46758 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices 

1See Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States, 

Slip Op. 17–105 (CIT August 17, 2017) (Beijing 

Tianhai IV); see also Final Results of 

Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, High 

Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People’s Republic 

of China, Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, Court No. 12–00203, Slip Op. 17–79 (CIT 

July 5, 2017), dated August 3, 2017 (Third Remand 

Redetermination); High Pressure Steel Cylinders 

from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 77 

FR 26739 (May 7, 2012) (Final Determination), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum; 

and High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People’s 

Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 

37377 (June 21, 2012) (Order). 

2See Final Determination, and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23–24. 

3 Id. at 24–26. 

4See Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States, 

7 F. Supp. 3d 1318 (CIT 2014) (Beijing Tianhai I). 

5See Beijing Tianhai I, 7 F. Supp. 3d at 1331– 

32. 

6 Id. at 1332–37. 

7 Id. at 1337. 

8See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, High Pressure Steel Cylinders 

from the People’s Republic of China, Beijing 

Tianhai Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 

12–00203, Slip Op. 14–104 (CIT September 9, 

2014), dated January 7, 2015 (First Remand 

Redetermination). 

9See Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States, 

106 F. Supp. 3d 1342, 1352–56 (CIT 2015) (Beijing 

Tianhai II) 

10 Id. at 1351. 

11 Id. 

59. Orchard View Farms, Inc., The Dalles, OR 

60. Pacific Coast Cherry Packers, LLC, 

Yakima, WA 

61. Peshastin Hi-Up Growers, Peshastin, WA 

62. Phillippi Fruit Company, Inc., 

Wenatchee, WA 

63. Piepel Premium Fruit Packing LLC, East 

Wenatchee, WA 

64. Polehn Farm’s Inc., The Dalles, OR 

65. Price Cold Storage & Packing Co., Inc., 

Yakima, WA 

66. Pride Packing Company, Wapato, WA 

67. Quincy Fresh Fruit Co., Quincy, WA 

68. Rainier Fruit Company, Selah, WA 

69. Roche Fruit, Ltd., Yakima, WA 

70. Sage Fruit Company, L.L.C., Yakima, WA 

71. Smith & Nelson, Inc., Tonasket, WA 

72. Stadelman Fruit, L.L.C., MiltonFreewater, OR, and Zillah, WA 

73. Stemilt Growers, LLC, Wenatchee, WA 

74. Strand Apples, Inc., Cowiche, WA 

75. Symms Fruit Ranch, Inc., Caldwell, ID 

76. The Dalles Fruit Company, LLC, 

Dallesport, WA 

77. Underwood Fruit & Warehouse Co., 

Bingen, WA 

78. Valicoff Fruit Co., Inc., Wapato, WA 

79. Valley Fruit III L.L.C., Wapato, WA 

80. Washington Cherry Growers, Peshastin, 

WA 

81. Washington Fruit & Produce Co., Yakima, 

WA 

82. Western Sweet Cherry Group, LLC, 

Yakima, WA 

83. Western Traders LLC, E. Wenatchee, WA 

84. Whitby Farms, Inc. dba: Farm Boy Fruit 

Snacks LLC, Mesa, WA 

85. Yakima Fresh, Yakima, WA 

86. Yakima Fruit & Cold Storage Co., Yakima, 

WA 

87. Zirkle Fruit Company, Selah, WA 

Dated: October 2, 2017. 

Joseph E. Flynn, 

Director, Office of Trade and Economic 

Analysis, International Trade Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21557 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–977] 

High Pressure Steel Cylinders From 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Court Decision Not in Harmony With 

Final Determination in Less Than Fair 

Value Investigation, Notice of 

Amended Final Determination 

Pursuant to Court Decision, Notice of 

Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order 

in Part, and Discontinuation of Fifth 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On August 17, 2017, the Court 

of International Trade (CIT or Court) 

sustained the Department of 

Commerce’s (Department) remand 

redetermination pertaining to the final 

determination in the less than fair value 

(LTFV) investigation of high pressure 

steel cylinders from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). Because of the 

CIT’s final decision, we are notifying the 

public that this court decision is not in 

harmony with the Department’s final 

determination in the LTFV 

investigation, and we are also amending 

our final determination, revoking this 

antidumping duty order, in part, and 

discontinuing the fifth administrative 

review. 

DATES: Applicable August 27, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Annathea Cook, AD/CVD Operations 

Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0250. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

As noted above, on August 17, 2017, 

the CIT sustained the Department’s 

Third Remand Redetermination 

pertaining to the final determination in 

the less than fair value (LTFV) 

investigation of high pressure steel 

cylinders from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC).1 In the underlying LTFV 

investigation, the Department found 

that, pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(Act), ‘‘there was a pattern of prices that 

differ significantly by time period’’ for 

respondent Beijing Tianhai Industry 

Co., Ltd. (BTIC), and that ‘‘application 

of the standard A-to-A {(average-toaverage)} methodology would result in 

the masking of dumping that is 

unmasked by application of the 

alternative A-to-T {(average-totransaction)} methodology when 

calculating BTIC’s weighted-average 

dumping margin.’’ 2 In the Final 

Determination, the Department 

calculated BTIC’s estimated weightedaverage dumping margin using the A-toT comparison method, applied to all of 

BTIC’s export sales.3 In Beijing Tianhai 

I,4 the CIT held that the Department’s 

explanation of its ‘‘meaningful 

difference’’ analysis in the Final 

Determination was insufficient to satisfy 

the explanation requirement under 

section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, and 

also found that ‘‘the explanation ignores 

the potential use of the {transaction-totransaction} methodology entirely.’’ 5

With respect to BTIC’s challenge to the 

Department’s application of the A-to-T 

methodology to all of BTIC’s export 

sales as being inconsistent with 19 CFR 

351.414(f), a regulation BTIC alleged 

had been inappropriately withdrawn, 

the CIT also held that ‘‘even if the 

Department’s withdrawal of 19 CFR 

351.414(f) (2007) was in violation of the 

APA’s {(Administrative Procedure Act)} 

notice and comment requirement, that 

error was harmless as it relates to the 

plaintiff in this case,’’ and also that ‘‘the 

Department need not adhere to the 

requirements of 19 CFR 351.414(f) 

(2007).’’ 6 The Court deferred resolution 

of several other issues pertaining to the 

Department’s targeted dumping analysis 

and application of the A-to-T 

comparison method when determining 

BTIC’s estimated weighted-average 

dumping margin in Beijing Tianhai I.7

Following the Department’s First 

Remand Redetermination,8 the CIT in 

Beijing Tianhai II sustained the 

Department’s Final Determination as to 

the other issues that BTIC challenged, 

for which the CIT had deferred 

consideration in Beijing Tianhai I.9

However, with regard to the 

Department’s ‘‘meaningful difference’’ 

analysis and the further analysis the 

Department provided in the First 

Remand Redetermination on that issue, 

the CIT held that ‘‘the Department has 

chosen a narrative rather than an 

explanation,’’ and ‘‘failed to satisfy the 

requirements of the statute.’’ 10 The 

Court again remanded that issue to the 

Department.11


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices 46759 

12Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 

Court Remand, High Pressure Steel Cylinders from 

the People’s Republic of China, Beijing Tianhai 

Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 12– 

00203, Slip Op. 15–114 (CIT October 14, 2015), 

dated February 8, 2016 (Second Remand 

Redetermination). 

13See Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 

846 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Mid Continent Nail). 

14See Beijing Tianhai III at 17–18. 

15See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27416 (1997). 

16See Beijing Tianhai III at 17–18. 

17See Third Remand Redetermination at 6 & n. 

28. 

18 Id. at 6–8. 

19 Id. at 7. 

20 Id. 

21 Id. at 7–8. 

22 Id. at 7. 

23See Beijing Tianhai IV at 2. 

24See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 

341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

25See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. 

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

(Diamond Sawblades). 

26Section 733(b)(3) of the Act defines de minimis 

dumping margin as ‘‘less than 2 percent ad valorem 

or the equivalent specific rate for the subject 

merchandise.’’ 

27See sections 735(c)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

The Department filed its Second 

Remand Redetermination with the Court 

on February 8, 2016,12 in which the 

Department provided further 

explanation as to its ‘‘meaningful 

difference’’ analysis under section 

777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. However, 

while the Department’s Second Remand 

Redetermination was pending before the 

CIT, the Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held 

that the Department’s 2008 withdrawal 

of the Limiting Regulation did not 

comply with the notice-and-comment 

provision of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, and that not following 

this provision could not be excused as 

harmless error.13 BTIC subsequently 

moved in the Beijing Tianhai CIT 

proceeding for the CIT to reconsider its 

prior holding in Beijing Tianhai I on the 

status of the withdrawn regulation in 

this case. In Beijing Tianhai III, based on 

Mid Continent Nail, the CIT held that 

the Limiting Regulation (i.e., 19 CFR 

351.414(f)(2) (2007)) was in effect at the 

time the Department issued the final 

determination in the original 

investigation.14 The Limiting Regulation 

provided, in pertinent part: ‘‘Where the 

criteria for identifying targeted dumping 

. . . are satisfied, the {Department} 

normally will limit the application of 

the average-to-transaction {(A-to-T)} 

method to those sales that constitute 

targeted dumping under {19 CFR 

351.414(f)(1)(i)}.’’ 15 On remand, the 

Department was ordered by the CIT to 

‘‘reconsider: (1) Its determination that 

{section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act} 

may be satisfied by applying a 

‘meaningful difference’ analysis that 

relies on 100 percent of BTIC’s U.S. 

