Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Second Amended Final Determination and Notice of Third Amended Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 35217-35219 [2018-15878]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices
38. HoneyBear Growers LLC, Brewster, WA
39. Honey Bear Tree Fruit Co LLC,
Wenatchee, WA
40. Hood River Cherry Company, Hood River,
OR
41. Ice Lakes LLC, East Wenatchee, WA
42. JackAss Mt. Ranch, Pasco, WA
43. Jenks Bros Cold Storage & Packing, Royal
City, WA
44. Kershaw Fruit & Cold Storage, Co.,
Yakima, WA
45. L & M Companies, Union Gap, WA
46. Larson Fruit Co., Selah, WA
47. Legacy Fruit Packers LLC, Wapato, WA
48. Manson Growers Cooperative, Manson,
WA
49. Matson Fruit Company, Selah, WA
50. McDougall & Sons, Inc., Wenatchee, WA
51. Monson Fruit Co., Selah, WA
52. Morgan’s of Washington dba Double
Diamond Fruit, Quincy, WA
53. Naumes, Inc., Medford, OR
54. Northern Fruit Company, Inc.,
Wenatchee, WA
55. Olympic Fruit Co., Moxee, WA
56. Oneonta Trading Corp., Wenatchee, WA
57. Orchard View Farms, Inc., The Dalles, OR
58. Pacific Coast Cherry Packers, LLC,
Yakima, WA
59. Peshastin Hi-Up Growers, Peshastin, WA
60. Piepel Premium Fruit Packing LLC, East
Wenatchee, WA
61. Pine Canyon Growers LLC, Orondo, WA
62. Polehn Farms, Inc., The Dalles, OR
63. Price Cold Storage & Packing Co., Inc.,
Yakima, WA
64. Pride Packing Company LLC, Wapato,
WA
65. Quincy Fresh Fruit Co., Quincy, WA
66. Rainier Fruit Company, Selah, WA
67. Roche Fruit, Ltd., Yakima, WA
68. Sage Fruit Company, L.L.C., Yakima, WA
69. Smith & Nelson, Inc., Tonasket, WA
70. Stadelman Fruit, L.L.C., MiltonFreewater, OR, and Zillah, WA
71. Stemilt Growers, LLC, Wenatchee, WA
72. Strand Apples, Inc., Cowiche, WA
73. Symms Fruit Ranch, Inc., Caldwell, ID
74. The Dalles Fruit Company, LLC,
Dallesport, WA
75. Underwood Fruit & Warehouse Co.,
Bingen, WA
76. Valicoff Fruit Company Inc., Wapato, WA
77. Washington Cherry Growers, Peshastin,
WA
78. Washington Fruit & Produce Co., Yakima,
WA
79. Western Sweet Cherry Group, LLC,
Yakima, WA
80. Whitby Farms, Inc. dba: Farm Boy Fruit
Snacks LLC, Mesa, WA
81. WP Packing LLC, Wapato, WA
82. Yakima Fresh, Yakima, WA
83. Yakima Fruit & Cold Storage Co., Yakima,
WA
84. Zirkle Fruit Company, Selah, WA
Dated: July 20, 2018.
Joseph Flynn,
Director, Office of Trade and Economic
Analysis, International Trade Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018–15925 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:50 Jul 24, 2018
Jkt 244001
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 Second Amended Final
Determination and Notice of Third
Amended Final Determination of the
Antidumping Duty Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 3, 2018, the United
States Court of International Trade (CIT
or Court) entered its final judgment in
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., et al. v.
United States, sustaining, in part, the
final results of remand redetermination
pursuant to court order by the
Department of Commerce (Commerce)
pertaining to the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV) investigation on multilayered
wood flooring from the People’s
Republic of China (China). Commerce is
notifying the public that the final
judgment in this case is not in harmony
with Commerce’s final determination in
the LTFV investigation of multilayered
wood flooring from China. Pursuant to
the CIT’s final judgment, Dunhua City
Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine
Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and
Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan)
Co., Ltd. are being excluded from the
order.
AGENCY:
DATES:
Applicable July 13, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Aleksandras Nakutis, Office IV,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3147.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The litigation in this case relates to
Commerce’s final determination in the
antidumping duty investigation
covering multilayered wood flooring
from China,1 which was later amended.2
In the First Amended Final
Determination and Order, Commerce
assigned a rate of 3.30 percent to all
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).
2 See 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) (First Amended Final Determination and
Order).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35217
separate rate respondents.3 Commerce
derived this rate by averaging the rates
of the two individually investigated
respondents with weighted-average
margins above de minimis, pursuant to
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act). Pursuant to
a series of remand orders issued by the
Court that resulted in five remand
redeterminations, Commerce (1) revised
its calculation of dumping margins for
two mandatory respondents and the
China-wide entity; and, (2) made certain
findings regarding the dumping margins
that were calculated for eight separate
rate respondents that were plaintiffs in
the litigation.
Regarding the dumping margins for
two mandatory respondents in the
investigation, on April 23, 2014, the
Court granted a consent motion for
severance and entered final judgment in
Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan)
Company, Limited v. United States with
respect to Layo Wood and the Samling
Group.4 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), Commerce
gave notice of this decision, as well as
the amended dumping margins of zero
percent calculated for Layo Wood and
Samling Group.5 Further, because
Commerce changed the surrogate values
in its first remand redetermination for
mandatory respondents Layo Wood and
Samling Group,6 the highest calculated
transaction-specific rate on the record
became 25.62 percent, which Commerce
assigned to the China-wide entity.7 The
CIT sustained Commerce’s remand
redetermination as it pertained to Layo
3 Id.
4 The full names of those companies are Zheijiang
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 Samling
Group).
5 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) (Second Amended Final
Determination).
6 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Order, Baroque Timber Industries
(Zhongshan) Company, Limited, et al. v. United
States, dated November 14, 2013 (First Remand
Redetermination), at 2–3.
7 Id.
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
35218
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices
Wood and Samling Group.8
Consequently, pursuant to section
735(a)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.204(e)(1), Commerce excluded Layo
Wood and Samling Group from the
Order.9
Commerce was subsequently
remanded by the CIT 10 and the CAFC 11
to revise its determination of the
separate rate. Specifically, in its third
remand redetermination, Commerce
assigned seven of the eight separate rate
respondents, which were plaintiffs in
the litigation, an unspecified above deminimis rate.12 In the fourth remand
redetermination, Commerce assigned
the eighth separate rate plaintiff,
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., a cash
deposit rate consistent with the other
separate rate plaintiffs, until Changzhou
Hawd’s’ new cash deposit and
assessment rate was established in the
final results of the second
administrative review.13
The CIT sustained Commerce’s
determinations; however, the CAFC
vacated the CIT’s judgment and
remanded back to the CIT with
instructions to remand to Commerce to
revise its determination of the separate
rate and apply the ‘‘expected method’’
under section 735(c)(5) of the Act, or to
justify any departure.14 In its fifth
remand redetermination, Commerce was
unable to make the necessary findings to
justify departure from the expected
method, and thus applied the expected
method for the separate rate, averaging
the calculated rates for the mandatory
respondents, resulting in a zero rate.15
Commerce further determined that the
relevant statutory and regulatory
provision, section 735(a)(4) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.204(e)(1), did not
provide a basis for excluding from the
order producers that were not
individually investigated and assigned
individual dumping margins. Commerce
also denied a request to terminate the
order completely for lack of any
individually calculated dumping
margins above de minimis.
