91 FR 44815 · published 2026-07-17
· Commerce Department, International Trade Administration
Mirrored from the Federal Register (retrieved 2026-08-08) —
the official copy is at federalregister.gov
(their site may ask for human verification).
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that producers/exporters subject to this review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), August 1, 2024, through July 31, 2025. In addition, we are rescinding the review with respect to T.T. International Co., Ltd. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44815-44819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-14470]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-028]
Hydrofluorocarbon Blends From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 2024-2025
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily
determines that producers/exporters subject to this review made sales
of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of
review (POR), August 1, 2024, through July 31, 2025. In addition, we
are rescinding the review with respect to T.T. International Co., Ltd.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results
of review.
DATES: Applicable July 17, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroline Carroll, AD/CVD Operations,
Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4948.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 25, 2025, based on a timely request for review, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) blends
from the People's Republic of China (China).\1\ Due to the lapse in
appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025,
Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47
days.\2\ Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were
electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS)
during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce
tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21
days.\3\
\1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 90 FR 46173 (September 25, 2025) (Initiation
Notice); see also Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from the People's
Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 81 FR 55436 (August 19,
2016) (Order).
\2\ See Memorandum, ``Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the
Federal Government,'' dated November 14, 2025.
\3\ See Memorandum, ``Tolling of all Case Deadlines,'' dated
November 24, 2025.
Scope of the Order
The products subject to the Order are HFC blends. See Appendix I
for the full description of the scope.
Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to
rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty order where it
concludes that there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise
during the POR.\4\ Normally, upon completion of an administrative
review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the antidumping duty
assessment rate for the review period.\5\ Therefore, for an
administrative review to be conducted, there must be a reviewable,
suspended entry that Commerce can instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to liquidate at the calculated antidumping duty
assessment rate for the review period.\6\Commerce notified all
interested parties of its intent to rescind the instant review for T.T.
International Co., Ltd. (TTI) because there were no reviewable,
suspended entries of subject merchandise from TTI during the POR and
invited interested parties to comment.\7\ We received no comments on
this memorandum. In the absence of any suspended entries of subject
merchandise from TTI during the POR, we are rescinding this
administrative review for TTI, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
\4\ See, e.g., Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to Length
Plate from the Federal Republic of Germany: Recission of Antidumping
Administrative Review; 2020-2021, 88 FR 4154 (January 24, 2023).
\5\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\6\ See, e.g., Shanghai Sunbeauty Trading Co. v. United States,
380 F.Supp.3d 1328, 1337 (CIT 2019), at 12 (referring to section
751(a) of the Act, the U.S. Court of International Trade held that
``{w{time} hile the statute does not explicitly require that an
entry be suspended as a prerequisite for establishing entitlement to
a review, it does explicitly state the determined rate will be used
as the liquidation rate for the reviewed entries. This result can
only obtain if the liquidation of entries has been suspended''; see
also Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Final Determination of No Shipments; 2018-2019, 86 FR 36102 (July 8,
2021), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4;
and Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian
Federation: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 77 FR 65532 (October 29, 2012) (noting that ``for an
administrative review to be conducted, there must be a reviewable,
suspended entry to be liquidated at the newly calculated assessment
rate'').
\7\ See Memorandum, ``Notice of Intent to Rescind Review, In
Part,'' dated March 9, 2026.
Methodology
Commerce considers China to be an non-market economy (NME)
country.\8\ In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in
effect until revoked by the administering authority. Therefore, for
these preliminary results, we treated China as an NME country and
applied our current NME methodology in accordance with section 773(c)
of the Act.
\8\ See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Aluminum Foil
from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value and Postponement of
Final Determination, 82 FR 50858, 50861 (November 2, 2017), and
accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM) at 7-8 (citing
Memorandum, ``China's Status as a Non-Market Economy,'' dated
October 26, 2017), unchanged in Certain Aluminum Foil from the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value,83 FR 9282 (March 5, 2018).
Separate Rate Determinations
In a proceeding involving an NME country, Commerce maintains a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, therefore, should be assessed a
single weighted-average dumping margin.\9\ Commerce notified parties in
the Initiation Notice that ``{t{time} he deadline and requirement for
submitting a Separate Rate Application {(SRA){time} applies equally to
NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that
purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.'' \10\
Also in the Initiation Notice, Commerce notified parties of the
application process by which exporters may obtain separate rate status
in this administrative review.\11\ This process requires exporters to
submit an SRA and to demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de
facto government control over their export activities.\12\ In the
Initiation Notice, Commerce required that all firms listed in the
notice ``that wish to qualify for separate rates status in the
administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as
appropriate, either a {SRA{time} or {separate rate certification
(SRC){time} . . .'' \13\
\9\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value,73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24, 2008).
