Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination and Amended Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 44029-44031 [2015-18214]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices
Frequency of Responses: Annually.
Comments: Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the Agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
All responses to this notice will be
summarized and included in the request
to OMB for approval. All comments will
become a matter of public record.
Done in Washington, DC, this 10th day of
July, 2015.
Ann Bartuska,
Deputy Under Secretary, Research,
Education, and Economics.
[FR Doc. 2015–18058 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Utilities Service
Information Collection Activity;
Comment Request
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), the
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites
comments on this information
collection for which RUS intends to
request approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received by September 22, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director,
Program Development and Regulatory
Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400
Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522,
Room 5181, South Building,
Washington, DC 20250–1522.
Telephone: (202) 690–4492. FAX: (202)
720–4120.
Email: Thomas.Dickson@
wdc.usda.gov.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
The Office
of Management and Budget’s (OMB)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:59 Jul 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13) requires
that interested members of the public
and affected agencies have an
opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping activities
(see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice
identifies an information collection that
RUS is submitting to OMB for
reinstatement.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
the Agency’s estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology. Comments may be sent to:
Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director,
Program Development and Regulatory
Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522,
1400 Independence Ave. SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–1522. FAX:
(202) 720–8435.
Title: Lien Accommodations and
Subordinations, 7 CFR 1717, Subparts R
& S.
OMB Control Number: 0572–0100.
Type of Request: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Abstract: The RE Act of 1936, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.),
authorizes and empowers the
Administrator of RUS to make loans in
the several United States and Territories
of the United States for rural
Electrification and the furnishing of
electric energy to persons in rural areas
who are not receiving central station
service. The RE Act also authorizes and
empowers the Administrator of RUS to
provide financial assistance to
borrowers for purposes provided in the
RE Act by accommodating or
subordinating loans made by the
national Rural Utilities Cooperative
Finance Corporation, the Federal
Financing Bank, and other lending
agencies. Title 7 CFR part 1717,
subparts R & S sets forth policy and
procedures to facilitate and support
borrowers’ efforts to obtain private
sector financing of their capital needs,
to allow borrowers greater flexibility in
the management of their business affairs
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44029
without compromising RUS loan
security, and to reduce the cost to
borrowers, in terms of time, expenses
and paperwork, of obtaining lien
accommodations and subordinations.
The information required to be
submitted is limited to necessary
information that would allow the
Agency to make a determination on the
borrower’s request to subordinate and
accommodate their lien with other
lenders.
Estimate of Burden: Public Reporting
burden for this collection of information
is estimated to average 19 hours per
response.
Respondents: Not-for-profit
institutions; Business or other for profit.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
21.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Respondent: 1.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 290 hours.
Copies of this information collection
can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal,
Program Development and Regulatory
Analysis, at (202) 720–7853. FAX: (202)
720–8435.
All responses to this notice will be
summarized and included in the request
for OMB approval. All comments will
also become a matter of public record.
Dated: July 16, 2015.
Brandon McBride,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–18111 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–970]
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Court Decision Not in Harmony With
the Final Determination and Amended
Final Determination of the
Antidumping Duty Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 6, 2015, the United
States Court of International Trade
(‘‘CIT’’) issued Changzhou Hawd
Flooring Co. v. United States, Ct. No.
12–20, Slip Op. 15–71 (CIT July 6,
2015), affirming the Department of
Commerce’s (the ‘‘Department’’)
amended final determination of sales at
less than fair value in the antidumping
duty investigation on multilayered
wood flooring from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘Amended Final
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM
24JYN1
44030
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices
Determination’’),1 as modified by the
Department’s fourth remand
redetermination pursuant to court order.
Consistent with the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken Co.
v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (‘‘Timken’’), as clarified by
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’), the
Department is notifying the public that
the Court’s final judgment in this case
is not in harmony with the Amended
Final Determination, and that the
Department is revising its Amended
Final Determination.
DATES: Effective Date: July 16, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Galantucci and Brandon
Farlander, Office IV, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–2923 and (202)
482–0182, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
The litigation in this case relates to
the Department’s final determination in
the antidumping duty investigation
covering multilayered wood flooring
from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’),2 which was later amended.3
Pursuant to a series of remand orders
issued by the CIT 4 that resulted in four
remand redeterminations,5 the
Department: (1) Revised its calculation
of dumping margins for two mandatory
respondents and the PRC-wide entity;
and (2) the Department made certain
findings regarding the dumping margins
1 See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 64318
(October 18, 2011) (‘‘Final Determination’’);
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s
Republic of China: Amended Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping
Duty Order, 76 FR 76690 (December 8, 2011)
(‘‘Amended Final Determination’’).