On July 3, 2018, the CIT sustained, in
part, Commerce’s fifth remand
redetermination.16 The CIT sustained
Commerce’s determination not to
terminate the order because the order
was imposed, in part, based on indirect
evidence of dumping by the China-wide
entity, a finding which was not
challenged.17 With respect to the
separate rate plaintiffs, the CIT ordered
exclusion from the order for three
separate respondents that sought
voluntary examination in the
investigation, but were denied: Dunhua
City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine
Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and
Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan)
Co., Ltd. The CIT held that Commerce’s
application of the exclusion regulation,
19 CFR 351.204(e)(1), was arbitrary with
respect to these respondents.18
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, as clarified
by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held
that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the
Act, Commerce must publish a notice of
a court decision that is not ‘‘in
harmony’’ with Commerce’s
determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s
July 3, 2018, final judgment affirming
the Fifth Remand Redetermination,19
sustaining the recalculated separate rate
of zero (applicable to the separate rate
plaintiffs), and ordering the exclusion of
Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co.,
Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited,
and Armstrong Wood Products
(Kunshan) Co., Ltd. from the order
constitutes a final decision of that court
that is not in harmony with the Second
Amended Final Determination. This
notice is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken.
Third Amended Final Determination
There is now a final court decision
with respect to the Second Amended
Final Determination as it concerns the
eight separate rate respondents listed
below. 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.
Accordingly, Commerce is amending
the Second Amended Final
Determination. The revised weightedaverage dumping margins for these
companies are as follows:
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
Exporter
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co ............................................................................................................................................................
Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd .........................................................................................................................................
Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................
Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd .........................................................................................................................................
Kunshan Yingy-Nature Wood Industry Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................
8 See also Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan)
Co. v. United States, 971 F.Supp.2d 1333, 1336 (Ct.
Int’l Trade 2014).
9 See First Remand Redetermination, dated
November 14, 2013. On May 23, 2014, Commerce
provided liquidation instructions to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) for both Layo Wood
and Samling Group explaining that Commerce has
determined that merchandise produced and
exported by Layo Wood and Samling Group are
‘‘excluded from the antidumping duty order on
multilayered wood flooring from {China}’’. See CBP
Message from Commerce, ‘‘Liquidation instructions
for multilayered wood flooring from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) produced and exported
by Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (A–570–
970–001),’’ dated May 23, 3014, Message Number
4143303; see also CBP Message from Commerce,
‘‘Liquidation instructions for multilayered wood
flooring from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’) produced and exported by the Samling
Group (A–570–970–002),’’ dated May 23, 3014,
Message Number 4143304.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:50 Jul 24, 2018
Jkt 244001
10 See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United
States, 77 F. Supp. 3d 1351 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015)
(Changzhou Hawd 2015).
11 See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United
States, 848 F.3d 1006, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(Changzhou Hawd 2017).
12 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Order, Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd.,
et al. v. United States, dated October 16, 2014
(Third Remand Redetermination). Commerce
inferred that the margins of the separate rate
plaintiffs were above-de minimis in the second
remand redetermination. Commerce based this
inference on two primary considerations. First,
Commerce observed that 110 companies did not
respond to the quantity and value questionnaire,
that certain of those companies could have been
selected as mandatory respondents, and that it is
reasonable to infer those companies would have
received above-de minimis rates. Second,
Commerce corroborated this inference using the
intervening results of the first administrative
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
review, where Commerce found continued
dumping. See Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Order, Baroque Timber Industries
(Zhongshan) Company, Limited, et al. v. United
States, dated May 30, 2014 (Second Remand
Redetermination).
13 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Order, Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd.,
et al. v. United States, dated March 24, 2015
(Fourth Remand Redetermination).
14 See Changzhou Hawd 2015, 77 F. Supp. 3d
1351; Changzhou Hawd 2017, 848 F.3d 1006, 1008.
15 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Order, Court No. 12–00020, dated February
15, 2017 (Fifth Remand Redetermination).
16 See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., et al. v.
United States, Ct. No. 12–20, Slip Op. 18–82 (Ct.
Int’l Trade July 3, 2018).
17 Id. at 11–12.
18 Id. at 16.
19 Id.
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Notices
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
Exporter
Karly Wood Product Limited ................................................................................................................................................................
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited .......................................................................................................................................................
Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................
