 17– 

130 (September 25, 2017). 

7See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

8See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 

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

(Diamond Sawblades). 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1398. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 18, 2015, the Department 

published its final determination in the 

AD investigation of passenger tires from 

the PRC.1 On August 10, 2015, the 

Department published an amended final 

determination and the AD order.2 As 

part of the Department’s amended final 

determination, the Department assigned 

a cash deposit rate of 11.12 percent to 

Cooper, which reflected an adjustment 

for export subsidies and estimated 

domestic subsidy pass-through from the 

companion countervailing duty (CVD) 

investigation of passenger tires from the 

PRC.3

On March 29, 2017, the Court 

remanded this case to the Department. 

Specifically, the Court directed the 

Department on remand to determine 

Cooper’s AD cash deposit rate on the 

same basis as all other separate rate 

respondents and to inform the Court of 

the date by which the redetermined 

cash deposit rate would be put into 

effect.4

On April 13, 2017, the Department 

issued its Results of Redetermination,5

recalculating Cooper’s AD cash deposit 

rate by adjusting its weighted-average 

dumping margin downward using the 

export subsidy rate of 13.53 percent. 

This export subsidy rate reflects the 

weighted average of the export subsidies 

received by the mandatory respondents 

in the CVD investigation and made 

applicable to the remaining nonmandatory separate rate respondents in 

the AD investigation. As a result of this 

adjustment, Cooper’s recalculated AD 

cash deposit rate is 8.72 percent. The 

Department informed the Court that it 

intended to place this redetermined 

cash deposit rate into effect by means of 

instructions issued to U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP), with an 

effective date as of the tenth day from 

the date on which the Court issues a 

final judgment sustaining the results of 

redetermination. 

On September 25, 2017, the Court 

sustained the Department’s Results of 

Redetermination in full.6

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,7 as clarified 

by Diamond Sawblades,8 the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit (CAFC) held that, pursuant to 

sections 516A(c) and (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 September 25, 2017, judgment 

sustaining the Department’s decision in 

the Results of Redetermination to recalculate the cash deposit rate for 

Cooper from 11.12 percent to 8.72 

percent, constitutes a final decision of 

the court that is not in harmony with 

the Amended Final Determination. This 

notice is published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Second Amended Final Determination 

Because there is now a final court 

decision, the Department is amending 

the Amended AD Final Determination 

with respect to the cash deposit rate 

calculated for the Cooper entities. Based 

on the Results of Redetermination, as 

affirmed by the CIT in the Cooper 

Remand, the revised cash deposit rate 

for the Cooper companies are as follows: 

Exporter/producer Cash deposit rate 

(percent) 

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company/Cooper Chengshan (Shandong) Tire Co., Ltd ......................................................................... 8.72 

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company/Cooper (Kunshan) Tire Co., Ltd ............................................................................................... 8.72 

Cooper Chengshan (Shandong) Tire Co., Ltd./Cooper Chengshan (Shandong) Tire Co., Ltd ................................................... 8.72 

Cooper (Kunshan) Tire Co., Ltd./Cooper (Kunshan) Tire Co., Ltd ............................................................................................... 8.72 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Since the Amended AD Final 

Determination, the Department has not 

established a new cash deposit rate for 

the above-listed companies. As a result, 

in accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) 

of the Act, the Department will instruct 

CBP to collect a cash deposit of 8.72 

percent for entries of subject 

merchandise exported and produced by 

the above listed companies, effective 

October 5, 2017. Pursuant to the Court’s 

final judgment and order, the 

Department will instruct CBP to issue a 

refund of cash deposits in the amount 

of 2.4 percent on entries of certain 

passenger vehicle and light truck tires 

from the People’s Republic of China 

exported and produced by the abovelisted companies entered on or after 

August 6, 2015 and through and 

including the date of publication in the 

Federal Register of this notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 

735(d), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: September 28, 2017. 

Carole Showers, 

Executive Director, Office of Policy 

performing the duties of the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21343 Filed 10–3–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES