[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31277-31278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12269]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-051; C-570-052]
Certain Hardwood Plywood Products 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 May 27, 2021, the U.S Court of International Trade (CIT)
issued its final judgment in Fabuwood Cabinetry Corp. v. United States,
Consol. Court no. 18-00208, sustaining the Department of Commerce
(Commerce)'s first remand redetermination pertaining to the scope
ruling for the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD)
orders on certain hardwood plywood products (hardwood plywood) from the
People's Republic of China (China). Commerce is notifying the public
that the CIT's final judgment in this case is not in harmony with
Commerce's scope ruling, and that Commerce is withdrawing its scope
ruling because the request suffered from several critical deficiencies.
DATES: Applicable June 6, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kabir Archuletta, 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) 482-4047.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 7, 2018, Commerce found hardwood plywood in three
product categories, described by the Coalition for Fair Trade in
Hardwood Plywood and Masterbrand Cabinets Inc. (collectively, the
requestors) in their Amended Scope Ruling Request,\1\ to be within the
scope of the Orders.\2\ As a result of the Final Scope Ruling, Commerce
instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue the
suspension of liquidation of entries of certain hardwood plywood
products from China, including the plywood in the three product
categories described by the requestors in their Amended Scope Ruling
Request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Requestors Letters, ``Certain Hardwood Plywood Products
from the People's Republic of China: Request for Scope Ruling,''
dated April 6, 2018 (Initial Scope Ruling Request); and ``Certain
Hardwood Plywood Products from the People's Republic of China:
Amendment to Request for Scope Ruling,'' dated July 13, 2018
(Amended Scope Ruling Request).
\2\ See Memorandum, ``Final Scope Ruling for Certain Hardwood
Plywood Products from the People's Republic of China: Request by the
Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood and Masterbrand
Cabinets Inc.,'' dated September 7, 2018 (Final Scope Ruling) at 1;
see also See Certain Hardwood Plywood Products from the People's
Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 83 FR 504 (January 4, 2018);
and Certain Hardwood Plywood Products from the People's Republic of
China: Countervailing Duty Order, 82 FR 513 (January 4, 2018)
(collectively, Orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabuwood Cabinetry Corp., Cubitac Cabinetry Corp., CNC Associates,
N.Y., Inc., and Ikea Supply AG appealed Commerce's Final Scope Ruling.
On August 19, 2020, the CIT remanded the Final Scope Ruling to
Commerce, holding that Commerce's scope ruling failed to address: (1)
The threshold question of whether the product definitions in the
requestors' Amended Scope Ruling Request were specific enough to
provide an adequate basis for a scope ruling, consistent with 19 CFR
351.225(c)(1); and (2) the opposing comments submitted by the
interested parties with respect to the sufficiency of the accompanying
supporting evidence.\3\ Accordingly, the CIT held that the Final Scope
Ruling was invalid and remanded it to Commerce to further explain its
acceptance of the Amended Scope Ruling Request in light of opposing
comments submitted by interested parties.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Fabuwood Cabinetry Corp. v. United States, 469 F. Supp.
3d 1373, 1383-84 (CIT August 19, 2020).
\4\ Id., 469 F. Supp. 3d at 1389.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its final remand redetermination issued in January 2021,
Commerce revisited the record and determined that the Amended Scope
Ruling Request provided a sufficiently-specific description of the
products in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(c)(1).\5\ However, in
reexamining the record, Commerce determined that the Amended Scope
Ruling Request, including record evidence accompanying the Initial
Scope Ruling Request which remained on the record, did not meet the
requirements of 19 CFR 351.225(c)(1), because it suffered from several
deficiencies that must be remedied before Commerce is able to evaluate
the products for which the requestors were seeking a scope ruling.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Fabuwood Cabinetry Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No.
18-00208, Slip Op. 20-121 (CIT August 19, 2020), at 8-11, 16-18,
available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/20-121.pdf.
\6\ Id. at 20-28, 31-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\7\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,\8\
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to
sections 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 May 27, 2021, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT
that is not in
[[Page 31278]]
harmony with Commerce's Final Scope Ruling. Thus, this notice is
published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken.
Additionally, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of
hardwood plywood subject to the Final Scope Ruling pending expiration
of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive
court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F. 2d 337, 341 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
\8\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufactures Coalition v. United
States, 626 F. 3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Scope Ruling
In accordance with the CIT's May 27, 2021, final judgement Commerce
finds that the Final Scope Ruling must be withdrawn because it was
based on a deficient request for a scope ruling.
Notification to CBP
In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if
appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce
will notify CBP that its Final Scope Ruling is withdrawn and the
instructions issued in accordance with that ruling are no longer
applicable.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section
516A(e)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 4, 2021.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations.
[FR Doc. 2021-12269 Filed 6-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P