Further, pursuant to the CIT’s July 3,
2018, final judgment, Commerce is also
excluding Dunhua City Jisen Wood
Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture
(Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong
Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.,
from the order. Section 735(c)(2)(A)–(B)
of the Act instructs Commerce to
terminate suspension of liquidation and
to release any bond or other security,
and refund any cash deposit, in the
event of a negative determination. Here,
suspension of liquidation must continue
during the pendency of the appeals
process (in accordance with Timken and
as discussed above), and, therefore, we
will continue to instruct CBP at this
time to (A) continue suspension at a
cash deposit rate of zero percent until
instructed otherwise; and (B) release
any bond or other security, and refund
any cash deposit made pursuant to the
order by Dunhua City Jisen Wood
Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture
(Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong
Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. In
the event that the CIT’s ruling is not
appealed, or appealed and upheld by
the CAFC, Commerce will instruct CBP
to terminate the suspension of
liquidation and to liquidate those
unliquidated entries of subject
merchandise without regard to
antidumping duties.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as a reminder to
parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of the APO is a violation
subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1),
735, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:50 Jul 24, 2018
Jkt 244001
Dated: July 18, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018–15878 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XG367
NOAA’s Implementation of the
Department of Commerce 2018–2022
Strategic Plan; Public Meetings
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
The Office of Under Secretary
of Commerce (USEC) for Oceans and
Atmosphere is holding multiple
listening sessions to provide
information and receive stakeholder
input regarding implementation of the
Department of Commerce’s 2018–2022
Strategic Plan. Focal topics will be
implementation of the Weather
Research and Forecasting Innovation
Act of 2017, reducing the seafood trade
deficit, supporting maritime commerce,
fisheries, recreation and tourism. The
listening sessions will include
presentations and time for stakeholder
input into the development of priority
objectives. The meeting topics are
described under the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of the notice.
DATES: The meetings will be held
between August and November 2018.
For specific dates and times, see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
ADDRESSES: Meeting address: The
meetings will be held in Norman, OK;
Juneau, AK; St. Petersburg, FL;
Madison, WI; Charleston, SC; Seattle,
WA; San Diego, CA and Durham, NC.
For specific locations, see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie
Kay Roberts, Director of
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
35219
Sfmt 4703
0.00
0.00
0.00
Communications, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; telephone:
202–482–6090.
The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has several
initiatives underway to support the
Department of Commerce (DOC) 2018–
2022 Strategic Plan. NOAA will address
the priority of reducing extreme weather
impacts through the implementation of
the Weather Research and Forecasting
Innovation Act (Act). Among other
requirements, the Act directs NOAA to
improve seasonal and sub-seasonal
forecasts, an area of forecasting that
presents significant opportunity for
improvement. NOAA is also interested
in ideas to expand marine aquaculture
across the United States as a means of
creating quality jobs in coastal
communities and reducing the seafood
trade deficit. Other aspects to support
domestic fisheries include reducing
regulatory burden for wild-caught
fisheries, implementing and enforcing
recent regulations that establish
minimum standards for imported
seafood, and increasing foreign market
access for U.S. seafood products. NOAA
is also interested in pursuing efforts to
support commerce through expanding
precision maritime navigation products,
ecotourism through the National Marine
Sanctuaries Program, and harnessing the
deep sea through ocean exploration.
NOAA also intends to re-energize the
National Oceanographic Partnership
Program—a federal program that
facilitates public-private partnerships to
fund marine research.
For the listening sessions, the Office
of Under Secretary of Commerce (USEC)
for Oceans and Atmosphere will present
background on these ideas and solicit
comment from stakeholders. The focus
of each public meeting and structure of
public comment will be at the discretion
of the presenters and NOAA staff. The
USEC schedule, location, and agenda for
the following eight meetings are as
follows with exact times and locations
to be released at least 14 days in
advance of the events at https://
www.noaa.gov/stories/noaa-startsnationwide-listening-sessions:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\25JYN1.SGM
25JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35217-35219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15878]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Second Amended Final
Determination and Notice of Third Amended Final Determination of the
Antidumping Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 3, 2018, the United States Court of International
Trade (CIT or Court) entered its final judgment in Changzhou Hawd
Flooring Co., et al. v. United States, sustaining, in part, the final
results of remand redetermination pursuant to court order by the
Department of Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) investigation on multilayered wood flooring from the
People's Republic of China (China). Commerce is notifying the public
that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's
final determination in the LTFV investigation of multilayered wood
flooring from China. Pursuant to the CIT's final judgment, Dunhua City
Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and
Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. are being excluded from the
order.
