Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments in Part; 2017, 24749-24751 [2019-11081]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2019 / Notices Duty Absorption Reviews During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested. Gap Period Liquidation For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures ‘‘gap’’ period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR. khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Administrative Protective Orders and Letters of Appearance Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce’s regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)). Factual Information Requirements Commerce’s regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information this administrative review for Goodluck India Limited. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:45 May 28, 2019 Jkt 247001 described in (i)–(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/ 1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment. Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.7 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/ government officials as well as their representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule.8 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements. Extension of Time Limits Regulation Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. See 19 CFR 351.302. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 7 See section 782(b) of the Act. Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 8 See PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 24749 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning CBP data; and (5) Q&V questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which Commerce will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/201322853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments. These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: May 22, 2019. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2019–11131 Filed 5–28–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments in Part; 2017 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that eight of the 13 companies under review have not demonstrated eligibility for a separate rate and the other five companies under review had no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017. DATES: Applicable May 29, 2019. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM 29MYN1 24750 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2019 / Notices FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5193. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 12, 2018, Commerce published its Preliminary Results of the review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture (WBF) from the People’s Republic of China (China) covering the period January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.1 On January 10, 2019, the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners) filed a case brief.2 No rebuttal briefs were filed. Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018, through the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019.3 The revised deadline for the final results of review is now May 21, 2019. Scope of the Order khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES The product covered by the Order is wooden bedroom furniture, subject to certain exceptions.4 Imports of subject merchandise are classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 9403.50.9042, 9403.50.9045, 9403.50.9080, 9403.90.7005, 9403.90.7080, 9403.50.9041, 9403.60.8081, 9403.20.0018, 9403.90.8041, 7009.92.1000 or 7009.92.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 1 See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017, 83 FR 63829 (December 12, 2018) (Preliminary Results). 2 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China: Petitioners’ Case Brief,’’ dated January 10, 2019 (Petitioners’ Case Brief). 3 See Memorandum to the Record from 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, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the Partial Shutdown of the Federal Government,’’ dated January 28, 2019. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 40 days. 4 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) (Order). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:45 May 28, 2019 Jkt 247001 written product description in the Order remains dispositive.5 Analysis In the Preliminary Results, Commerce: (1) Determined that eight companies, including the sole mandatory respondent, Decca Furniture Ltd. (Decca), did not establish their eligibility for a separate rate and are part of the China-wide entity; 6 and (2) determined that five companies had no shipments of subject merchandise.7 For these final results of review, we have continued to treat the eight companies, including Decca, as part of the Chinawide entity and have continued to find that five companies had no shipments during the POR. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity, we are not conducting a review of the China-wide entity.8 Thus, there is no change to the rate for the China-wide entity from the Preliminary Results. The existing rate for the China-wide entity is 216.01 percent. For additional details, see the Issue and Decision Memorandum, which is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (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 Issue and Decision 5 For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see Memorandum, ‘‘Issue and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2017 Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Issue and Decision Memorandum). 6 The other seven companies are: (1) Dongguan Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd.; Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd.; (2) Kunshan Summit Furniture Co., Ltd.; (3) Qingdao Liangmu Co., Ltd.; (4) Restonic (Dongguan) Furniture Ltd.; Restonic Far East (Samoa) Ltd.; (5) Rizhao Sanmu Woodworking Co., Ltd.; (6) Techniwood Industries Ltd.; Ningbo Furniture Industries Ltd.; Ningbo Hengrun Furniture Co., Ltd.; and (7) Zhangjiagang Zheng Yan Decoration Co., Ltd. See Preliminary Results at 63829. 7 The five companies/company groupings are: (1) Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd., Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Taicang Fairmount Designs Furniture Co., Ltd., Meizhou Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd.; (2) Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Shanghai Sunrise Furniture Co. Ltd., Fairmont Designs; (3) Eurosa (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Eurosa Furniture Co., (PTE) Ltd.; (4) Shenyang Shining Dongxing Furniture Co., Ltd.; and (5) Yeh Brothers World Trade Inc. See Preliminary Results at 63829. 