\10\ See Initiation Notice, 90 FR at 46174.
\11\ Id.
\12\ For a description of our practice, see Enforcement and
Compliance's Policy Bulletin No. 05.1, regarding ``Separate-Rates
Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping
Investigations Involving Non-Market Economy Countries,'' (April 5,
2005), available on Commerce's website at https://www.trade.gov/enforcement-and-compliance-policy-bulletins-0.
\13\ See Initiation Notice, 90 FR at 46174.
Commerce's policy is to assign all exporters of merchandise under
consideration that are in an NME country this single rate unless an
exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to
be entitled to a separate rate.\14\ Commerce analyzes whether each
entity exporting the merchandise under consideration is sufficiently
independent under a test established in Sparklers from China \15\ and
further developed in Silicon Carbide from China.\16\ In accordance with
this separate rate test, Commerce will assign a separate rate in an NME
proceeding if a respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure
and de facto government control over its export activities. If,
however, Commerce determines that a company is wholly foreign owned,
then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether
that company is independent from government control and eligible for a
separate rate.
\14\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,56 FR 20588, 20589
(May 6, 1991) (Sparklers from China).
\15\ Id.
\16\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59
FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide from China).
Commerce continues to evaluate its practice with regard to the
separate rates analysis in light of the Diamond Sawblades from China
proceedings and its determinations therein.\17\ In particular, in
litigation involving the Diamond Sawblades from China proceeding, the
U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) found Commerce's existing
separate rates analysis deficient in the circumstances
of that case, in which a government-owned and controlled entity
exercised control over the respondent exporter.\18\ Following the CIT's
reasoning, in recent proceedings, we have concluded that where a
government entity holds a majority equity ownership, either directly or
indirectly, in the respondent exporter, this interest in and of itself
means that the government exercises or has the potential to exercise
control over the company's operations generally.\19\ This may include
control over, for example, the selection of board members and
management, key factors in determining whether a company has sufficient
independence in its export activities to merit a separate rate.
Consistent with our normal separate rate practice, any ability to
control, or possess an interest in controlling, the operations of the
company including the selection of board members, management, and the
profit distribution of the company by a government entity is subject to
Commerce's rebuttable presumption that all companies within the NME
country are subject to government control.
\17\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China, Consol. Court No. 09-00511, Slip Op. 12-147 (CIT
November 30, 2012), dated May 6, 2013, available at https://access.trade.gov/FinalRemandRedetermination, in Advanced Technology
& Materials Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, 885 F.Supp.2d 1343
(CIT 2012) (Advanced Technology I), aff'd Advanced Technology &
Materials Co. v. United States, 938 F.Supp.2d 1342 (CIT 2013), aff'd
Advanced Technology & Materials Co. v. United States, Court No.
2014-1154 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012,78 FR 77098
(December 20, 2013), and accompanying PDM at 7, unchanged in Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-
2012,79 FR 35723 (June 24, 2014), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (collectively, Diamond Sawblades
from China).
\18\ See, e.g., Advanced Technology I, 885 F.Supp.2d at 1349
(CIT 2012) (``The court remains concerned that Commerce has failed
to consider important aspects of the problem and offered
explanations that run counter to the evidence before it.''); Id.,
885 F.Supp.2d at 1351 (``Further substantial evidence of record does
not support the inference that SASAC's {state-owned assets
supervision and administration commission{time} `management' of its
`state-owned assets' is restricted to the kind of passive-investor
de jure `separation' that Commerce concludes.'') (footnotes
omitted); Id., 885 F.Supp.2d at 1355 (``The point here is that
`government control' in the context of the separate rate test
appears to be a fuzzy concept, at least to this court, since a
`degree' of it can obviously be traced from the controlling
shareholder, to the board, to the general manager, and so on along
the chain to `day-to-day decisions of export operations,' including
terms, financing, and inputs into finished product for export.'');
Id., 885 F.Supp.2d at 1357 (``AT&M itself identifies its
`controlling shareholder' as CISRI {owned by SASAC{time} in its
financial statements and the power to veto nomination does not
equilibrate the power of control over nomination.'') (footnotes
omitted).
\19\ See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Preliminary Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, in Part, 79 FR 53169 (September 8, 2014),
and accompanying PDM at 5-9.
In order to demonstrate eligibility for separate rate status,
Commerce normally requires an exporter for which a review was
requested, and which was assigned a separate rate in a previous
completed segment of the proceeding and which remains active for that
exporter, to submit an SRC stating that it continues to meet the
criteria for obtaining a separate rate.\20\ For an exporter that was
not assigned a separate rate in a previously completed segment of the
proceeding and which remains active for that exporter, to demonstrate
eligibility, Commerce requires an SRA.\21\ A company that submits an
SRA or SRC and which is subsequently selected for examination must
respond to all parts of Commerce's questionnaire in order to be
eligible for a separate rate.\22\
\20\ See Initiation Notice, 90 FR at 46174.
\21\ Id.
\22\ Id.
In the Initiation Notice, Commerce stated that submission of SRAs
and SRCs were due 14 days after publication of the notice, i.e.,
October 9, 2025.\23\ Moreover, Commerce specifically noted that
``{t{time} he deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate
Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned
firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise
to the United States.'' \24\ The twelve companies listed in the
appendix to this notice failed to submit an SRA. As such, consistent
with Commerce's practice for when a party fails to submit an SRA or
SRC, we preliminarily find that the twelve companies listed in the
appendix to this notice are not eligible for a separate rate, and,
therefore, are part of the China-wide entity.\25\ Commerce's practice
with respect to an exporter that fails to submit an SRA or SRC has been
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.\26\
Commerce further notes that, because no company in submitted a SRA or
SRC, there are no remaining companies subject to review, including the
China-wide entity.\27\ As a result, Commerce did not need to limit
examination or select respondents. Furthermore, because no company or
the China-wide entity were eligible for examination in this review,
Commerce did not issue a questionnaire.
\23\ Id.
\24\ Id.
\25\ See e.g., Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether
or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final
Determination of No Shipments; 2012-2013, 80 FR 40998 (July 14,
2015) (treating a company as part of the China-wide entity for
failure to submit an SRA, and explaining that ``{t{time} he failure
to provide a separate rate certification is not a ministerial error,
but rather, a failure to comply with {Commerce{time} 's well
established separate rate methodology.''); see also, e.g.,
Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019-2020, 86
FR 49516, 49517 (September 3, 2021) (finding that PureMann, Inc.
(PureMann), the sole company subject to the review, did not file an
SRA and did not demonstrate its eligibility for separate rate status
and that, therefore, PureMann was part of the China-wide entity).
\26\ See Repwire LLC v. United States, 628 F.Supp.3d 1288 (CIT
2023), aff'd 2025 WL 2399398 (Fed. Cir. August 19, 2025) (finding
that ``Commerce's actions were reasonable and supported by
substantial evidence'' in a case in which Commerce retracted its
issuance of the initial questionnaire and found that Jin Tiong
Electrical Materials Manufacturer PTE. Ltd. was part of the China-
wide entity due to its failure to submit a timely SRA).
\27\ See Initiation Notice, 90 FR at 46180.
The China-Wide Entity
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide
entity applies to this administrative review.\28\ Under this policy,
the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party
specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the
entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity,
the entity is not under review, and the entity's rate (i.e., 216.37
percent) \29\ is not subject to change.
\28\ See 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).
\29\ See Order, 81 FR at 55438.
Preliminary Results of Review
Because the 12 companies listed in Appendix II failed to timely
file either an SRA or SRC in this review, we preliminarily find that
these companies are ineligible for a separate rate and, as such, are
part of the China-wide entity.
Disclosure
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations
performed in preliminary results within 10 days of any public
announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days
of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the
Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However,
because we preliminarily find the companies listed in the appendix to
this notice are a part of the China-wide entity, and subject to the
China-wide entity rate, there are no calculations to disclose.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties
to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the
date of the publication of this notice.\30\ Rebuttal briefs, limited to
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days
after the date for filing case briefs.\31\ Interested
parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding
must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a
table of authorities.\32\
\30\ See 19 CFR 351.309.
\31\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d); see also Administrative Protective
Order, Service, and Other Procedures in Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 88 FR 67069, 67077 (September 29,
2023) (APO and Service Procedures).
\32\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we
request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their
briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their
briefs.\33\ Further, we request that interested parties limit their
public, executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not
including citations. We intend to use the public, executive summaries
as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and
decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this
administrative review. We request that interested parties include
footnotes for relevant citations in the public, executive summary of
each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements
pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).\34\
\33\ We use the term ``issue'' here to describe an argument that
Commerce would normally address in a comment of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
\34\ See APO and Service Procedures.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to
request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via
ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and
whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues
to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to
issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made,
Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.\35\
\35\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in
accordance with the final results of this review.
For the TTI for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit
rate for estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to
CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.
For the final results, if we continue to treat the companies
identified in the appendix to this notice as part of the China-wide
entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of
216.37 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR
which were produced and/or exported by those companies.
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by
the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated
duties, where applicable.
If a timely summons is filed at the CIT, the assessment
instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until
the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has
expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication).
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for
shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for previously
investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters that
received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific
rate; (2) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have
not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate
will be the existing rate for the China-wide entity of 216.37 percent;
and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have
not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Final Results of Review
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final
results of this administrative review, including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in case and rebuttal briefs, within 120 days
of publication of these preliminary results of review in the Federal
Register, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: July 9, 2026.
Christopher Abbott,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Order
HFC blends covered by the scope are R-404A, a zeotropic mixture
consisting of 52 percent 1,1,1-Trifluoroethane, 44 percent
Pentafluoroethane, and 4 percent 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane; R-407A,
a zeotropic mixture of 20 percent Difluoromethane, 40 percent
Pentafluoroethane, and 40 percent 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane; R-407C,
a zeotropic mixture of 23 percent Difluoromethane, 25 percent
Pentafluoroethane, and 52 percent 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane; R-410A,
a zeotropic mixture of 50 percent Difluoromethane and 50 percent
Pentafluoroethane; and R-507A, an azeotropic mixture of 50 percent
Pentafluoroethane and 50 percent 1,1,1-Trifluoroethane also known as
R-507. The foregoing percentages are nominal percentage identified
above.\36\
\36\ R-404A is sold under various trade names, including
Forane[supreg] 404A, Genetron[supreg] 404A, Solkane[supreg] 404A,
Klea[supreg] 404A, and Suva[supreg]404A. R-407A is sold under
various trade names, including Forane[supreg] 407A, Solkane[supreg]
407A, Klea[supreg]407A, and Suva[supreg]407A. R-407C is sold under
various trade names, including Forane[supreg] 407C, Genetron[supreg]
407C, Solkane[supreg] 407C, Klea[supreg] 407C and Suva[supreg] 407C.
R-410A is sold under various trade names, including EcoFluor R410,
Forane[supreg] 410A, Genetron[supreg] R410A and AZ-20,
Solkane[supreg] 410A, Klea[supreg] 410A, Suva[supreg] 410A, and
Puron[supreg]. R-507A is sold under various trade names, including
Forane[supreg] 507, Solkane[supreg] 507, Klea[supreg]507,
Genetron[supreg]AZ-50, and Suva[supreg]507. R-32 is sold under
various trade names, including Solkane[supreg]32, Forane[supreg]32,
and Klea[supreg]32. R-125 is sold under various trade names,
including Solkane[supreg]125, Klea[supreg]125, Genetron[supreg]125,
and Forane[supreg]125. R-143a is sold under various trade names,
including Solkane[supreg]143a, Genetron[supreg]143a, and
Forane[supreg]125.
Any blend that includes an HFC component other than R-32, R-125,
R-143a, or
R-134a is excluded from the scope of the Order.
Excluded from the Order are blends of refrigerant chemicals that
include products other than HFCs, such as blends including
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs),
hydrocarbons (HCs), or hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs).
Also excluded from the Order are patented HFC blends, including,
but not limited to, ISCEON[supreg] blends, including MO99TM (R-
438A), MO79 (R-422A), MO59 (R-417A), MO49PlusTM (R-437A) and MO29TM
(R-4 22D), Genetron[supreg] PerformaxTM LT (R-407F), Choice[supreg]
R-421A, and Choice[supreg] R-421B.
HFC blends covered by the scope of the Order are currently
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) at subheadings 3824.78.0020 and 3824.78.0050. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the scope is dispositive.\37\
\37\ See Order. Certain merchandise has been the subject of
affirmative anti-circumvention determinations by Commerce, pursuant
to section 781 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a
result, the circumventing merchandise is included in the scope of
the Order. See Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from the People's Republic
of China: Final Negative Scope Ruling on Gujarat Fluorochemicals
Ltd.'s R-410A Blend; Affirmative Final Determination of
Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order by Indian Blends
Containing Chinese Components, 85 FR 61930 (October 1, 2020);
Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from the People's Republic of China: Final
Scope Ruling on Unpatented R-421A; Affirmative Final Determination
of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order for Unpatented R-
421A, 85 FR 34416 (June 4, 2020); and Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from
the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of
Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order; Unfinished R-32/R-125
Blends, 85 FR 15428 (March 18, 2020).
Appendix II
Companies Preliminarily Determined To Be Part of the China-Wide Entity
1. A-Gas (Shanghai) Chemical Co., Ltd
2. Best Inc. Limited
3. Dongyang Weihua Refrigerants Co., Ltd.
4. Foshan Midea Carrier
5. Jinhua Slihe Chemical Co. Limited
6. Ningbo Icer Ie Co. Ltd.
7. Superfy Industrial Limited
8. TSR Worldwide Limited
9. Quzhou Rongqiang Chem Co., Ltd.
10. Qingdao Shingchem New Material Co.
11. Zhejiang Boxin Import & Export Co.
12. Zhejiang Jinze Refrigerant Co., Ltd
[FR Doc. 2026-14470 Filed 7-16-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Public-domain US Government work, mirrored verbatim by the Trimtab US Trade Ledger for citation stability. All tariff paper →