2 See Final Determination, 76 FR at 64318.
3 See Amended Final Determination, 76 FR at
76690.
4 See Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co.,
Ltd. v. United States, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (CIT
July 31, 2013); Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan)
Co., Ltd. v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (CIT
March 31, 2014); Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v.
United States, 44 F. Supp. 3d 1376 (CIT January 23,
2015).
5 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Order, Court No. 12–00007, dated
November 14, 2013; Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Court No.
12–00007, dated May 29, 2014; Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Court No.
12–00020, dated October 14, 2014; and Final
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Order, Court No. 12–00020, dated March 24, 2015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:59 Jul 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
for eight separate rate respondents that
were plaintiffs in the litigation, as
summarized below.6
Regarding the dumping margins for
two mandatory respondents in the
investigation, on April 23, 2014, the CIT
granted a consent motion for severance
and entered final judgment in Baroque
Timber Industries (Zhongshan)
Company, Limited v. United States and
Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
v. United States with respect to Layo
Wood and the Samling Group.7 The
Department previously gave notice of
this decision, as well as the amended
dumping margins of zero percent
calculated for Layo Wood and Samling
Group, in accordance with the notice
requirements of Timken.8 Further,
because we changed the surrogate
values in our first remand
redetermination for mandatory
respondents Layo Wood and Samling
Group, the highest calculated
transaction-specific rate on the record
became 25.62 percent, and we assigned
that rate to the PRC-wide entity.9
Regarding the dumping margins for
the eight separate rate respondents that
were plaintiffs to this litigation, the CIT
issued a series of a remand orders before
affirming the Department’s fourth
remand redetermination.10 As a result of
the Department’s second
redetermination on remand, the
Department assigned to seven of the
eight separate rate respondents above de
minimis antidumping duty rates for the
investigation, but found that it was
unnecessary to calculate an exact rate
for those respondents because any rate
assigned for the investigation stage of
the proceeding would be superseded by
the rates assigned to those companies in
the first administrative review and
would not be used for liquidation
purposes. The CIT affirmed this portion
of the Department’s remand
6 The eight separate rate respondents were
cooperative respondents, but were not individually
investigated in the antidumping duty investigation.
7 The full names of those companies are Zhejiang
Layo Wood Industry Co. Ltd. (‘‘Layo Wood’’) and
Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd.,
Riverside Plywood Corporation, Samling Elegant
Living Trading (Labuan) Limited, Samling Global
USA, Inc., Samling Riverside Co., Ltd., and Suzhou
Times Flooring Co., Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘the Samling
Group’’).
8 See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With the Final
Determination and Amended Final Determination
of the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 79 FR 25109
(May 2, 2014).
9 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Order, Court No. 12–00007, dated
November 14, 2013, at 27.
10 See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United
States, Ct. No. 12–20, Slip Op. 15–71 (CIT July 6,
2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
redetermination on January 23, 2015.11
However, the eighth separate rate
respondent, Changzhou Hawd Flooring
Co. (‘‘Changzhou Hawd’’), did not have
any shipments of subject merchandise
during the first period of review and the
Department did not assign Changzhou
Hawd a separate rate from the first
administrative review. Thus, in a fourth
remand redetermination, the
Department assigned Changzhou Hawd
a margin of 3.30 percent (Changzhou
Hawd’s original rate from the
Department’s Amended Final
Determination in the investigation),12
effective for cash deposit purposes only,
pending final establishment in the
second administrative review of
Changzhou Hawd’s new cash deposit
rate and assessment rate. On July 6,
2015, the CIT found that the
Department’s methodology in applying
this rate was supported by substantial
evidence and in accordance with law.13
Subsequent to the CIT’s entry of
judgment, the Department published the
final results of the second
administrative review, which have
superseded the cash deposit rate of 3.30
percent assigned to Changzhou Hawd
for purposes of this litigation.14
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, as clarified
by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC 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
11 See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United
States, 44 F. Supp. 3d 1376, 1387–88 (CIT January
23, 2015). The seven respondents to which the
Department’s determination applied were: Fine
Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, Armstrong Wood
Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Dunhua City; Jisen
Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Dunhua City Dexin Wood
Industry Co., Ltd., Dalian Huilong Wooden
Products Co., Ltd., Kunshan Yingyi-Nature Wood
Industry Co., Ltd., and Karly Wood Product
Limited.