DATES: Applicable July 13, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aleksandras Nakutis, Office IV,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3147.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The litigation in this case relates to Commerce's final
determination in the antidumping duty investigation covering
multilayered wood flooring from China,\1\ which was later amended.\2\
In the First Amended Final Determination and Order, Commerce assigned a
rate of 3.30 percent to all separate rate respondents.\3\ Commerce
derived this rate by averaging the rates of the two individually
investigated respondents with weighted-average margins above de
minimis, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). Pursuant to a series of remand orders issued by the
Court that resulted in five remand redeterminations, Commerce (1)
revised its calculation of dumping margins for two mandatory
respondents and the China-wide entity; and, (2) made certain findings
regarding the dumping margins that were calculated for eight separate
rate respondents that were plaintiffs in the litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
\2\ See 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) (First
Amended Final Determination and Order).
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the dumping margins for two mandatory respondents in the
investigation, on April 23, 2014, the Court granted a consent motion
for severance and entered final judgment in Baroque Timber Industries
(Zhongshan) Company, Limited v. United States with respect to Layo Wood
and the Samling Group.\4\ 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), Commerce gave notice of this decision,
as well as the amended dumping margins of zero percent calculated for
Layo Wood and Samling Group.\5\ Further, because Commerce changed the
surrogate values in its first remand redetermination for mandatory
respondents Layo Wood and Samling Group,\6\ the highest calculated
transaction-specific rate on the record became 25.62 percent, which
Commerce assigned to the China-wide entity.\7\ The CIT sustained
Commerce's remand redetermination as it pertained to Layo
[[Page 35218]]
Wood and Samling Group\.8\ Consequently, pursuant to section 735(a)(4)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.204(e)(1), Commerce excluded Layo Wood and
Samling Group from the Order.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The full names of those companies are Zheijiang 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 Samling Group).
\5\ 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) (Second Amended Final
Determination).
\6\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Order, Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Company, Limited, et
al. v. United States, dated November 14, 2013 (First Remand
Redetermination), at 2-3.
\7\ Id.
\8\ See also Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co. v. United
States, 971 F.Supp.2d 1333, 1336 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014).
\9\ See First Remand Redetermination, dated November 14, 2013.
On May 23, 2014, Commerce provided liquidation instructions to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for both Layo Wood and Samling
Group explaining that Commerce has determined that merchandise
produced and exported by Layo Wood and Samling Group are ``excluded
from the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from
{China{time} ''. See CBP Message from Commerce, ``Liquidation
instructions for multilayered wood flooring from the People's
Republic of China (``PRC'') produced and exported by Zhejiang Layo
Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (A-570-970-001),'' dated May 23, 3014,
Message Number 4143303; see also CBP Message from Commerce,
``Liquidation instructions for multilayered wood flooring from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') produced and exported by the
Samling Group (A-570-970-002),'' dated May 23, 3014, Message Number
4143304.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce was subsequently remanded by the CIT \10\ and the CAFC
\11\ to revise its determination of the separate rate. Specifically, in
its third remand redetermination, Commerce assigned seven of the eight
separate rate respondents, which were plaintiffs in the litigation, an
unspecified above de-minimis rate.\12\ In the fourth remand
redetermination, Commerce assigned the eighth separate rate plaintiff,
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., a cash deposit rate consistent with the
other separate rate plaintiffs, until Changzhou Hawd's' new cash
deposit and assessment rate was established in the final results of the
second administrative review.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 77 F.
Supp. 3d 1351 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015) (Changzhou Hawd 2015).
\11\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 848 F.3d
1006, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Changzhou Hawd 2017).
\12\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Order, Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States,
dated October 16, 2014 (Third Remand Redetermination). Commerce
inferred that the margins of the separate rate plaintiffs were
above-de minimis in the second remand redetermination. Commerce
based this inference on two primary considerations. First, Commerce
observed that 110 companies did not respond to the quantity and
value questionnaire, that certain of those companies could have been
selected as mandatory respondents, and that it is reasonable to
infer those companies would have received above-de minimis rates.
