Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of the Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 83888-83890 [2020-28400]

Download as PDF 83888 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices the less-than-fair-value investigation, if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.18 For a full discussion of this matter, see Assessment Policy Notice.19 For those companies which were not individually examined, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at an ad valorem rate equal to that companies weighted-average dumping margin as determined in the final results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8, we intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP on or after 41 days after publication of the final results of this review. jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which they were reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or in the investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be the all-others rate of 3.76 percent.20 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a 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 18 See Order, 73 FR at 45405. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). 20 See Order, 73 FR at 45405. 19 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:21 Dec 22, 2020 Jkt 253001 result in the Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: December 16, 2020. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review V. Companies Not Selected for Individual Examination VI. Successor-in-Interest VII. Single Entity Treatment VIII. Discussion of the Methodology IX. Currency Conversion X. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2020–28347 Filed 12–22–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION [A–570–970] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of the Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 10, 2020, the United States Court of International Trade (the Court) entered final judgment sustaining the final results of the second remand redetermination pursuant to court order by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the antidumping duty administrative review of multilayered wood flooring (MLWF) from the People’s Republic of China (China) covering the period of review (POR), December 1, 2012 through November 30, 2013. Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce’s final results in the 2012–2013 administrative review of MLWF from China. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DATES: Applicable December 20, 2020 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 On July 15, 2015, Commerce published the Final Results in the 2012– 2013 administrative review of multilayered wood flooring from China in which Commerce assigned a rate of 13.74 percent to Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (Senmao) and all separate rate respondents in the Final Results.1 Commerce applied the weighted-average dumping margin of Senmao (the only mandatory respondent to receive a rate that was not de minimis or based solely on adverse facts available) to all parties eligible for a separate rate, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 Senmao and certain separate rate respondents appealed the Final Results. In its first remand order, the Court directed Commerce to reconsider or further explain certain of its surrogate value selections, its downward adjustment for irrevocable VAT, as well as its decision to deny voluntary respondent status to Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (Fine Furniture).3 Upon reconsidering these issues in the First Remand Redetermination, Commerce made certain changes and calculated a revised weighted-average dumping margin for Senmao and the separate rate companies.4 In Senmao II, the Court affirmed the First Remand Redetermination as it pertained to the surrogate value selections.5 However, the Court found that Commerce’s downward adjustment for irrevocable VAT was contrary to law in relying upon an unlawful interpretation of the Act.6 The Court, 1 See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review; 2012–2013, 80 FR 41476 (July 15, 2015) (Final Results). 2 Id. 3 See Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., et al. , v. United States, 322 F. Supp 3d 1308 (CIT 2018) (Senmao I). 4 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., et al. , v. United States, dated June 3, 2019 (First Remand Redetermination). 5 See Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., et al., v. United States, Court No. 15– 00225. Slip Op. 20–31 (March 11, 2020) (Senmao II). 6 Id. E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM 23DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices thus, remanded the case, so that Commerce could correct the error regarding the downward adjustment for irrevocable VAT. In the Second Remand Redetermination,7 Commerce removed the downward adjustment for irrevocable VAT as directed by the Court and revised the weighted-average dumping margin for Senmao to 3.92 percent.8 Additionally, because the rate for separate rate respondents was based entirely on Senmao’s weighted-average dumping margin, Senmao’s margin of 3.92 percent was applied to those separate rate respondents which were party to the litigation. On December 10, 2020, the Court entered final judgment in Senmao III.9 The Court sustained the Second Remand Redetermination excluding any downward adjustment for irrevocable VAT and revising the weighted-average dumping margin for Senmao and the other separate rate entities that are party to the litigation. 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 Court’s December 10, 2020 final judgment affirming the Second Remand Redetermination 10 constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Final Results.11 This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Amended Final Determination There is now a final court decision with respect to the Final Results with respect to the irrevocable VAT jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES 7 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., et al., v. United States, dated May 8, 2020 (Second Remand Redetermination). 8 Id. 9 See Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 19–00225 (Senmao III). In Senmao III, the Court did not address a previous issue concerning Fine Furniture. However, on September 9, 2020, the Court granted Fine Furniture’s request to dissolve its injunction covering subject entries during the POR, ECF No. 174, because Fine Furniture and Double F Limited are excluded from the order and no party sought appeal of Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 947 F.3d 781 (Fed Cir. 2020) (affirming Fine Furniture and Double F Limited’s exclusion from the order). Accordingly, because Fine Furniture and Double F Limited are excluded from the order, the issue regarding Fine Furniture is moot. 10 Id. 11 See Final Results. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:21 Dec 22, 2020 Jkt 253001 adjustment. Accordingly, Commerce is amending the Final Results and assigning the revised weighted-average dumping margin for Senmao and the separate rate respondents which are parties to the litigation. Additionally, Commerce is amending the revised weighted-average dumping margins for these companies as follows: Weightedaverage dumping margin (percent) Exporter 12 Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd ........... Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd., (aka Baishan Huafeng Wood Product Co., Ltd.) ......................................... Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industrial Co., Ltd ........................................... Chinafloors Timber (China) Co., Ltd ........................................... Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd ................................... Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd ................................... Dalien Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd ................................... Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC ................................... Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd ..................... Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd ........................ Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd ................................... Fusong Jinqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd ................................... Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd ............................. Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd .............................. Guangzhou Panyu Kangda Board Co., Ltd ......................... HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd .................................. Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd .... Hangzhou Zhengtian Industrial Co., Ltd ................................... Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden Industry Co., Ltd ..................... Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd ........................................... Huzhou Fulinmen Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd ................................... Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd ............................. Jiangsu Kentier Wood Co., Ltd .. Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., Ltd.13 ....................................... Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd.14 ....................................... Jiashan HuiJiale Decoration Material Co., Ltd .......................... Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd .......... PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 Exporter 12 Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd .................. Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc ........................................... Mudanjiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd .............................. Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd ...................... Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry Co., Ltd ................................... Puli Trading Limited .................... Shanghai Eswell Timber Co., Ltd Shanghai Shenlin Corp .............. Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd./The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai/Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd ........... Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd ................................... Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd ................................... Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd.15 ....................................... Tongxiang Jisheng Import and Export Co., Ltd ........................ Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd Yingyi-Nature (Kunshan) Wood Industry Co., Ltd ..................... Zhejiang Dadongwu Greenhome Wood Co., Ltd ......................... Zheijiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd ................................... Zhejiang Fuma Warm Technology Co., Ltd ........................ Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd ................................... Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd Zhejiang Tianzhen Bamboo & Wood Development Co., Ltd .. 83889 Weightedaverage dumping margin (percent) 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 Cash Deposit Requirements Because Senmao and the separate rate companies have superseding cash 3.92 deposit rates, i.e. , there have been final results published in a subsequent 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 12 Imports of subject merchandise from the following are excluded: Produced and exported by Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (Fine Furniture) and Double F Limited; produced and exported by Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. (Armstrong); and produced and exported by Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (Dunhua City Jisen). 13 Commerce inadvertently omitted this company from the Second Remand Redetermination; however, this company is entitled to the revised rate as it was subject to the administrative review and was a party to litigation. 14 Commerce inadvertently omitted this company from the Second Remand Redetermination; however, this company is entitled to the revised rate as it was subject to the administrative review and was a party to litigation. 