sales; and (2) should it continue to 

determine that using the {A-to-T} 

method is appropriate, the scope of 

BTIC’s U.S. sales to which the {A-to-T} 

method applies, and revise its dumping 

margin calculations as may be 

appropriate.’’ 16

In accordance with the Court’s 

instructions in Beijing Tianhai III and in 

light of the CIT’s holding that the 

Limiting Regulation applied in this 

investigation, the Department issued the 

Third Remand Redetermination, which 

it filed with the CIT on August 4, 2017. 

In the Third Remand Redetermination, 

we reconsidered our meaningful 

difference analysis under section 

777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, as that 

analysis was explained in the Second 

Remand Redetermination.17 As part of 

reconsidering our meaningful difference 

analysis, we recalculated BTIC’s A-to-T 

margin in a manner consistent with the 

Limiting Regulation by applying the Ato-T comparison methodology only to 

BTIC’s targeted sales (and applying the 

A-to-A methodology to all other 

transactions), which resulted in a 

calculated margin of zero.18 BTIC’s 

calculated margin using the A-to-A 

methodology for all transactions was 

also zero.19 In applying section 

777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we found 

that there was no meaningful difference 

in BTIC’s antidumping margins using 

the two aforementioned comparison 

methodologies.20 Consequently, in the 

Third Remand Redetermination, we 

explained that ‘‘the A-to-A method can 

account for BTIC’s prices which differ 

significantly’’ and ‘‘determined that 

BTIC’s weighted-average dumping 

margin is now zero.’’ 21 The Department 

also explained that ‘‘as no other aspect 

of our Final Determination is being 

challenged, we have not made changes 

to the margins for any other entity.’’ 22

The CIT sustained the Third Remand 

Redetermination in Beijing Tianhai IV 

on August 17, 2017.23

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,24 as 

clarified in Diamond Sawblades,25 the 

Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to 

section 516A(e) of 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 August 17, 2017, final 

judgment sustaining the Third Remand 

Redetermination constitutes a final 

decision of the CIT that is not in 

harmony with the Department’s Final 

Determination. This notice is published 

in fulfillment of the publication 

requirements in Timken. 

Amended Final Determination 

Because there is now a final court 

decision, the Department is amending 

the Final Determination with respect to 

BTIC: 

Exporter Producer 

Estimated 

weighted-average 

dumping margin 

(percent) 

Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd ......................... Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd ............................................................... 0.00 

Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd ......................... Tianjin Tianhai High Pressure Container Co., Ltd .................................... 0.00 

Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd ......................... Langfang Tianhai High Pressure Container Co., Ltd ................................ 0.00 

Partial Exclusion From Antidumping 

Duty Order and Discontinuation of 

Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

Pursuant to section 735(a)(4) of the 

Act, the Department ‘‘shall disregard 

any weighted average dumping margin 

that is de minimis as defined in section 

733(b)(3) of the Act.’’ 26 Furthermore, 

and pursuant to section 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.’’ 27 As a result of this 

amended final determination, in which 

the Department has calculated an 

estimated weighted-average dumping 

margin of 0.00 percent for BTIC, the 

Department is hereby excluding 

merchandise from the above three 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
46760 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices 

28See Third Remand Redetermination at 8. There 

continues to be a countervailing duty order 

covering BTIC’s entries. This countervailing duty 

order is unaffected by this Timken notice and notice 

of amended final determination. See High Pressure 

Cylinders from the People’s Republic of China: 

Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 37384 (June 21, 

2012). 

29See 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, 79 FR 78037, 78038 

(December 29, 2014) (Drill Pipe). 

30See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 

35749 (August 1, 2017). 

31See Drill Pipe, 79 FR at 78038; see also Certain 

Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Notice 

of Court Decision Not in Harmony with the Final 

Determination and Amended Final Determination 

of the Less Than Fair Value Investigation, 80 FR 

77316 (December 14, 2015). 