Second, Commerce corroborated this inference using the intervening
results of the first administrative review, where Commerce found
continued dumping. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to
Court Order, Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Company, Limited,
et al. v. United States, dated May 30, 2014 (Second Remand
Redetermination).
\13\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Order, Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States,
dated March 24, 2015 (Fourth Remand Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIT sustained Commerce's determinations; however, the CAFC
vacated the CIT's judgment and remanded back to the CIT with
instructions to remand to Commerce to revise its determination of the
separate rate and apply the ``expected method'' under section 735(c)(5)
of the Act, or to justify any departure.\14\ In its fifth remand
redetermination, Commerce was unable to make the necessary findings to
justify departure from the expected method, and thus applied the
expected method for the separate rate, averaging the calculated rates
for the mandatory respondents, resulting in a zero rate.\15\ Commerce
further determined that the relevant statutory and regulatory
provision, section 735(a)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.204(e)(1), did
not provide a basis for excluding from the order producers that were
not individually investigated and assigned individual dumping margins.
Commerce also denied a request to terminate the order completely for
lack of any individually calculated dumping margins above de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Changzhou Hawd 2015, 77 F. Supp. 3d 1351; Changzhou
Hawd 2017, 848 F.3d 1006, 1008.
\15\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Order, Court No. 12-00020, dated February 15, 2017 (Fifth Remand
Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 3, 2018, the CIT sustained, in part, Commerce's fifth
remand redetermination.\16\ The CIT sustained Commerce's determination
not to terminate the order because the order was imposed, in part,
based on indirect evidence of dumping by the China-wide entity, a
finding which was not challenged.\17\ With respect to the separate rate
plaintiffs, the CIT ordered exclusion from the order for three separate
respondents that sought voluntary examination in the investigation, but
were denied: Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture
(Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. The
CIT held that Commerce's application of the exclusion regulation, 19
CFR 351.204(e)(1), was arbitrary with respect to these respondents.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., et al. v. United States,
Ct. No. 12-20, Slip Op. 18-82 (Ct. Int'l Trade July 3, 2018).
\17\ Id. at 11-12.
\18\ Id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the
CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, Commerce must
publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with
Commerce's determination and must suspend liquidation of entries
pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's July 3, 2018, final
judgment affirming the Fifth Remand Redetermination,\19\ sustaining the
recalculated separate rate of zero (applicable to the separate rate
plaintiffs), and ordering the exclusion of Dunhua City Jisen Wood
Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong
Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. from the order constitutes a final
decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Second Amended
Final Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third Amended Final Determination
There is now a final court decision with respect to the Second
Amended Final Determination as it concerns the eight separate rate
respondents listed below. 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. Accordingly, Commerce
is amending the Second Amended Final Determination. The revised
weighted-average dumping margins for these companies are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter dumping margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co.............................. 0.00
Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd................ 0.00
Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd................ 0.00
Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd................. 0.00
Kunshan Yingy-Nature Wood Industry Co., Ltd............. 0.00
[[Page 35219]]
Karly Wood Product Limited.............................. 0.00
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited....................... 0.00
Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.............. 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, pursuant to the CIT's July 3, 2018, final judgment,
Commerce is also excluding Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd.,
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products
(Kunshan) Co., Ltd., from the order. Section 735(c)(2)(A)-(B) of the
Act instructs Commerce to terminate suspension of liquidation and to
release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit, in the
event of a negative determination. Here, suspension of liquidation must
continue during the pendency of the appeals process (in accordance with
Timken and as discussed above), and, therefore, we will continue to
instruct CBP at this time to (A) continue suspension at a cash deposit
rate of zero percent until instructed otherwise; and (B) release any
bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit made pursuant to
the order by Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture
(Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. In
the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or appealed and upheld
by the CAFC, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of
liquidation and to liquidate those unliquidated entries of subject
merchandise without regard to antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of the APO is a violation subject to
sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e)(1), 735, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 18, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-15878 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