15 Commerce inadvertently omitted this company from the Second Remand Redetermination; however, this company is entitled to the revised rate as it was subject to the administrative review and was a party to litigation. E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM 23DEN1 83890 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices administrative review, this notice will not affect the current cash deposit rates. Liquidation of Suspended Entries If the Court’s final judgment is not appealed, or if appealed and upheld, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation, and to liquidate and to assess duties at a rate of 3.92 percent for entries during the POR that were exported by the companies listed above. On April 10, 2019, for Armstrong, and on July 24, 2020 and September 9, 2020, respectively, for Dunhua City Jisen and Fine Furniture, pursuant to Court order lifting the injunctions Commerce issued liquidation instructions to CBP instructing CBP to liquidate entries for the 2012–2013 POR without regard to duties given these companies’ exclusion from the order. Notification to Interested Parties This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 17, 2020. Joseph A. Laroski Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations. [FR Doc. 2020–28400 Filed 12–21–20; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–996, A–428–843, A–588–872, A–580– 872, A–401–809, A–583–851, C–570–997, C– 583–852] Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From People’s Republic of China, Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Continuation of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on non-oriented electrical steel (NOES) from People’s Republic of China (China), Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea (Korea), Sweden, and Taiwan and revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) orders on NOES from China and Taiwan would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:21 Dec 22, 2020 Jkt 253001 continuation of these AD and CVD orders. DATES: Applicable December 23, 2020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abdul Alnoor, Eva Kim, or Paola Aleman Ordaz, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4554, (202) 482–8283, or (202) 482–4031, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 3, 2014, Commerce published in the Federal Register the notice of the AD orders on NOES from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan 1 and the notice of the CVD orders on NOES from China and Taiwan.2 On November 1, 2019, Commerce published the initiation of the first sunset reviews of the Orders, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).3 Commerce conducted these sunset reviews on an expedited basis, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), because we received a complete, timely, and adequate response from a domestic interested party but no substantive responses from respondent interested parties.4 As a result of Commerce’s review, Commerce determined pursuant 1 See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People’s Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 71741 (December 3, 2014) (AD Orders). 2 See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan: Countervailing Duty Orders, 79 FR 71749 (December 3, 2014) (CVD Orders) (collectively, Orders). 3 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 84 FR 58687 (November 1, 2019). 4 See Domestic Interested Party’s Substantive Responses, ‘‘Five Year (‘Sunset’) Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People’s Republic of China: Domestic Interested Party Substantive Response,’’ dated November 27, 2019; ‘‘Five Year (‘Sunset’) Review Of Antidumping Duty Order On Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany: Domestic Interested Party Substantive Response,’’ dated November 27, 2019; ‘‘Five-Year (‘Sunset’) Review Of Antidumping Duty Order On NonOriented Electrical Steel From The Republic of Korea: Domestic Interested Party Substantive Response,’’ dated November 27, 2019; ‘‘Five-Year (‘Sunset’) Review Of Antidumping Duty Order On Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From Japan: Domestic Interested Party Substantive Response,’’ dated November 27, 2019; ‘‘Five Year (‘Sunset’) Review Of Antidumping Duty Order On Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From Sweden: Domestic Interested Party Substantive Response,’’ dated November 27, 2019; ‘‘Five Year (‘Sunset’) Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From Taiwan: Domestic Interested Party Substantive Response,’’ dated November 27, 2019. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act, that revocation of the AD Orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping. Commerce also notified the ITC of the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail should the AD Orders be revoked.5 Commerce also determined, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, that revocation of the CVD Orders on NOES from China and Taiwan would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the subsidy rates likely to prevail should the CVD Orders be revoked.6 On December 16, 2020, the ITC published notice of its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the Orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.7 Scope of the Orders The merchandise subject to the Orders consists of non-oriented electrical steel (NOES), which includes cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products, whether or not in coils, regardless of width, having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which the core loss is substantially equal in any direction of magnetization in the plane of the material. The term ‘‘substantially equal’’ means that the cross-grain direction of core loss is no more than 1.5 times the straight grain direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of core loss. NOES has a magnetic permeability that does not exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/ m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along (i.e., parallel to) the rolling direction of the sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains by weight more than 1.00 percent of silicon but less than 3.5 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent of aluminum. NOES has a surface oxide coating, to which an insulation coating may be applied. 5 See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From People’s Republic of China, Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders, 85 FR 11337 (February 27, 2020) (Final Results). 6 See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 85 FR 11339 (February 27, 2020); NonOriented Electrical Steel From Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Five-Year Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 85 FR 13135 (March 6, 2020). 7 See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan, (Investigation Nos. 701–TA–506 and 508 and 731– TA–1238–1243), 85 FR 81486, (December 16, 2020). E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM 23DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83888-83890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28400]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

