Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results, 10333-10334 [2022-03923]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices
Dated: February 17, 2022.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022–03896 Filed 2–23–22; 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
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; Notice of
Amended Final Results
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 7, 2022, the U.S.
Court of International Trade (CIT or
Court) issued its final judgment in Fine
Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 14–
00135, sustaining the Department of
Commerce (Commerce)’s remand
redetermination pertaining to the 2011–
2012 antidumping duty (AD)
administrative review of multilayered
hardwood flooring (wood flooring) from
the People’s Republic of China (China)
covering the period May 26, 2011,
through November 30, 2012. Commerce
is notifying the public that the CIT’s
final judgment in this litigation is not in
harmony with the final of the 2011–
2012 AD administrative review of wood
flooring from China, and that Commerce
is amending the final results of that
review with respect to the dumping
margin assigned to certain separate rate
companies.
DATES: Applicable February 17, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Drew Jackson, 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) 482–4406.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Background
On May 9, 2014, Commerce published
the final results of the first
administrative review of wood flooring
from China.1 After correcting certain
ministerial errors contained in the Final
Results, on June 20, 2014, Commerce
1 See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–
2012, 79 FR 26712 (May 9, 2014) (Final Results),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Feb 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
published the Amended Final Results,
in which Commerce amended the final
weighted-average dumping margins for
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (Fine
Furniture) and certain separate rate
companies.2
Fine Furniture and certain separate
rate companies (collectively, plaintiffs)
challenged Commerce’s Final Results. In
its first remand opinion, the CIT held
unlawful the calculation of a deduction
Commerce made for Chinese
irrecoverable value-added tax (VAT).3
Furthermore, the CIT held two decisions
Commerce made in determining the
normal value of Fine Furnitures’s
subject merchandise were not supported
by substantial evidence: (1) Commerce’s
choice of financial statements for use in
calculating surrogate financial ratios;
and (2) the calculation of the surrogate
value for electricity.4
Commerce filed the first remand
redetermination on August 28, 2017,
which included a recalculation of the
weighted-average dumping margin of
0.73 percent for Fine Furniture. Based
on this margin, Commerce assigned a
rate of 0.73 percent as the revised
separate rate.5 The CIT sustained
Commerce’s recalculation of the
deduction for VAT and its decisions on
the choice of financial statements;
however, the CIT ordered Commerce to
reconsider on remand its selection of
the surrogate value for Fine Furniture’s
electricity usage.6
Following the CIT’s opinion and order
in Fine Furniture III, the court stayed
the case pending the outcome of
Changzhou Hawd.7 On February 2,
2021, following the U.S. Court of
Appeals of the Federal Circuit (Federal
Circuit or CAFC) final opinion in
Changzhou Hawd that held that Fine
Furniture was excluded from the
Order,8 the CIT lifted the stay and
granted Commerce’s voluntary remand
to recalculate an antidumping duty rate
applicable to the separate rate
2 See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–
2012, 79 FR 35314 (June 20, 2014) (Amended Final
Results).
3 See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United
States, 182 F. Supp 3d 1350 (CIT 2016) (Fine
Furniture I).
4 Id.
5 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Order (August 28, 2017), ECF No. 337–1,
338–1.
6 See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United
States, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1282 (CIT 2018) (Fine
Furniture III).
7 See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 947 F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(Changzhou Hawd).
8 See Changzhou Hawd, 947 F.3d at 793–94.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10333
respondents, given Fine Furniture’s
exclusion from the order.9
In its final remand redetermination,
issued in July 2021, Commerce assigned
a new separate rate of 0.00 percent
applicable only to those companies that
are party to the litigation and that have
an injunction in place.10 The CIT
sustained Commerce’s final remand
redetermination.11
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,12 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,13 the
Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to
section 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act),
Commerce must publish a notice of a
court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’
with a Commerce determination and
must suspend liquidation of entries
pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision.
The CIT’s February 7, 2022, judgment
constitutes a final court decision that is
not in harmony with Commerce’s Final
Results. Thus, this notice is published
in fulfillment of the publication
requirements of Timken.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
judgment, Commerce is amending its
Final Results with respect to the
dumping margin assigned to entries of
wood flooring produced and/or
exported from China, which were
entered or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption during the period May
26, 2011, through November 30, 2012,
for the separate rate companies listed in
the appendix.14 The amended weightedaverage dumping margin for the
companies that participated in the
9 See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 14–00135, Slip
Op. 21–69 (June 2, 2021) (Fine Furniture IV).
