[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14086-14087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05942]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-890]


Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and 
Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision

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

SUMMARY: On February 29, 2016, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``CIT'' or ``Court'') sustained the Department of Commerce's 
(``Department'') final results of redetermination \1\ in which the 
Department determined, under protest, that four chests of Ethan Allen 
Operations, Inc. (``Ethan Allen'') are not subject to the scope of the 
WBF Order,\2\ pursuant to the CIT's remand order in Ethan Allen 
Operations, Inc. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14-00147 (December 
1, 2015) (``Ethan Allen'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 14-
000147, Slip Op. 16-19 (CIT February 29, 2016) (``Ethan Allen II''), 
which sustained the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 
Court Order, Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. v. United States, dated 
February 11, 2016 (``Final Remand Results'').
    \2\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) 
(``WBF Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') in Timken,\3\ as clarified by 
Diamond Sawblades,\4\ the Department is notifying the public that the 
Court's final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the 
Department's Ethan Allen Scope Ruling and is therefore amending its 
final scope ruling.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (``Timken'').
    \4\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Diamond Sawblades'').
    \5\ See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 
``Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: 
Scope Ruling on Ethan Allen Operations Inc.'s Chests'' (May 27, 
2014) (``Ethan Allen Scope Ruling'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: March 10, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara Lofaro, Office IV, Enforcement 
and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-5720.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 27, 2014 the Department issued the Ethan Allen Scope Ruling, 
in which it determined that Ethan Allen's Marlene, Nadine, and 
Serpentine chests were subject to the WBF Order based on an analysis 
under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1), and that the Vivica chest was also subject 
merchandise based on an analysis of the factors under both 19 CFR 
351.225(k)(1) and (k)(2) (the ``(k)(2) analysis''). The Department then 
requested a voluntary remand to allow further notice to, and comment 
from, parties on its (k)(2) analysis of the Vivica chest, which the 
Court granted. In the Voluntary Remand Results, the Department 
responded to the arguments of the parties to the dispute and 
determined, again, based on a (k)(2) analysis, that Ethan Allen's 
Vivica chest is subject to the scope of the WBF Order.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Final Results of Voluntary Redetermination Pursuant To 
Court Order, dated November 26, 2014. (``Voluntary Remand 
Results'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 1, 2015, the Court issued its opinion on the Ethan 
Allen Scope Ruling, remanding each of the Department's determinations 
back to the agency for further analysis,\7\ as discussed in further 
detail in the Final Remand Results.\8\ Specifically, the Court held 
that with respect to the Vivica chest, ``because the (k)(1) factors are 
dispositive as to the Vivica chest and demonstrate that the Vivica 
chest is not within the scope of the WBF Order, the court does not 
proceed to an analysis of the (k)(2) factors and remands to Commerce to 
issue a ruling consistent with this opinion.'' \9\ The Court further 
held that with respect to the Marlene, Nadine, and Serpentine chests 
``because the (k)(1) factors are non-dispositive {in the Ethan Allen 
Scope Ruling the Department determined that the Marlene, Nadine, and 
Serpentine chests were covered by the WBF Order after analyzing the 
criteria listed in 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1){time} , Commerce should 
evaluate the (k)(2) factors consistent with this decision,'' in which 
the Court noted, in part, that ``the proper inquiry should focus on the 
intended function of the product, i.e., whether it was intended and 
designed for use in the bedroom.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Ethan Allen.
    \8\ See Final Remand Results at 1-2.
    \9\ See Ethan Allen at 16.
    \10\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Department issued the Final Remand Results and, 
consistent with the Court's analysis, determined that the Vivica chest 
is not subject to the WBF Order. Furthermore, in accordance with the 
Court's holding that the Marlene, Nadine, and Serpentine chests should 
be evaluated using a (k)(2) analysis, Commerce conducted such an 
analysis and determined that ``the weight of the record evidence 
supports a determination that the Nadine, Marlene, and Serpentine 
chests are not covered by the scope of the WBF Order.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Final Remand Results at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Ethan Allen II, the Court sustained the Department's Final 
Remand Results in its entirety.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Ethan Allen II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken \13\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 
the CAFC held that, pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''), the Department must publish a 
notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Department 
determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a 
``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's February 29, 2016, judgment in 
Ethan Allen II, sustaining the Department's decision in the Final 
Remand Results that the four chests at issue are not covered by the 
scope of the WBF Order, constitutes a final decision of that court that 
is not in harmony with the Ethan Allen Scope Ruling. This notice is 
published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. 
Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation 
of the chests at issue pending expiration of the period to appeal or, 
if appealed,

[[Page 14087]]

pending a final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Timken, 893 F.2d at 341.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Determination

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the 
Ethan Allen Scope Ruling, the Department is amending its final scope 
ruling. The Department finds that the scope of the WBF Order does not 
cover the products addressed in the Ethan Allen Scope Ruling. The 
Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 
that the cash deposit rate will be zero percent for the four chests 
imported by Ethan Allen. In the event that the CIT's ruling is not 
appealed, or if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will 
instruct CBP to liquidate entries of Ethan Allen's four chests at issue 
without regard to antidumping and/or countervailing duties, and to lift 
suspension of liquidation of such entries.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 9, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-05942 Filed 3-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P