[A-570-970]


Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Results of the 
Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: On December 10, 2020, the United States Court of International 
Trade (the Court) entered final judgment sustaining the final results 
of the second remand redetermination pursuant to court order by the 
Department of Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the antidumping duty 
administrative review of multilayered wood flooring (MLWF) from the 
People's Republic of China (China) covering the period of review (POR), 
December 1, 2012 through November 30, 2013. Commerce is notifying the 
public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with 
Commerce's final results in the 2012-2013 administrative review of MLWF 
from China.

DATES: Applicable December 20, 2020

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

    On July 15, 2015, Commerce published the Final Results in the 2012-
2013 administrative review of multilayered wood flooring from China in 
which Commerce assigned a rate of 13.74 percent to Jiangsu Senmao 
Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (Senmao) and all separate rate 
respondents in the Final Results.\1\ Commerce applied the weighted-
average dumping margin of Senmao (the only mandatory respondent to 
receive a rate that was not de minimis or based solely on adverse facts 
available) to all parties eligible for a separate rate, pursuant to 
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Final Results of New Shipper Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 41476 (July 
15, 2015) (Final Results).
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senmao and certain separate rate respondents appealed the Final 
Results. In its first remand order, the Court directed Commerce to 
reconsider or further explain certain of its surrogate value 
selections, its downward adjustment for irrevocable VAT, as well as its 
decision to deny voluntary respondent status to Fine Furniture 
(Shanghai) Limited (Fine Furniture).\3\ Upon reconsidering these issues 
in the First Remand Redetermination, Commerce made certain changes and 
calculated a revised weighted-average dumping margin for Senmao and the 
separate rate companies.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., et 
al. , v. United States, 322 F. Supp 3d 1308 (CIT 2018) (Senmao I).
    \4\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Order, Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., et al. , 
v. United States, dated June 3, 2019 (First Remand Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Senmao II, the Court affirmed the First Remand Redetermination 
as it pertained to the surrogate value selections.\5\ However, the 
Court found that Commerce's downward adjustment for irrevocable VAT was 
contrary to law in relying upon an unlawful interpretation of the 
Act.\6\ The Court,

[[Page 83889]]

thus, remanded the case, so that Commerce could correct the error 
regarding the downward adjustment for irrevocable VAT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., et 
al., v. United States, Court No. 15-00225. Slip Op. 20-31 (March 11, 
2020) (Senmao II).
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Second Remand Redetermination,\7\ Commerce removed the 
downward adjustment for irrevocable VAT as directed by the Court and 
revised the weighted-average dumping margin for Senmao to 3.92 
percent.\8\ Additionally, because the rate for separate rate 
respondents was based entirely on Senmao's weighted-average dumping 
margin, Senmao's margin of 3.92 percent was applied to those separate 
rate respondents which were party to the litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Order, Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., et al., v. 
United States, dated May 8, 2020 (Second Remand Redetermination).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 10, 2020, the Court entered final judgment in Senmao 
III.\9\ The Court sustained the Second Remand Redetermination excluding 
any downward adjustment for irrevocable VAT and revising the weighted-
average dumping margin for Senmao and the other separate rate entities 
that are party to the litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., et 
al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 19-00225 (Senmao III). In 
Senmao III, the Court did not address a previous issue concerning 
Fine Furniture. However, on September 9, 2020, the Court granted 
Fine Furniture's request to dissolve its injunction covering subject 
entries during the POR, ECF No. 174, because Fine Furniture and 
Double F Limited are excluded from the order and no party sought 
appeal of Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 947 F.3d 781 
(Fed Cir. 2020) (affirming Fine Furniture and Double F Limited's 
exclusion from the order). Accordingly, because Fine Furniture and 
Double F Limited are excluded from the order, the issue regarding 
Fine Furniture is moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Court's December 10, 2020 
final judgment affirming the Second Remand Redetermination \10\ 
constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with 
the Final Results.\11\ This notice is published in fulfillment of the 
publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ See Final Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Determination