1See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, 

Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, and 

Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review; 2014, 82 FR 32678 (July 17, 

2017) (Final Results) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum (Decision Memorandum). 

2See Canadian Solar Letter, ‘‘Crystalline Silicon 

Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into 

Modules from the People’s Republic of China: 

Ministerial Error Comments,’’ dated July 28, 2017 

(Canadian Solar Ministerial Comments). 

3See the Decision Memorandum for a full 

description of the scope of the order. 

4See Memorandum, ‘‘Administrative Review of 

the Countervailing Duty Order on Crystalline 

Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not 

Assembled Into Modules, from the People’s 

Republic of China: Ministerial Error Comments 

Regarding the Final Results,’’ dated concurrently 

with and hereby adopted by this notice (Ministerial 

Error Memorandum). 

producer/exporter chains from the 

antidumping duty Order: 28

Accordingly, the Department will direct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to release any bonds or other 

security and refund cash deposits 

pertaining to any suspended entries 

from the three aforementioned 

producer-exporter combinations. This 

exclusion does not apply beyond the 

three producer-exporter combinations 

referenced above. 

We note, however, that pursuant to 

Timken the suspension of liquidation 

must continue during the pendency of 

the appeals process. Thus, we will 

instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of 

all unliquidated entries from the three 

aforementioned producer-exporter 

combinations at a cash deposit rate of 

0.00 percent which are entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption after August 27, 2017, 

which is ten days after the CIT’s final 

decision, in accordance with section 

516A of the Act.29 If the CIT’s ruling is 

not appealed, or if appealed and upheld, 

the Department will instruct CBP to 

terminate the suspension of liquidation 

and to liquidate entries subject to the 

three producer-exporter combination 

rates stated above without regard to 

antidumping duties. As a result of the 

exclusion, the Department is 

discontinuing the ongoing fifth 

administrative review covering the 

period June 1, 2016, through May 31, 

2017, which only pertains to BTIC’s 

entries during that period of review,30

and the Department will not initiate any 

new administrative reviews of BTIC’s 

entries pursuant to the antidumping 

Order.31

Lastly, we note that, at this time, the 

Department remains enjoined by Court 

order from liquidating entries that were 

exported by BTIC, and were entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption during the period 

December 16, 2011, through May 31, 

2016. These entries will remain 

enjoined pursuant to the terms of the 

injunction during the pendency of any 

appeals process. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(c)(1) and 

(e) of the Act. 

Dated: September 29, 2017. 

Carole Showers, 

Executive Director, Office of Policy 

performing the non-exclusive functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21582 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–980] 

Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, 

Whether or Not Assembled Into 

Modules, From the People’s Republic 

of China: Amended Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review; 2014 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is amending the final 

results of the countervailing duty 

administrative review of crystalline 

silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or 

not assembled into modules (solar 

cells), from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC) to correct ministerial 

errors. The period of review (POR) is 

January 1, 2014, through December 31, 

2014. 

DATES: Applicable October 6, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office VII, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

202–482–3586. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In accordance with section 751(a)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), on 

July 17, 2017, the Department published 

its final results in the countervailing 

duty administrative review of solar cells 

from the PRC.1 On July 28, 2017, 

Canadian Solar Manufacturing 

(Changshu) Inc. and its cross-owned 

affiliates (collectively, Canadian Solar) 

timely alleged that the Department 

made two ministerial errors in the Final 

Results.2 No other parties submitted 

ministerial error allegations or 

comments on Canadian Solar’s 

allegations. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic 

cells, and modules, laminates, and 

panels, consisting of crystalline silicon 

photovoltaic cells, whether or not 

partially or fully assembled into other 

products, including, but not limited to, 

modules, laminates, panels and building 

integrated materials. The merchandise 

covered by this order is currently 

classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 

8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, 

and 8501.31.8000. While these HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope, which 

is contained in the Decision 

Memorandum accompanying the Final 

Results, is dispositive.3

Ministerial Errors 

Section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.224(f) define a ‘‘ministerial error’’ as 

an error ‘‘in addition, subtraction, or 

other arithmetic function, clerical error 

resulting from inaccurate copying, 

duplication, or the like, and any other 

similar type of unintentional error 

which the Secretary considers 

ministerial.’’ As discussed in the 

Department’s Ministerial Error 

Memorandum, the Department finds 

that the errors alleged by Canadian Solar 

constitute ministerial errors within the 

meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f).4

Specifically, we made ministerial errors 

with regard to calculating the benefit 

Canadian Solar received from the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES