Wooden Bedroom Furniture from The People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony, 1511 [E6-77]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2006 / Notices covered by this review, the cash–deposit rate will continue to be the company– specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash–deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash– deposit rate will be 13.06 percent, the all–others rate established in the 2002– 03 administrative review. See 2002–03 Final Results, 70 FR at 7239. These cash–deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility 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 the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 4, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–103 Filed 1–9–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. International Trade Administration A–570–890 Wooden Bedroom Furniture from The People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of International Trade (‘‘Court’’) sustained the final remand determination made by the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) pursuant to the Court’s remand of the amended final determination of the investigation of wooden bedroom furniture from the People’s Republic of China. See Decca wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:09 Jan 09, 2006 Jkt 208001 Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United States, Ct. No. 05–00002, Slip Op. 05– 161 (Ct. Int’l Trade December 20, 2005) (‘‘Decca Remand II’’). This case arises out of the Department’s Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 67313 (November 17, 2004), as amended, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) (‘‘Final Determination’’). The final judgment in this case was not in harmony with the Department’s January 2005 Final Determination. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0414. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (CIT 2005), the Court remanded the Department’s determination to reject, as untimely, certain information submitted by Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC on behalf of its affiliate Decca Furniture, Ltd. (‘‘Decca’’). Specifically, the Court’s order directed that: In its remand determination Commerce may reopen the record and may find (a) that Decca received actual and timely notice of the Section A Questionnaire requirement, (b) that the evidence Decca presented does not satisfy the evidentiary requirements for a separate rate, or (c) that Decca is entitled to a separate rate. Id. at 1317. On October 25, 2005, the Department issued its draft results of redetermination pursuant to remand for comment by the interested parties. On October 27, 2005, Decca submitted comments in response to the Department’s draft results of redetermination. No other party filed comments in response to the Department’s draft results of redetermination pursuant to remand. On November 7, 2005, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to remand to the Court. The remand redetermination explained that option (a) of the Court’s remand instructions was not a viable option for the Department to pursue because it was not possible for the Department to determine if Decca received actual and timely notice of the Section A Questionnaire requirement. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 1511 Therefore, pursuant to options (b) and (c), the Department reopened the record and allowed Decca to resubmit its July 2, 2004, submission in order to analyze the evidence presented by Decca to determine its eligibility for a separate rate. Additionally, the Department issued two supplemental questionnaires to Decca to address some deficiencies found in Decca’s July 2, 2004, submission. Decca submitted timely and complete responses to these questionnaires. Based on our analysis of Decca’s evidence, we determined that Decca qualifies for a separate rate in the investigation of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, November 7, 2005. On December 20, 2005, the Court found that the Department duly complied with the Court’s remand order and sustained the Department’s remand redetermination. See Decca Remand II. The granting of a separate rate to Decca changes Decca’s antidumping duty rate from the PRC–wide rate of 198.08 percent to the Section A respondent rate of 6.65 percent. Timken Notice In its decision in Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(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 Court’s decision in Decca Remand II on December 20, 2005, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department’s final determination of sales at less than fair value. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, if appealed, upon a final and conclusive court decision. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 20, 2005. Gary S. Taverman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–77 Filed 1–9–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM 10JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 1511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-77]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

International Trade Administration

A-570-890


Wooden Bedroom Furniture from The People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``Court'') sustained the final remand determination made by the 
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') pursuant to the Court's 
remand of the amended final determination of the investigation of 
wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China. See Decca 
Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United States, Ct. No. 05-00002, Slip 
Op. 05-161 (Ct. Int'l Trade December 20, 2005) (``Decca Remand II''). 
This case arises out of the Department's Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 67313 (November 17, 2004), as amended, 70 FR 
329 (January 4, 2005) (``Final Determination''). The final judgment in 
this case was not in harmony with the Department's January 2005 Final 
Determination.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0414.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 391 F. 
Supp. 2d 1298 (CIT 2005), the Court remanded the Department's 
determination to reject, as untimely, certain information submitted by 
Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC on behalf of its affiliate Decca 
Furniture, Ltd. (``Decca''). Specifically, the Court's order directed 
that:
     In its remand determination Commerce may reopen the record and may 
find (a) that Decca received actual and timely notice of the Section A 
Questionnaire requirement, (b) that the evidence Decca presented does 
not satisfy the evidentiary requirements for a separate rate, or (c) 
that Decca is entitled to a separate rate.
Id. at 1317.
    On October 25, 2005, the Department issued its draft results of 
redetermination pursuant to remand for comment by the interested 
parties. On October 27, 2005, Decca submitted comments in response to 
the Department's draft results of redetermination. No other party filed 
comments in response to the Department's draft results of 
redetermination pursuant to remand. On November 7, 2005, the Department 
issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to remand to the 
Court. The remand redetermination explained that option (a) of the 
Court's remand instructions was not a viable option for the Department 
to pursue because it was not possible for the Department to determine 
if Decca received actual and timely notice of the Section A 
Questionnaire requirement. Therefore, pursuant to options (b) and (c), 
the Department reopened the record and allowed Decca to resubmit its 
July 2, 2004, submission in order to analyze the evidence presented by 
Decca to determine its eligibility for a separate rate. Additionally, 
the Department issued two supplemental questionnaires to Decca to 
address some deficiencies found in Decca's July 2, 2004, submission. 
Decca submitted timely and complete responses to these questionnaires. 
Based on our analysis of Decca's evidence, we determined that Decca 
qualifies for a separate rate in the investigation of wooden bedroom 
furniture from the PRC. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 
to Court Remand, November 7, 2005.
    On December 20, 2005, the Court found that the Department duly 
complied with the Court's remand order and sustained the Department's 
remand redetermination. See Decca Remand II. The granting of a separate 
rate to Decca changes Decca's antidumping duty rate from the PRC-wide 
rate of 198.08 percent to the Section A respondent rate of 6.65 
percent.

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(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 Court's decision in Decca 
Remand II on December 20, 2005, constitutes a final decision of that 
court that is not in harmony with the Department's final determination 
of sales at less than fair value. This notice is published in 
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the 
Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject 
merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, if 
appealed, upon a final and conclusive court decision.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 20, 2005.
Gary S. Taverman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-77 Filed 1-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S