[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 51 (Thursday, March 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14724-14725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05756]


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

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 the Third 
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of the Third 
Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision

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

SUMMARY: On March 3, 2021, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment sustaining the Department of 
Commerce's (Commerce) corrected final results of remand redetermination 
pursuant to court order. Commerce is notifying the public that the 
final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final 
results in the third administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) 
order on multilayered wood flooring (MLWF) from the People's Republic 
of China (China), covering the period of review from December 1, 2013, 
through November 30, 2014, and that Commerce is amending its 
calculation of the rate applicable to separate rate respondents.

DATES: March 13, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aleksandras Nakutis, 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) 482-3147.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Commerce individually examined Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited 
(Fine Furniture) and the collapsed entity Dalian Penghong Floor 
Products Co., Ltd./Dalian Shumaike Floor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 
(collectively, Dalian Penghong) as mandatory respondents in the third 
administrative review of the AD order on MLWF from China,\1\ covering 
the period of review from December 1, 2013, through November 30, 
2014.\2\ As identified in the Final Results, the calculated margins for 
Fine furniture and Dalian Penghong were 17.37 percent and 0.00 percent, 
respectively.\3\ Commerce assigned Fine Furniture's 17.37 percent 
margin to the companies eligible for a separate rate.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of 
China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 76690 (December 8, 2011) (Order).
    \2\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
2013-2014, 81 FR 46899 (July 19, 2016), as amended in Multilayered 
Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Correction to the 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 81 FR 53120 
(August 11, 2016) (collectively, Final Results).
    \3\ See Final Results, 81 FR at 46901.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fine Furniture and certain separate rate companies (collectively, 
plaintiffs) challenged Commerce's Final Results. The CIT sustained 
Commerce's Final Results,\5\ and select plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. 
Court of Appeals Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit).\6\ The Federal 
Circuit ordered that the case be stayed pending the outcome of 
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., v. United States, Appeal Nos. 2018-2335, -
2337.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al., v. United 
States, 353 F. Supp. 3d 1323 (CIT 2018).
    \6\ See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. United 
States, Appeal Nos. 2019-1499, -1500, -1501, -1502, -1503 (Fine 
Furniture Federal Circuit).
    \7\ Id., ECF No. 40 (March 28, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the Federal Circuit's final opinion in Changzhou Hawd 
that held that Fine Furniture was excluded from the Order,\8\ the 
Federal Circuit lifted the stay of the appeal of the Final Results and 
remanded the case to the CIT to oversee Commerce's recalculation of the 
margin for the companies eligible for a separate rate.\9\ Commerce then 
requested a voluntary remand from the CIT to recalculate the margin to 
be applied to the separate rate companies, given Fine Furnitures's 
exclusion from the Order, and the CIT granted Commerce's request.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd. v. United States, 947 
F.3d 781, 793-94 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Changzhou Hawd).
    \9\ See Fine Furniture Federal Circuit, ECF No. 56 (August 4, 
2020).
    \10\ See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al., v. United 
States, Consol. Court No. 16-00145 (August 25, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 23, 2020, Commerce issued its Remand Results, in which 
Commerce recalculated the rate applicable to the plaintiff separate 
rate respondents and assigned the remaining mandatory respondent Dalian 
Penghong's weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent to the 
respondents not selected for individual examination that were granted a 
separate rate in the Final Results and were party to the 
litigation.\11\ On November 27, 2020, after obtaining leave from the 
CIT, Commerce issued its Corrected Remand Results, correcting several 
clerical errors made in its Remand Results.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Order at 4 (September 23, 2020) (Remand Results).
    \12\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Order (November 27, 2020) (Corrected Remand Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 3, 2021, the CIT sustained Commerce's Corrected Remand 
Results.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al., v. United 
States, Consol. Court No. 16-00145, Slip Op. 21-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\14\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\15\ the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 
516A(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 March 3, 2021, judgment 
constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with 
Commerce's Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of 
the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will 
continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise 
pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or if appealed, pending 
a final and conclusive court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d. 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \15\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d. 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to this 
case, Commerce is amending its Final Results

[[Page 14725]]

with to the rate applicable to separate rate plaintiff respondents. 
Based on the Corrected Remand Results, we find that the applicable 
margin is 0.00 percent to the separate rate companies listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Margin
                 Exporter/producer 16                       (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd.........................              0.00
Anhui Longhua Bamboo Product Co., Ltd.................              0.00
Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd...............              0.00
Benxi Wood Company....................................              0.00
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd......................              0.00
Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd............................              0.00
Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd...............              0.00
Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd..................              0.00
Dalian Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd................              0.00
Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC..................              0.00
Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd..............              0.00
Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd...........              0.00
Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co. Ltd.............              0.00
Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd..................              0.00
Fusong Jinqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd.................              0.00
Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd................              0.00
Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd..............              0.00
Guangzhou Panyu Kangda Board Co., Ltd.................              0.00
Hailin LinJing Wooden Products Ltd....................              0.00
Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd...........................              0.00
Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd........................              0.00
Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd........................              0.00
Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd......              0.00
Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd.......................              0.00
Jiashan HuiJiaLe Decoration Material Co., Ltd.........              0.00
Jiaxing Hengtong Wood Co., Ltd........................              0.00
Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd.              0.00
Karly Wood Product Limited............................              0.00
Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd...............              0.00
Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd............................              0.00
Mudanjiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd...............              0.00
Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd.........              0.00
Pinge Timber Manufacturing (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd........              0.00
Shanghai Lairunde Wood Co., Ltd.......................              0.00
Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd...................              0.00
Sino-Maple (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.........................              0.00
Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd...........................              0.00
Xiamen Yung De Ornament Co., Ltd......................              0.00
Yingyi-Nature (Kunshan) Wood Industry Co., Ltd........              0.00
Zhejiang Biyork Wood Co., Ltd.........................              0.00
Zhejiang Dadongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd.............              0.00
Zhejiang Shuimojiangnan New Material Technology Co.,                0.00
 Ltd..................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

    In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, 
is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will issue 
appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
liquidating entries exported from the companies above during the period 
December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014, at the appropriate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Imports of subject merchandise from the following are 
excluded: produced and exported by 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 10, 2019, for Armstrong, and on August 11, 2020, 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 December 1, 2013, through 
November 30, 2014 period of review without regard to duties given these 
companies' exclusion from the Order.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because there have been subsequent administrative reviews for 
separate rate respondents, the cash deposit rate for these companies 
will remain the rate established in the most recently completed 
administrative review.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and New Shipper Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 
2017-2018, 85 FR 78118 (December 3, 2020); see also Multilayered 
Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Final Determination of No 
Shipments, and Partial Rescission; 2015-2016, 83 FR 35461 (July 26, 
2018), as amended in Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's 
Republic of China: Correction to the Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 83 FR 45418 (September 7, 
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: March 15, 2021.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations.
[FR Doc. 2021-05756 Filed 3-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P