Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 14086-14087 [2016-05942]

Download as PDF 14086 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Notices Community Relations in Missouri. (February 23, 2015 St. Louis; August 20, 2015 Kansas City) Open Comment Recommendations and Next Steps DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 21, 2016, at 11:30 a.m. CDT Public Call Information: Dial: 888–587–0615 Conference ID: 4444578 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312–353– 8311 or mwojnaroski@usccr.gov. Dated: March 10, 2016. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit. [FR Doc. 2016–05844 Filed 3–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 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 With Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On February 29, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’ or ‘‘Court’’) sustained the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘Department’’) final results of redetermination 1 in which the Department determined, under protest, that four chests of Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. (‘‘Ethan Allen’’) are not subject to the scope of the WBF Order,2 pursuant to the CIT’s remand order in Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14–00147 (December 1, 2015) (‘‘Ethan Allen’’). Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken,3 as AGENCY: mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 1 Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 14–000147, Slip Op. 16–19 (CIT February 29, 2016) (‘‘Ethan Allen II’’), which sustained the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. v. United States, dated February 11, 2016 (‘‘Final Remand Results’’). 2 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) (‘‘WBF Order’’). 3 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Mar 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 clarified by Diamond Sawblades,4 the Department is notifying the public that the Court’s final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department’s Ethan Allen Scope Ruling and is therefore amending its final scope ruling.5 DATES: Effective Date: March 10, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara Lofaro, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5720. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 27, 2014 the Department issued the Ethan Allen Scope Ruling, in which it determined that Ethan Allen’s Marlene, Nadine, and Serpentine chests were subject to the WBF Order based on an analysis under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1), and that the Vivica chest was also subject merchandise based on an analysis of the factors under both 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1) and (k)(2) (the ‘‘(k)(2) analysis’’). The Department then requested a voluntary remand to allow further notice to, and comment from, parties on its (k)(2) analysis of the Vivica chest, which the Court granted. In the Voluntary Remand Results, the Department responded to the arguments of the parties to the dispute and determined, again, based on a (k)(2) analysis, that Ethan Allen’s Vivica chest is subject to the scope of the WBF Order.6 On December 1, 2015, the Court issued its opinion on the Ethan Allen Scope Ruling, remanding each of the Department’s determinations back to the agency for further analysis,7 as discussed in further detail in the Final Remand Results.8 Specifically, the Court held that with respect to the Vivica chest, ‘‘because the (k)(1) factors are dispositive as to the Vivica chest and demonstrate that the Vivica chest is not within the scope of the WBF Order, the court does not proceed to an analysis of the (k)(2) factors and remands to Commerce to issue a ruling consistent 4 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’). 5 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China: Scope Ruling on Ethan Allen Operations Inc.’s Chests’’ (May 27, 2014) (‘‘Ethan Allen Scope Ruling’’). 6 See Final Results of Voluntary Redetermination Pursuant To Court Order, dated November 26, 2014. (‘‘Voluntary Remand Results’’). 7 See Ethan Allen. 8 See Final Remand Results at 1–2. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 with this opinion.’’ 9 The Court further held that with respect to the Marlene, Nadine, and Serpentine chests ‘‘because the (k)(1) factors are non-dispositive {in the Ethan Allen Scope Ruling the Department determined that the Marlene, Nadine, and Serpentine chests were covered by the WBF Order after analyzing the criteria listed in 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1)}, Commerce should evaluate the (k)(2) factors consistent with this decision,’’ in which the Court noted, in part, that ‘‘the proper inquiry should focus on the intended function of the product, i.e., whether it was intended and designed for use in the bedroom.’’ 10 Accordingly, the Department issued the Final Remand Results and, consistent with the Court’s analysis, determined that the Vivica chest is not subject to the WBF Order. Furthermore, in accordance with the Court’s holding that the Marlene, Nadine, and Serpentine chests should be evaluated using a (k)(2) analysis, Commerce conducted such an analysis and determined that ‘‘the weight of the record evidence supports a determination that the Nadine, Marlene, and Serpentine chests are not covered by the scope of the WBF Order.’’ 11 In Ethan Allen II, the Court sustained the Department’s Final Remand Results in its entirety.12 Timken Notice In its decision in Timken 13 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (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 CIT’s February 29, 2016, judgment in Ethan Allen II, sustaining the Department’s decision in the Final Remand Results that the four chests at issue are not covered by the scope of the WBF Order, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Ethan Allen Scope Ruling. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the chests at issue pending expiration of the period to appeal or, if appealed, 9 See Ethan Allen at 16. at 13. 11 See Final Remand Results at 14. 12 See Ethan Allen II. 13 See Timken, 893 F.2d at 341. 10 Id. E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Notices pending a final and conclusive court decision. Amended Final Determination Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the Ethan Allen Scope Ruling, the Department is amending its final scope ruling. The Department finds that the scope of the WBF Order does not cover the products addressed in the Ethan Allen Scope Ruling. The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) that the cash deposit rate will be zero percent for the four chests imported by Ethan Allen. In the event that the CIT’s ruling is not appealed, or if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of Ethan Allen’s four chests at issue without regard to antidumping and/or countervailing duties, and to lift suspension of liquidation of such entries. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 9, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2016–05942 Filed 3–15–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–867] Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013–2014 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 4, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from the Republic of Korea.1 The review covers five producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Hyosung Corporation (Hyosung), Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (Hyundai), ILJIN, ILJIN Electric Co., Ltd. (ILJIN Electric), and LSIS Co., Ltd. (LSIS). ILJIN, ILJIN Electric, and LSIS, were not selected for individual examination. The period of review mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: 1 See Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– 2014, 80 FR 53496 (September 4, 2015) (Preliminary Results). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Mar 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 (POR) is August 1, 2013, through July 31, 2014. As a result of our analysis of the comments and information received, these final results differ from the Preliminary Results. For the final weighted-average dumping margins, see the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section below. DATES: Effective Date: March 16, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Davis (Hyosung) or Edythe Artman (Hyundai), AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–7924 or (202) 482–3931, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 4, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results.2 On October 16, 2015, Hyundai timely submitted a case brief and on October 19, 2015, Hyosung and ABB Inc. (Petitioner) timely submitted case briefs.3 Rebuttal briefs were also timely filed by Hyosung, Hyundai, and Petitioner, on October 27, 2015.4 On December 22, 2015, the Department issued a memorandum extending the time period for issuing the final results of this administrative review from January 4, 2016 to February 24, 2016.5 On February 29, 2016, the Department further extended the final results to March 8, 2015.6 2 The Department issued the briefing schedule in a Memorandum to the File, dated September 9, 2015. This briefing schedule was later extended at the request of interested parties to October 16, 2015 for briefs and October 26, 2015 for rebuttal briefs. 3 See Case Brief from Petitioner regarding Hyundai, (Petitioner Brief Hyundai), Brief from Petitioner regarding Hyosung (Petitioner Brief Hyosung), and Hyosung Brief, all dated October 19, 2015, and Hyundai Brief, dated October 16, 2015. 4 See Hyosung Rebuttal Brief, Hyundai Rebuttal Brief and Petitioner Rebuttal Brief: All dated October 26, 2015. Petitioner requested an extension for the briefing schedule to 30 days after Hyundai’s submission of a post-verification supplemental questionnaire and an extension for filing rebuttal briefs, which the Department partially granted for all parties in a letter dated September 29, 2015 and extended in a letter dated October 13, 2015. See Letter to Petitioner dated September 29, 2015 and Letter to Petitioner dated October 13, 2015. 5 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, ‘‘Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– 2014’’ (December 22, 2015). 6 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, ‘‘Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 14087 Scope of the Order The scope of this order covers large liquid dielectric power transformers (LPTs) having a top power handling capacity greater than or equal to 60,000 kilovolt amperes (60 megavolt amperes), whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheadings 8504.23.0040, 8504.23.0080 and 8504.90.9540.7 Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.8 A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at http:// access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.ita.doc.gov/frn/ index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we recalculated Hyosung’s and Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– 2014’’ (February 29, 2016); see also Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,’’ dated January 27, 2016. As explained in this memorandum, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final determination is now March 8, 2016. 7 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, titled ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea; 2013–2014’’ (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is issued concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice. 8 Id. E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14086-14087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05942]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 With Final Scope Ruling and 
Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On February 29, 2016, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``CIT'' or ``Court'') sustained the Department of Commerce's 
(``Department'') final results of redetermination \1\ in which the 
Department determined, under protest, that four chests of Ethan Allen 
Operations, Inc. (``Ethan Allen'') are not subject to the scope of the 
WBF Order,\2\ pursuant to the CIT's remand order in Ethan Allen 
Operations, Inc. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14-00147 (December 
1, 2015) (``Ethan Allen'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 14-
000147, Slip Op. 16-19 (CIT February 29, 2016) (``Ethan Allen II''), 
which sustained the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 
Court Order, Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. v. United States, dated 
February 11, 2016 (``Final Remand Results'').