12 This cash deposit rate of 3.30 percent was the
original rate applied to Changzhou Hawd in the
Amended Final Determination. The rate was
calculated by taking the simple average of the two
non-de minimis rates calculated for Layo Wood and
the Samling Group in the Amended Final
Determination. Although Layo Wood’s and the
Samling Group’s rates were subsequently changed
on remand (thus altering the basis for Changzhou
Hawd’s 3.30 percent rate), the Department provided
evidence that the rate was ‘‘reasonably reflective’’
of Changzhou Hawd’s ‘‘potential dumping margin,’’
and the CIT sustained this determination. See
Changzhou Hawd, Slip Op. 15–71 (CIT July 6,
2015), at 11.
13 See Changzhou Hawd, Slip Op. 15–71 (CIT July
6, 2015), at 3–4.
14 See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Final Results of New Shipper Review; 2012–2013,
80 FR 41476 (July 15, 2015).
E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM
24JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices
liquidation of entries pending a
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision.
The CIT’s July 6, 2015 final judgment
affirming the Department’s
redetermination constitutes a final
decision of the Court that is not in
harmony with the original Amended
Final Determination. This notice is
published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken.
Amended Final Determination
There is now a final court decision
with respect to the Amended Final
Determination as it concerns the eight
separate rate respondents and the PRCwide entity in this matter. For the eight
separate rate respondents, as of the date
of this notice, all eight companies have
received updated cash deposit rates, and
their rates will not change as a result of
this litigation. However, for the PRCwide entity, the Department is
amending the Amended Final
Determination and the revised cash
deposit rate for this entity is as follows:
Exporter
Cash deposit
rate
(percent)
PRC-wide entity ....................
25.62
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 20, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–18214 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Idaho National Laboratory, et al.;
Notice of Consolidated Decision on
Applications for Duty-Free Entry of
Electron Microscope
This is a decision consolidated
pursuant to Section 6(c) of the
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.
L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–
36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).
Related records can be viewed between
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC.
Docket Number: 15–005. Applicant:
Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls,
ID 83415. Instrument: Electron
Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI, Czech
Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 80
FR 26896, May 11, 2015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:59 Jul 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
Docket Number: 15–010. Applicant:
Howard Hughes Medical Institute,
Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Instrument:
Electron Microscope. Manufacturer:
JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See
notice at 80 FR 26896, May 11, 2015.
Docket Number: 15–011. Applicant:
University of South Alabama, Mobile,
AL 36688. Instrument: Electron
Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Czech
Republic s.r.o., Czech Republic.
Intended Use: See notice at 80 FR
26896, May 11, 2015.
Docket Number: 15–012. Applicant:
Albert Einstein College of Medicine of
Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY 10461.
Instrument: Electron Microscope.
Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan.
Intended Use: See notice at 80 FR
26896, May 11, 2015.
Docket Number: 15–014. Applicant:
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
MD 21218. Instrument: Electron
Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI
Company, the Netherlands. Intended
Use: See notice at 80 FR 26896, May 11,
2015.
Docket Number: 15–016. Applicant:
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
08901. Instrument: LN Microscope.
Manufacturer: Luigs Neumann,
Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 80
FR 26896, May 1, 2015.
Docket Number: 15–017. Applicant:
City University of New York, New York,
NY 10017. Instrument: Electron
Microscope.
Manufacturer: FEI Company, Japan.
Intended Use: See notice at 80 FR
26896, May 11, 2015.
Docket Number: 15–018. Applicant:
City University of New York, New York,
NY 10017. Instrument: Electron
Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI
Company, Japan. Intended Use: See
notice at 80 FR 26896, May 11, 2015.
Comments: None received. Decision:
Approved. No instrument of equivalent
scientific value to the foreign
instrument, for such purposes as these
instruments are intended to be used,
was being manufactured in the United
States at the time the instruments were
ordered. Reasons: Each foreign
instrument is an electron microscope
and is intended for research or scientific
educational uses requiring an electron
microscope. We know of no electron
microscope, or any other instrument
suited to these purposes, which was
being manufactured in the United States
at the time of order of each instrument.
Dated: July 20, 2015.