10 See Final Results of Remand Redetermination,
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. United
States, Consol. Court No. 14–00135, Slip Op. 21–
69 (CIT June 2, 2021) (July 12, 2021).
11 See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 14–00135, Slip
Op. 22–9 (CIT February 7, 2022).
12 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
13 See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers
Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
14 Hangzhou Zhengtian Industrial Co., Ltd. was
not subject to the first review final results. See Final
Results. Therefore, this company’s entries would
have liquidated pursuant to prior liquidation
instructions. In addition, Dalian Huilong Wooden
Products Co., Ltd., Dunhua City Dexin Wood
Industry Co., Ltd., Karly Wood Product Limited,
and Kunshan Yingyi-Nature Wood Industry Co.,
Ltd. have no outstanding injunction for this period
of review. Therefore, in accordance with our final
remand redetermination and the Court’s opinion,
we are not assigning these companies the revised
rate.
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
10334
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices
litigation and have injunctions in place
is 0.00 percent.15
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because the companies listed in the
appendix have a superseding cash
deposit rate, i.e., there have been final
results published in subsequent
administrative reviews for the
companies listed above, we will not
issue revised cash deposit instructions
to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP). This notice will not affect the
current cash deposit rates for those
exporters/producers.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains
enjoined by CIT order from liquidating
entries of subject merchandise that were
exported by any of the companies listed
above and that were entered into the
United States, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption during the
period May 26, 2011, through November
30, 2012. These entries will remain
enjoined pursuant to the terms of the
injunction during the pendency of any
appeals process.
In the event the CIT’s ruling is not
appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a
final and conclusive court decision,
Commerce intends to instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on
unliquidated entries of subject
merchandise exported by the companies
listed above in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by the
review when the importer-specific ad
valorem assessment rate is not zero or
de minimis. Where an importer-specific
ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de
minimis,16 we will instruct CBP to
liquidate the appropriate entries
without regard to antidumping duties.
[FR Doc. 2022–03923 Filed 2–23–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(c) and
(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dated: February 17, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From
the Republic of Turkey: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Final Determination of NoShipments; 2019–2020; Correction
Appendix
15 Id.;
see also Appendix.
16 See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
17 As noted above, Hangzhou Zhengtian
Industrial Co., Ltd. was not subject to the first
review final results. See Final Results. Therefore,
this company’s entries would have liquidated
pursuant to prior liquidation instructions. In
addition, Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co.,
Ltd., Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Feb 23, 2022
Jkt 256001
International Trade Administration
[A–489–829]
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) published a notice in the
AGENCY:
Separate Rate Companies 17
1. Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
2. Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC
3. GTP International Limited
4. Guangzhou Panyu Kangda Board Co., Ltd.
5. Guangzhou Panyu Southern Star Co., Ltd.
6. Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood
Industry Co., Ltd.
7. Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd.
8. Jiashan HuiJiaLe Decoration Material Co.,
Ltd.
9. Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co.,
Ltd.
10. Puli Trading Ltd.
11. Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd.
12. Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd.
13. Zhejiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd.
14. Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co.,
Ltd./The Lizhong Wood Industry
Limited Company of Shanghai
15. Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc.
16. Baishan Huafeng Wood Product Co., Ltd.
17. Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd.
18. Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd.
19. Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd.
20. Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry
Co., Ltd.
21. Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry
Co., Ltd.
22. Fujian Wuyishan Werner Green Industry
Co., Ltd.
23. Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd.
24. Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd.
25. Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden Industry
Co., Ltd.
26. Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd.
27. Huzhou Fulinmen Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.
28. Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
29. Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring
Group Co., Ltd.
30. Mudanjiang Bosen Wood Industry Co.,
Ltd.
31. Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co.,
Ltd.
32. Shanghai Eswell Timber Co., Ltd.
33. Shanghai Shenlin Corporation
34. Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd.
35. Zhejiang Fuma Warm Technology Co.,
Ltd.
36. Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd.
Karly Wood Product Limited, and Kunshan YingyiNature Wood Industry Co., Ltd. have no
outstanding injunction for this period of review.
Therefore, in accordance with our final remand
redetermination and the Court’s opinion, we are not
providing these companies with the revised rate.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Federal Register on February 8, 2022, in
which Commerce announced the final
results of the 2019–2020 administrative
review of the antidumping duty (AD)
order on steel concrete reinforcing bar
(rebar) from the Republic of Turkey
(Turkey). This notice corrects the name
of the respondent for which we tied the
rates for non-selected companies to in
that determination.
DATES:
Applicable February 24, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Copyak or Jose Rivera, AD/CVD
Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–3642 or (202) 482–0842,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Correction
In the Federal Register of February 8,
2022, in the FR Doc 2022–02638 on
page 7119, in the second column,
correct the last sentence in the section
‘‘Rates for Non-Selected Companies:’’
‘‘Accordingly, Commerce is assigning
Colakoglu’s rate of 1.02 percent to
companies not selected for individual
examination.’’ The corrected sentence
should read: ‘‘Accordingly, Commerce
is assigning Kaptan Demir’s rate of 1.02
percent to companies not selected for
individual examination.’’
Background
On August 6, 2021, Commerce
published in the Federal Register the
notice of the final results of the 2019–
2020 administrative review.1 We
inadvertently misstated in the ‘‘Rates for
Non-Selected Companies’’ section of the
notice that ‘‘Commerce is assigning
Colakoglu’s rate of 1.02 percent to
companies not selected for individual
examination.’’ The correct rate for nonselected companies is the rate
calculated for Kaptan Demir Celik
Energji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S.
(Kaptan Demir) of 1.02 percent. This
notice serves as a notification of this
correction to the Federal Register notice
published on February 8, 2022.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a) and
777(i) of the Act.
1 See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the
Republic of Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Final
Determination of No Shipments; 2019–2020, 87 FR
7118 (February 8, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10333-10334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03923]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 7, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(CIT or Court) issued its final judgment in Fine Furniture (Shanghai)
Limited, et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14-00135,
sustaining the Department of Commerce (Commerce)'s remand
redetermination pertaining to the 2011-2012 antidumping duty (AD)
administrative review of multilayered hardwood flooring (wood flooring)
from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the period May 26,
2011, through November 30, 2012. Commerce is notifying the public that
the CIT's final judgment in this litigation is not in harmony with the
final of the 2011-2012 AD administrative review of wood flooring from
China, and that Commerce is amending the final results of that review
with respect to the dumping margin assigned to certain separate rate
companies.
DATES: Applicable February 17, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Drew Jackson, 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) 482-4406.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 9, 2014, Commerce published the final results of the first
administrative review of wood flooring from China.\1\ After correcting
certain ministerial errors contained in the Final Results, on June 20,
2014, Commerce published the Amended Final Results, in which Commerce
amended the final weighted-average dumping margins for Fine Furniture
(Shanghai) Limited (Fine Furniture) and certain separate rate
companies.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2011-2012, 79 FR 26712 (May 9, 2014) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
\2\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of
China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 35314 (June 20, 2014) (Amended Final
Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine Furniture and certain separate rate companies (collectively,
plaintiffs) challenged Commerce's Final Results. In its first remand
opinion, the CIT held unlawful the calculation of a deduction Commerce
made for Chinese irrecoverable value-added tax (VAT).\3\ Furthermore,
the CIT held two decisions Commerce made in determining the normal
value of Fine Furnitures's subject merchandise were not supported by
substantial evidence: (1) Commerce's choice of financial statements for
use in calculating surrogate financial ratios; and (2) the calculation
of the surrogate value for electricity.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United States, 182 F.
Supp 3d 1350 (CIT 2016) (Fine Furniture I).
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce filed the first remand redetermination on August 28, 2017,
which included a recalculation of the weighted-average dumping margin
of 0.73 percent for Fine Furniture. Based on this margin, Commerce
assigned a rate of 0.73 percent as the revised separate rate.\5\ The
CIT sustained Commerce's recalculation of the deduction for VAT and its
decisions on the choice of financial statements; however, the CIT
ordered Commerce to reconsider on remand its selection of the surrogate
value for Fine Furniture's electricity usage.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order
(August 28, 2017), ECF No. 337-1, 338-1.
\6\ See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United States, 321 F.
Supp. 3d 1282 (CIT 2018) (Fine Furniture III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the CIT's opinion and order in Fine Furniture III, the
court stayed the case pending the outcome of Changzhou Hawd.\7\ On
February 2, 2021, following the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal
Circuit (Federal Circuit or CAFC) final opinion in Changzhou Hawd that
held that Fine Furniture was excluded from the Order,\8\ the CIT lifted
the stay and granted Commerce's voluntary remand to recalculate an
antidumping duty rate applicable to the separate rate respondents,
given Fine Furniture's exclusion from the order.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd. v. United States, 947
F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Changzhou Hawd).
\8\ See Changzhou Hawd, 947 F.3d at 793-94.
\9\ See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. United
States, Consol. Court No. 14-00135, Slip Op. 21-69 (June 2, 2021)
(Fine Furniture IV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its final remand redetermination, issued in July 2021, Commerce
assigned a new separate rate of 0.00 percent applicable only to those
companies that are party to the litigation and that have an injunction
in place.\10\ The CIT sustained Commerce's final remand
redetermination.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Final Results of Remand Redetermination, Fine Furniture
(Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14-
00135, Slip Op. 21-69 (CIT June 2, 2021) (July 12, 2021).
\11\ See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. United
States, Consol. Court No. 14-00135, Slip Op. 22-9 (CIT February 7,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\12\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\13\ the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section
516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in
harmony'' with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of
entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's February 7,
2022, judgment constitutes a final court decision that is not in
harmony with Commerce's Final Results. Thus, this notice is published
in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\13\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending
its Final Results with respect to the dumping margin assigned to
entries of wood flooring produced and/or exported from China, which
were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the
period May 26, 2011, through November 30, 2012, for the separate rate
companies listed in the appendix.\14\ The amended weighted-average
dumping margin for the companies that participated in the
[[Page 10334]]
litigation and have injunctions in place is 0.00 percent.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Hangzhou Zhengtian Industrial Co., Ltd. was not subject to
the first review final results. See Final Results. Therefore, this
company's entries would have liquidated pursuant to prior
liquidation instructions. In addition, Dalian Huilong Wooden
Products Co., Ltd., Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Karly
Wood Product Limited, and Kunshan Yingyi-Nature Wood Industry Co.,
Ltd. have no outstanding injunction for this period of review.
Therefore, in accordance with our final remand redetermination and
the Court's opinion, we are not assigning these companies the
revised rate.
\15\ Id.; see also Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because the companies listed in the appendix have a superseding
cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been final results published in
subsequent administrative reviews for the companies listed above, we
will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP). This notice will not affect the current cash
deposit rates for those exporters/producers.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from
liquidating entries of subject merchandise that were exported by any of
the companies listed above and that were entered into the United
States, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period
May 26, 2011, through November 30, 2012. These entries will remain
enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of
any appeals process.
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed,
upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of
subject merchandise exported by the companies listed above in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by the review
when the importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is not zero or de
minimis. Where an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero
or de minimis,\16\ we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate
entries without regard to antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(c) and (e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 17, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Separate Rate Companies \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As noted above, Hangzhou Zhengtian Industrial Co., Ltd. was
not subject to the first review final results. See Final Results.
Therefore, this company's entries would have liquidated pursuant to
prior liquidation instructions. In addition, Dalian Huilong Wooden
Products Co., Ltd., Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Karly
Wood Product Limited, and Kunshan Yingyi-Nature Wood Industry Co.,
Ltd. have no outstanding injunction for this period of review.
Therefore, in accordance with our final remand redetermination and
the Court's opinion, we are not providing these companies with the
revised rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
2. Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC
3. GTP International Limited
4. Guangzhou Panyu Kangda Board Co., Ltd.
5. Guangzhou Panyu Southern Star Co., Ltd.
6. Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
7. Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd.
8. Jiashan HuiJiaLe Decoration Material Co., Ltd.
9. Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.
10. Puli Trading Ltd.
11. Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd.
12. Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd.
13. Zhejiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd.
14. Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd./The Lizhong Wood
Industry Limited Company of Shanghai
15. Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc.
16. Baishan Huafeng Wood Product Co., Ltd.
17. Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd.
18. Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd.
19. Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd.
20. Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
21. Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
22. Fujian Wuyishan Werner Green Industry Co., Ltd.
23. Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd.
24. Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd.
25. Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden Industry Co., Ltd.
26. Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd.
27. Huzhou Fulinmen Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.
28. Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
29. Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd.
30. Mudanjiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
31. Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd.
32. Shanghai Eswell Timber Co., Ltd.
33. Shanghai Shenlin Corporation
34. Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd.
35. Zhejiang Fuma Warm Technology Co., Ltd.
36. Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd.
[FR Doc. 2022-03923 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