8 See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65969–70 (November 4, 2013). PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and the electronic versions of the Issue and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. The issue raised by the petitioners in their case brief is identified in the Appendix to this notice. Assessment Rates Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate any entries of subject merchandise exported during this POR by Decca and the other seven companies noted above which did not qualify for separate rate status, at the China-wide rate. Additionally, pursuant to Commerce’s practice in non-market economy cases, if there are any suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR under the case numbers of the five companies that claimed no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, they will be liquidated at the Chinawide rate.9 Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date in the Federal Register of the final results of this review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed China and non-China exporters which are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but which received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all China exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the China-wide entity, which is 216.01 percent; and (3) for all non-China exporters of subject merchandise which have not received 9 For a full discussion of this practice, see NonMarket Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011). E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM 29MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2019 / Notices their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the China exporter that supplied that non-China exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. This notice of the final results of this antidumping duty administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5). Dated: May 21, 2019. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of the Issues Comment: Commerce Should Assign the Mandatory Respondent Decca a Rate Based on Total Adverse Facts Available V. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2019–11081 Filed 5–28–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:45 May 28, 2019 Jkt 247001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–909] Certain Steel Nails From the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016–2017 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 24, 2019, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published in the Federal Register the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain steel nails from the People’s Republic of China (China). Commerce is amending the final results of the administrative review to correct an unintentional ministerial error. DATES: Applicable May 29, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Pulongbarit or Benito Ballesteros, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202–482–4031 or 202–482–7425, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 24, 2019, Commerce published in the Federal Register the final results of the administrative review of certain steel nails from China.1 No interested party submitted ministerial allegations concerning the Final Results. Following the publication of the Final Results, Commerce identified a ministerial error in Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd.’s (Dezhou Hualude) final results margin calculation program.2 AGENCY: Legal Framework A ministerial error, as defined in section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), includes ‘‘errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.’’ 3 With respect to final 1 See Certain Steel Nails from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2016–2017, 84 FR 17134 (April 24, 2019) (Final Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM). 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Administrative Review Certain Steel Nails from the People’s Republic of China; 2016–2017: Ministerial Error Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (Ministerial Error Memorandum). 3 See also 19 CFR 351.224(f). PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 24751 results of administrative reviews, 19 CFR 351.224(e) provides that Commerce ‘‘will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any ministerial error by amending the final results of review . . . .’’ Even when interested parties do not submit ministerial error comments, Commerce has the authority to self-correct ministerial errors provided the selfcorrection occurs within the statutory timeline for judicial review.4 Ministerial Errors In the Final Results, we stated our intention to adjust U.S. price in the margin programming for Dezhou Hualude’s international freight and marine insurance expenses.5 However, following the Final Results, we observed that the SAS code input into the program inadvertently caused the program to create missing values for the international freight expenses pertaining to sales to certain importers, which in turn removed those sales from the program and failed to generate importerspecific liquidation rates for those importers. Modifying the final margin program to fix these missing values will properly include the sales in the program and generate the proper importer-specific liquidation rates. Accordingly, we have determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f), that an unintentional ministerial error was made in the Final Results. For a detailed discussion of this ministerial error, as well as Commerce’s analysis, see Ministerial Error Memorandum. Amended Final Results In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results of this administrative review of nails from China. For the amended final results, Commerce has recalculated the weighted-average margin for Dezhou Hualude. Commerce has also updated the sample rate assigned to the nonselected companies, which is based on an average of the rates of the three mandatory respondents, The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (collectively, Stanley), Dezhou Hualude, and Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Shandong Dinglong), as discussed in the Ministerial Error Memorandum. The revised weighted-average dumping margins for the administrative review are as follows: 4 See American Signature, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 816, 826–28 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 5 See Final Results and accompany IDM at 26. E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM 29MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24749-24751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11081]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-890]


Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final 
Determination of No Shipments in Part; 2017

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that eight of 
the 13 companies under review have not demonstrated eligibility for a 
separate rate and the other five companies under review had no 
shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review (POR) 
January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

DATES: Applicable May 29, 2019.

[[Page 24750]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5193.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On December 12, 2018, Commerce published its Preliminary Results of 
the review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture 
(WBF) from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the period 
January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.\1\ On January 10, 2019, the 
American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-
Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners) filed a 
case brief.\2\ No rebuttal briefs were filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2017, 83 FR 63829 (December 12, 2018) (Preliminary Results).
    \2\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China: Petitioners' Case Brief,'' dated January 
10, 2019 (Petitioners' Case Brief).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by 
the partial federal government closure from December 22, 2018, through 
the resumption of operations on January 29, 2019.\3\ The revised 
deadline for the final results of review is now May 21, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum to the Record from 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, ``Deadlines 
Affected by the Partial Shutdown of the Federal Government,'' dated 
January 28, 2019. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding 
have been extended by 40 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the Order is wooden bedroom furniture, 
subject to certain exceptions.\4\ Imports of subject merchandise are 
classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) subheadings: 9403.50.9042, 9403.50.9045, 9403.50.9080, 
9403.90.7005, 9403.90.7080, 9403.50.9041, 9403.60.8081, 9403.20.0018, 
9403.90.8041, 7009.92.1000 or 7009.92.5000. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written product description in the Order remains dispositive.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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) 
(Order).
    \5\ For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see 
Memorandum, ``Issue and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of 
the 2017 Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China,'' dated concurrently with this notice 
(Issue and Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis

    In the Preliminary Results, Commerce: (1) Determined that eight 
companies, including the sole mandatory respondent, Decca Furniture 
Ltd. (Decca), did not establish their eligibility for a separate rate 
and are part of the China-wide entity; \6\ and (2) determined that five 
companies had no shipments of subject merchandise.\7\ For these final 
results of review, we have continued to treat the eight companies, 
including Decca, as part of the China-wide entity and have continued to 
find that five companies had no shipments during the POR. Because no 
party requested a review of the China-wide entity, we are not 
conducting a review of the China-wide entity.\8\ Thus, there is no 
change to the rate for the China-wide entity from the Preliminary 
Results. The existing rate for the China-wide entity is 216.01 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The other seven companies are: (1) Dongguan Kingstone 
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd.; (2) Kunshan 
Summit Furniture Co., Ltd.; (3) Qingdao Liangmu Co., Ltd.; (4) 
Restonic (Dongguan) Furniture Ltd.; Restonic Far East (Samoa) Ltd.; 
(5) Rizhao Sanmu Woodworking Co., Ltd.; (6) Techniwood Industries 
Ltd.; Ningbo Furniture Industries Ltd.; Ningbo Hengrun Furniture 
Co., Ltd.; and (7) Zhangjiagang Zheng Yan Decoration Co., Ltd. See 
Preliminary Results at 63829.
    \7\ The five companies/company groupings are: (1) Dongguan 
Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd., Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., 
Ltd., Taicang Fairmount Designs Furniture Co., Ltd., Meizhou Sunrise 
Furniture Co., Ltd.; (2) Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Taicang 
Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Shanghai Sunrise Furniture Co. 
Ltd., Fairmont Designs; (3) Eurosa (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Eurosa 
Furniture Co., (PTE) Ltd.; (4) Shenyang Shining Dongxing Furniture 
Co., Ltd.; and (5) Yeh Brothers World Trade Inc. See Preliminary 
Results at 63829.
    \8\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in 
Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty 
Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity 
in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65969-70 (November 
4, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For additional details, see the Issue and Decision Memorandum, 
which is a public document and is on file electronically via 
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (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 Issue and Decision Memorandum can 
be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and the electronic versions of the Issue and 
Decision Memorandum are identical in content. The issue raised by the 
petitioners in their case brief is identified in the Appendix to this 
notice.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance 
with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of 
the final results of this review. Commerce will instruct CBP to 
liquidate any entries of subject merchandise exported during this POR 
by Decca and the other seven companies noted above which did not 
qualify for separate rate status, at the China-wide rate.
    Additionally, pursuant to Commerce's practice in non-market economy 
cases, if there are any suspended entries of subject merchandise during 
the POR under the case numbers of the five companies that claimed no 
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, they will be 
liquidated at the China-wide rate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market 
Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 
76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for 
shipments of subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date in the 
Federal Register of the final results of this review, as provided by 
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or 
reviewed China and non-China exporters which are not under review in 
this segment of the proceeding but which received a separate rate in a 
prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue 
to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all China exporters 
of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the China-
wide entity, which is 216.01 percent; and (3) for all non-China 
exporters of subject merchandise which have not received

[[Page 24751]]

their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to 
the China exporter that supplied that non-China exporter.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until further notice.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation that is subject to sanction.
    This notice of the final results of this antidumping duty 
administrative review is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: May 21, 2019.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Discussion of the Issues
    Comment: Commerce Should Assign the Mandatory Respondent Decca a 
Rate Based on Total Adverse Facts Available
V. Recommendation

[FR Doc. 2019-11081 Filed 5-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P