    \2\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) 
(``WBF Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') in Timken,\3\ as clarified by 
Diamond Sawblades,\4\ the Department is notifying the public that the 
Court's final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the 
Department's Ethan Allen Scope Ruling and is therefore amending its 
final scope ruling.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (``Timken'').
    \4\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Diamond Sawblades'').
    \5\ See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 
``Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: 
Scope Ruling on Ethan Allen Operations Inc.'s Chests'' (May 27, 
2014) (``Ethan Allen Scope Ruling'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: March 10, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara Lofaro, Office IV, Enforcement 
and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-5720.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 27, 2014 the Department issued the Ethan Allen Scope Ruling, 
in which it determined that Ethan Allen's Marlene, Nadine, and 
Serpentine chests were subject to the WBF Order based on an analysis 
under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1), and that the Vivica chest was also subject 
merchandise based on an analysis of the factors under both 19 CFR 
351.225(k)(1) and (k)(2) (the ``(k)(2) analysis''). The Department then 
requested a voluntary remand to allow further notice to, and comment 
from, parties on its (k)(2) analysis of the Vivica chest, which the 
Court granted. In the Voluntary Remand Results, the Department 
responded to the arguments of the parties to the dispute and 
determined, again, based on a (k)(2) analysis, that Ethan Allen's 
Vivica chest is subject to the scope of the WBF Order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Final Results of Voluntary Redetermination Pursuant To 
Court Order, dated November 26, 2014. (``Voluntary Remand 
Results'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 1, 2015, the Court issued its opinion on the Ethan 
Allen Scope Ruling, remanding each of the Department's determinations 
back to the agency for further analysis,\7\ as discussed in further 
detail in the Final Remand Results.\8\ Specifically, the Court held 
that with respect to the Vivica chest, ``because the (k)(1) factors are 
dispositive as to the Vivica chest and demonstrate that the Vivica 
chest is not within the scope of the WBF Order, the court does not 
proceed to an analysis of the (k)(2) factors and remands to Commerce to 
issue a ruling consistent with this opinion.'' \9\ The Court further 
held that with respect to the Marlene, Nadine, and Serpentine chests 
``because the (k)(1) factors are non-dispositive {in the Ethan Allen 
Scope Ruling the Department determined that the Marlene, Nadine, and 
Serpentine chests were covered by the WBF Order after analyzing the 
criteria listed in 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1){time} , Commerce should 
evaluate the (k)(2) factors consistent with this decision,'' in which 
the Court noted, in part, that ``the proper inquiry should focus on the 
intended function of the product, i.e., whether it was intended and 
designed for use in the bedroom.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Ethan Allen.
    \8\ See Final Remand Results at 1-2.
    \9\ See Ethan Allen at 16.
    \10\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Department issued the Final Remand Results and, 
consistent with the Court's analysis, determined that the Vivica chest 
is not subject to the WBF Order. Furthermore, in accordance with the 
Court's holding that the Marlene, Nadine, and Serpentine chests should 
be evaluated using a (k)(2) analysis, Commerce conducted such an 
analysis and determined that ``the weight of the record evidence 
supports a determination that the Nadine, Marlene, and Serpentine 
chests are not covered by the scope of the WBF Order.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Final Remand Results at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Ethan Allen II, the Court sustained the Department's Final 
Remand Results in its entirety.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Ethan Allen II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken \13\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 
the CAFC held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (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 CIT's February 29, 2016, judgment in 
Ethan Allen II, sustaining the Department's decision in the Final 
Remand Results that the four chests at issue are not covered by the 
scope of the WBF Order, constitutes a final decision of that court that 
is not in harmony with the Ethan Allen Scope Ruling. This notice is 
published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. 
Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation 
of the chests at issue pending expiration of the period to appeal or, 
if appealed,

[[Page 14087]]

pending a final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Timken, 893 F.2d at 341.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Determination

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the 
Ethan Allen Scope Ruling, the Department is amending its final scope 
ruling. The Department finds that the scope of the WBF Order does not 
cover the products addressed in the Ethan Allen Scope Ruling. The 
Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 
that the cash deposit rate will be zero percent for the four chests 
imported by Ethan Allen. In the event that the CIT's ruling is not 
appealed, or if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will 
instruct CBP to liquidate entries of Ethan Allen's four chests at issue 
without regard to antidumping and/or countervailing duties, and to lift 
suspension of liquidation of such entries.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 9, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-05942 Filed 3-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P