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
<![CDATA[
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 https://
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
https://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
