90 FR 135 pgs. 33368-33369 - Aluminum Extrusions From China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
Type: NOTICEVolume: 90Number: 135Pages: 33368 - 33369
Pages: 33368, 33369Docket number: [A-570-967]
FR document: [FR Doc. 2025-13389 Filed 7-16-25; 8:45 am]
Agency: Commerce Department
Sub Agency: International Trade Administration
Official PDF Version: PDF Version
[top]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-967]
Aluminum Extrusions From China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
AGENCY:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY:
On July 9, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in Kingtom Aluminio, S.R.L., et al v. United States, Consol. Court No. 22-00072, sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)'s first remand results pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the period of review (POR) May 1, 2019, through April 30, 2020. 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 Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L. (Kingtom).
DATES:
Applicable July 19, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Hedberg, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0955.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 8, 2022, Commerce published its Final Results in the 2019-2020 AD administrative review of aluminum extrusions from China. 1 In the Final Results, Commerce rejected Kingtom's claim that it had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. 2 Specifically, Commerce found that Kingtom did have entries of subject merchandise during the POR because U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had recategorized Kingtom's entries as type 03 ( i.e., entry for consumption subject to AD/CVD duties) based upon its determination of evasion. 3 Commerce made it clear in both the Preliminary Results and the Final Results that treatment of the entries under review as type 03 was made to be consistent with CBP's determinations of evasion and the resultant recategorization of Kingtom's entries. 4 As such, Commerce found that Kingtom did not provide the required evidence of a sale of subject merchandise in its separate rate application and, therefore, that it did not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate. 5 Accordingly, Commerce applied to Kingtom the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to the China-wide entity. 6
Footnotes:
1 ? See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019-2020, 87 FR 7098 (February 8, 2022) ( Final Results ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM).
2 ? Id.
3 ? See Final Results IDM at 9-12.
4 ? Id.
5 ? Id.
6 ? Id.
Kingtom appealed Commerce's Final Results. On August 1, 2022, the CIT granted Commerce's request to stay Kingtom's appeal pending the outcome of remand proceedings in the two cases involving the EAPA determinations, Global Aluminum and H&E Home. 7 On November 6, 2024, the CIT granted Commerce's request for a voluntary remand of the Final Results. 8 In its Request for Voluntary Remand, Commerce cited the CIT's decisions sustaining CBP's determinations to reverse its affirmative evasion finding with respect to Kingtom. 9 The CIT granted Commerce's request to reconsider its Final Results in light of the remand results in Global Aluminum and H&E Home.
Footnotes:
7 ? See Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L., et al v. United States, Court No. 22-00072, ECF No. 33 (August 1, 2022) (citing Global Aluminum Distrib. LLC v. United States, 585 F.Supp.3d 1338 (CIT 2022) ( Global Aluminum ); and H&E Home, Inc. v. United States, 714 F.Supp.3d 1353 (CIT 2024) ( H&E Home ).
8 ? See Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L., et al. v. United States, Court No. 22-00072, ECF No. 49 (November 6, 2024) ( Remand Order ).
9 ? See Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L., et al v. United States, Court No. 22-00072, ECF No. 48 (October 18, 2024) ( Request for Voluntary Remand ) (citing Global Aluminum and H&E Home ).
In its final remand redetermination, issued March 5, 2025, Commerce reviewed its Final Results in light of Global Aluminum and H&E Home, 10 accepting Kingtom's certification of no shipments? 11 and determining that Kingtom had no dutiable entries to the United States during the POR. The CIT sustained Commerce's final remand redetermination. 12
Footnotes:
10 ? See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Kingtom Aluminio, S.R.L., et al v. United States, Court No. 22-00072, dated March 5, 2025 (Final Redetermination).
11 ? See Kingtom's Letter, "Certification of No Sales, Shipments, or Entries," dated August 10, 2020.
12 ? See Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L., et al v. United States, Court No. 22-00072, Slip Op. 25-86 (July 9, 2025).
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 13 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 14 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(c) and (e) 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 July 9, 2025, 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.
Footnotes:
13 ? See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ( Timken ).
14 ? See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ( Diamond Sawblades ).
Amended Final Results
[top] Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its Final Results with respect to Kingtom as follows: (1) we are accepting Kingtom's no shipments certification and making a final determination of no shipments with respect to Kingtom, and (2) because there are no reviewable entries
Cash Deposit Requirements
Kingtom did not receive a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, and because we find that Kingtom had no shipments during the POR, we have not revised the cash deposit rate for Kingtom. As such, the China-wide entity rate of 86.01 percent continues to apply to Kingtom as a Chinese exporter. 15 Accordingly, Commerce will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP.
Footnotes:
15 ?Kingtom does not have a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been no final results published in a subsequent administrative review of the AD order on aluminum extrusions from China in which Kingtom was under review.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from liquidating entries that: were produced and/or exported by Kingtom, and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period May 1, 2019 through April 30, 2020. 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 Kingtom in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). 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, 16 we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice in non-market economy cases, where we have determined that an exporter under review had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under the exporter's case number ( i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the China-wide rate. 17
Footnotes:
16 ? See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
17 ? See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011); see also Final Results, 87 FR at 7099.
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: July 11, 2025.
Christopher Abbott,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2025-13389 Filed 7-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P