Gregory W. Campbell,
Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office,
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–18212 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44031
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–933]
Frontseating Service Valves From the
People’s Republic of China; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 2013–2014
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
On April 8, 2015, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published the preliminary
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty on frontseating
service valves from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1 The period
of review is April 1, 2013, through April
28, 2014. The review covers one
exporter of the subject merchandise,
Zhejiang Sanhua Co., Ltd. (‘‘Sanhua’’).
We find that Sanhua made no sales in
the United States at prices below normal
value. None of the interested parties
submitted case or rebuttal briefs.
Therefore, we made no changes to our
margin calculations for Sanhua. The
final weighted-average dumping margin
for this review is listed below in the
section entitled ‘‘Final Results of the
Review.’’
DATES: Effective date: July 24, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurel LaCivita, AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–4243.
SUMMARY:
Background
On April 8, 2015, the Department
published the preliminary results of the
subject administrative review of the
order.2 At that time, we invited
interested parties to comment on our
preliminary results.
Subsequent to the Preliminary
Results, Sanhua placed comments on
the record concerning the Preliminary
Results 3 in lieu of a case brief. No other
party provided comments on our
Preliminary Results.
1 See Frontseating Service Valves from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013–
2014, 80 FR 18811 (April 8, 2015) (‘‘Preliminary
Results’’).
2 Id.
3 See letter from Sanhua, ‘‘Frontseating Service
Valves from the People’s Republic of China; A–570–
933; Comments by Zhejiang Sanhua Co., Ltd.
Regarding the Preliminary Results,’’ dated May 8,
2015 (‘‘Sanhua’s Comment Letter’’).
E:\FR\FM\24JYN1.SGM
24JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44029-44031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18214]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-970]
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination
and Amended Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 6, 2015, the United States Court of International
Trade (``CIT'') issued Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States,
Ct. No. 12-20, Slip Op. 15-71 (CIT July 6, 2015), affirming the
Department of Commerce's (the ``Department'') amended final
determination of sales at less than fair value in the antidumping duty
investigation on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic
of China (``Amended Final
[[Page 44030]]
Determination''),\1\ as modified by the Department's fourth remand
redetermination pursuant to court order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR
64318 (October 18, 2011) (``Final Determination''); Multilayered
Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order, 76 FR 76690 (December 8, 2011) (``Amended Final
Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') in Timken Co. v. United States, 893
F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (``Diamond Sawblades''), the Department is notifying the public
that the Court's final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the
Amended Final Determination, and that the Department is revising its
Amended Final Determination.
DATES: Effective Date: July 16, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Galantucci and Brandon
Farlander, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2923 and (202) 482-0182, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The litigation in this case relates to the Department's final
determination in the antidumping duty investigation covering
multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''),\2\ which was later amended.\3\ Pursuant to a series of
remand orders issued by the CIT \4\ that resulted in four remand
redeterminations,\5\ the Department: (1) Revised its calculation of
dumping margins for two mandatory respondents and the PRC-wide entity;
and (2) the Department made certain findings regarding the dumping
margins for eight separate rate respondents that were plaintiffs in the
litigation, as summarized below.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Final Determination, 76 FR at 64318.
\3\ See Amended Final Determination, 76 FR at 76690.
\4\ See Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. v. United
States, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (CIT July 31, 2013); Baroque Timber
Indus. (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 2d 1333
(CIT March 31, 2014); Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States,
44 F. Supp. 3d 1376 (CIT January 23, 2015).
\5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Order, Court No. 12-00007, dated November 14, 2013; Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Court No. 12-00007, dated
May 29, 2014; Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Order, Court No. 12-00020, dated October 14, 2014; and Final Results
of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Court No. 12-00020,
dated March 24, 2015.
\6\ The eight separate rate respondents were cooperative
respondents, but were not individually investigated in the
antidumping duty investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the dumping margins for two mandatory respondents in the
investigation, on April 23, 2014, the CIT granted a consent motion for
severance and entered final judgment in Baroque Timber Industries
(Zhongshan) Company, Limited v. United States and Zhejiang Layo Wood
Industry Co., Ltd. v. United States with respect to Layo Wood and the
Samling Group.\7\ The Department previously gave notice of this
decision, as well as the amended dumping margins of zero percent
calculated for Layo Wood and Samling Group, in accordance with the
notice requirements of Timken.\8\ Further, because we changed the
surrogate values in our first remand redetermination for mandatory
respondents Layo Wood and Samling Group, the highest calculated
transaction-specific rate on the record became 25.62 percent, and we
assigned that rate to the PRC-wide entity.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The full names of those companies are Zhejiang Layo Wood
Industry Co. Ltd. (``Layo Wood'') and Baroque Timber Industries
(Zhongshan) Co., Ltd., Riverside Plywood Corporation, Samling
Elegant Living Trading (Labuan) Limited, Samling Global USA, Inc.,
Samling Riverside Co., Ltd., and Suzhou Times Flooring Co., Ltd.
(collectively, ``the Samling Group'').
\8\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final
Determination and Amended Final Determination of the Antidumping
Duty Investigation, 79 FR 25109 (May 2, 2014).
\9\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Order, Court No. 12-00007, dated November 14, 2013, at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the dumping margins for the eight separate rate
respondents that were plaintiffs to this litigation, the CIT issued a
series of a remand orders before affirming the Department's fourth
remand redetermination.\10\ As a result of the Department's second
redetermination on remand, the Department assigned to seven of the
eight separate rate respondents above de minimis antidumping duty rates
for the investigation, but found that it was unnecessary to calculate
an exact rate for those respondents because any rate assigned for the
investigation stage of the proceeding would be superseded by the rates
assigned to those companies in the first administrative review and
would not be used for liquidation purposes. The CIT affirmed this
portion of the Department's remand redetermination on January 23,
2015.\11\ However, the eighth separate rate respondent, Changzhou Hawd
Flooring Co. (``Changzhou Hawd''), did not have any shipments of
subject merchandise during the first period of review and the
Department did not assign Changzhou Hawd a separate rate from the first
administrative review. Thus, in a fourth remand redetermination, the
Department assigned Changzhou Hawd a margin of 3.30 percent (Changzhou
Hawd's original rate from the Department's Amended Final Determination
in the investigation),\12\ effective for cash deposit purposes only,
pending final establishment in the second administrative review of
Changzhou Hawd's new cash deposit rate and assessment rate. On July 6,
2015, the CIT found that the Department's methodology in applying this
rate was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with
law.\13\ Subsequent to the CIT's entry of judgment, the Department
published the final results of the second administrative review, which
have superseded the cash deposit rate of 3.30 percent assigned to
Changzhou Hawd for purposes of this litigation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, Ct. No.
12-20, Slip Op. 15-71 (CIT July 6, 2015).
\11\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 44 F.
Supp. 3d 1376, 1387-88 (CIT January 23, 2015). The seven respondents
to which the Department's determination applied were: Fine Furniture
(Shanghai) Limited, Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.,
Dunhua City; Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Dunhua City Dexin Wood
Industry Co., Ltd., Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd.,
Kunshan Yingyi-Nature Wood Industry Co., Ltd., and Karly Wood
Product Limited.
\12\ This cash deposit rate of 3.30 percent was the original
rate applied to Changzhou Hawd in the Amended Final Determination.
The rate was calculated by taking the simple average of the two non-
de minimis rates calculated for Layo Wood and the Samling Group in
the Amended Final Determination. Although Layo Wood's and the
Samling Group's rates were subsequently changed on remand (thus
altering the basis for Changzhou Hawd's 3.30 percent rate), the
Department provided evidence that the rate was ``reasonably
reflective'' of Changzhou Hawd's ``potential dumping margin,'' and
the CIT sustained this determination. See Changzhou Hawd, Slip Op.
15-71 (CIT July 6, 2015), at 11.
\13\ See Changzhou Hawd, Slip Op. 15-71 (CIT July 6, 2015), at
3-4.
\14\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Final Results of New Shipper Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 41476
(July 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the
CAFC 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
[[Page 44031]]
liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision.
The CIT's July 6, 2015 final judgment affirming the Department's
redetermination constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not
in harmony with the original Amended Final Determination. This notice
is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.
Amended Final Determination
There is now a final court decision with respect to the Amended
Final Determination as it concerns the eight separate rate respondents
and the PRC-wide entity in this matter. For the eight separate rate
respondents, as of the date of this notice, all eight companies have
received updated cash deposit rates, and their rates will not change as
a result of this litigation. However, for the PRC-wide entity, the
Department is amending the Amended Final Determination and the revised
cash deposit rate for this entity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash deposit
Exporter rate (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-wide entity........................................ 25.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 20, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-18214 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