    There is now a final court decision with respect to the Final 
Results with respect to the irrevocable VAT adjustment. Accordingly, 
Commerce is amending the Final Results and assigning the revised 
weighted-average dumping margin for Senmao and the separate rate 
respondents which are parties to the litigation. Additionally, Commerce 
is amending the revised weighted-average dumping margins for these 
companies as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                        Exporter \12\                           dumping
                                                                margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd............        3.92
Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd., (aka Baishan              3.92
 Huafeng Wood Product Co., Ltd.)............................
Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu            3.92
 Wood Industrial Co., Ltd...................................
Chinafloors Timber (China) Co., Ltd.........................        3.92
Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd........................        3.92
Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd.....................        3.92
Dalien Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd......................        3.92
Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd.............................        3.92
Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC........................        3.92
Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd.................        3.92
Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd...............................        3.92
Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd..................        3.92
Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd........................        3.92
Fusong Jinqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd.......................        3.92
Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd......................        3.92
Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd....................        3.92
Guangzhou Panyu Kangda Board Co., Ltd.......................        3.92
HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd.........................        3.92
Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd.................................        3.92
Hangzhou Zhengtian Industrial Co., Ltd......................        3.92
Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden Industry Co., Ltd................        3.92
Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd..............................        3.92
Huzhou Fulinmen Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd........................        3.92
Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd..............................        3.92
Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd.................        3.92
Jiangsu Kentier Wood Co., Ltd...............................        3.92
Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., Ltd.\13\.......................        3.92
Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd.\14\........................        3.92
Jiashan HuiJiale Decoration Material Co., Ltd...............        3.92
Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd.......        3.92
Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.....................        3.92
Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc...........................        3.92
Mudanjiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd.....................        3.92
Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd...............        3.92
Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry Co., Ltd....................        3.92
Puli Trading Limited........................................        3.92
Shanghai Eswell Timber Co., Ltd.............................        3.92
Shanghai Shenlin Corp.......................................        3.92
Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd./The Lizhong Wood           3.92
 Industry Limited Company of Shanghai/Linyi Youyou Wood Co.,
 Ltd........................................................
Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd.........................        3.92
Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd..........................        3.92
Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd.\15\............................        3.92
Tongxiang Jisheng Import and Export Co., Ltd................        3.92
Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd................................        3.92
Yingyi-Nature (Kunshan) Wood Industry Co., Ltd..............        3.92
Zhejiang Dadongwu Greenhome Wood Co., Ltd...................        3.92
Zheijiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd...................        3.92
Zhejiang Fuma Warm Technology Co., Ltd......................        3.92
Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd.........................        3.92
Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd.............................        3.92
Zhejiang Tianzhen Bamboo & Wood Development Co., Ltd........        3.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Imports of subject merchandise from the following are 
excluded: Produced and exported by Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited 
(Fine Furniture) and Double F Limited; produced and exported by 
Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. (Armstrong); and 
produced and exported by Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd. 
(Dunhua City Jisen).
    \13\ Commerce inadvertently omitted this company from the Second 
Remand Redetermination; however, this company is entitled to the 
revised rate as it was subject to the administrative review and was 
a party to litigation.
    \14\ Commerce inadvertently omitted this company from the Second 
Remand Redetermination; however, this company is entitled to the 
revised rate as it was subject to the administrative review and was 
a party to litigation.
    \15\ Commerce inadvertently omitted this company from the Second 
Remand Redetermination; however, this company is entitled to the 
revised rate as it was subject to the administrative review and was 
a party to litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Senmao and the separate rate companies have superseding 
cash deposit rates, i.e. , there have been final results published in a 
subsequent

[[Page 83890]]

administrative review, this notice will not affect the current cash 
deposit rates.

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

    If the Court's final judgment is not appealed, or if appealed and 
upheld, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of 
liquidation, and to liquidate and to assess duties at a rate of 3.92 
percent for entries during the POR that were exported by the companies 
listed above.
    On April 10, 2019, for Armstrong, and on July 24, 2020 and 
September 9, 2020, respectively, for Dunhua City Jisen and Fine 
Furniture, pursuant to Court order lifting the injunctions Commerce 
issued liquidation instructions to CBP instructing CBP to liquidate 
entries for the 2012-2013 POR without regard to duties given these 
companies' exclusion from the order.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 17, 2020.
Joseph A. Laroski Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations.
 [FR Doc. 2020-28400 Filed 12-21-20; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.