[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14628-14630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04074]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(CIT) issued its final judgment in American Manufacturers of
Multilayered Wood Flooring v. United States, Court No. 21-00595, Slip
Op. 24-13 (CIT February 8, 2024), sustaining the U.S. Department of
Commerce's (Commerce) remand results pertaining to the administrative
review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on multilayered wood flooring
(MLWF) from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the period
December 1, 2018, through November 30, 2019. Commerce is notifying the
public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's
final results of the administrative review, and that Commerce is
amending the final results with respect to the dumping margin assigned
to certain non-individually-examined companies.
DATES: Applicable February 18, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Williams, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4338.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 6, 2020, Commerce published the notice of initiation of
the 2018-2019 AD administrative review of the Order.\1\ Commerce
subsequently received a separate rate certification (SRC) from Dalian
Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co.,
Ltd., Fusong Jinqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., and Fusong Qianqiu Wooden
Products Co., Ltd. (collectively, Jinlong),\2\ among other companies.
Commerce selected Jinlong and Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
(Senmao) as mandatory respondents and issued AD questionnaires to both
companies.\3\ On April 14, 2020, Jinlong notified Commerce that it did
not intend to participate in the administrative review.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 85 FR 6896 (February 6, 2020) (Initiation
Notice); see also 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 Jinlong's Letter, ``Separate Rate Certification,'' dated
March 9, 2020.
\3\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments, Preliminary
Successor in-Interest Determination, and Rescission of Review, in
Part; 2018-2019, 86 FR 22016 (April 26, 2021), and accompanying
Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
\4\ See Jinlong's Letter, ``Jinlong Notice of Intent Not to
Participate,'' dated April 14, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 29, 2021, Commerce published its Final Results, in which
Commerce determined that Jinlong did not establish eligibility for a
separate rate because it failed to respond to Section A of Commerce's
AD questionnaire, which included questions relevant to demonstrating
eligibility for a separate rate.\5\ Although Jinlong submitted an SRC
on the record, Commerce explained that, consistent with its Initiation
Notice and prior practice, companies that file SRCs and are later
selected as mandatory respondents are not considered eligible for a
separate rate unless they respond to the AD questionnaire.\6\ In
denying Jinlong a separate rate, Commerce found that Jinlong was part
of the China-wide entity which was subject to a weighted-average
dumping margin of 85.13 percent. Commerce calculated a zero percent
weighted-average dumping margin for Senmao.\7\ Commerce assigned a zero
percent weighted-average dumping margin to each of the separate-rate
companies not individually examined in the review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 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; 2018-
2019, 86 FR 59987 (October 29, 2021) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
\6\ Id.
\7\ See Final Results, 86 FR at 59988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring (AMMWF)
appealed Commerce's Final Results. On March 21, 2023, the CIT remanded
the Final Results to Commerce, directing Commerce to reconsider whether
Jinlong was eligible for a separate rate based on its SRC,
notwithstanding its failure to respond to Commerce's AD
questionnaire.\8\ The CIT held that,
[[Page 14629]]
because Commerce accepted SRCs for other non-individually examined
respondents as sufficient evidence to grant separate rates, this
disparate treatment of respondents who appear to be similarly situated
is arbitrary and capricious.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v.
United States, Court No. 21-00595 (March 21, 2023).
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its final remand redetermination, issued in August 2023,
Commerce (1) evaluated Jinlong's eligibility for a separate rate based
on its SRC and assigned Jinlong a weighted-average dumping margin based
on adverse facts available (AFA) in accordance with sections 776(a) and
(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), because Jinlong
did not cooperate to the best of its ability by failing to respond to
the AD questionnaire; and (2) recalculated the dumping margin assigned
to the eligible separate-rate companies not selected for individual
examination.\10\ Commerce assigned the simple average of Jinlong's AFA-
based margin and Senmao's zero percent margin (i.e., 42.57 percent) to
eligible separate-rate companies.\12\ The CIT sustained Commerce's
final redetermination.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ As explained in the final remand redetermination, we
determined Jinlong is eligible for a separate rate ``for the sole
purpose of calculating the rate for the separate rate respondents
that have entries enjoined for this period of review because Jinlong
is not a party to this litigation and does not have entries enjoined
for this period of review.'' See Final Results of Remand
Redetermination, American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood
Flooring v. United States, CIT Court No. 21-00595, dated August 8,
2023.
\11\ See American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring v.
United States, Slip Op. 24-13, dated February 8, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\12\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\13\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that,
pursuant to sections 516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce must publish
a notice of 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 8, 2024, judgment
constitutes a final decision of the CIT 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 eligible separate-rate companies
not selected for individual examination as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dumping
Exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Individually-Examined Companies \14\.................... 42.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because certain separate rate respondents have a superseding cash
deposit rate, i.e., there have been final results published in a
subsequent administrative review, Commerce will not issue revised cash
deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for
those companies. However, Commerce will issue revised cash deposit
instructions to CBP for the separate rate respondents that do not have
a superseding cash deposit rate.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Appendix II for a list of these companies.
\15\ See Appendix I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from
liquidating entries that were exported by the non-individually-examined
separate rate respondents \16\ and were entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption during the period December 1, 2018, through
November 30, 2019. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the
terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 non-individually examined separate
rate respondents in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), where
appropriate. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review at the AD rate noted in the
table above.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 20, 2024.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
Non-Individually-Examined Companies Receiving a Separate Rate
Arte Mundi (Shanghai) Aesthetic Home Furnishings Co., Ltd. (successor-
in-interest to Scholar Home (Shanghai) New Material Co., Ltd.)
Dalian Jiahong Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC
Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
Hailin Linjing Wooden Products Co., Ltd.
Hunchun Xingjia Wooden Flooring Inc.
Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd
Huzhou Sunergy World Trade Co., Ltd.
Jiangsu Keri Wood Co., Ltd.
Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., Ltd
Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd.
Jiashan On-Line Lumber Co., Ltd.
Kingman Floors Co., Ltd.
Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd.
Pinge Timber Manufacturing (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.
Sino-Maple (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd.
Tongxiang Jisheng Import and Export Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd
Appendix II
Companies Subject to Injunction
A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd.
Arte Mundi (Shanghai) Aesthetic Home Furnishings Co., Ltd. (successor-
in-interest to Scholar Home (Shanghai) New Material Co., Ltd.)
Benxi Wood Company
Dalian Jiahong Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd./Dalian Shumaike Floor
Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC
Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd.
Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
Dunhua Shengda Wood Industry Co., Ltd
Hailin Linjing Wooden Products Co., Ltd.
Hunchun Xingjia Wooden Flooring Inc.
Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd.
Huzhou Fulinmen Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.
Huzhou Jesonwood Co., Ltd.
Huzhou Sunergy World Trade Co., Ltd
Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd
Jiangsu Keri Wood Co., Ltd
Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., Ltd.
Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd.
[[Page 14630]]
Jiashan HuiJiaLe Decoration Material Co., Ltd
Jiashan On-Line Lumber Co., Ltd.
Jiaxing Hengtong Wood Co., Ltd
Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.
Kingman Floors Co., Ltd.
Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd.
Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc.
Pinge Timber Manufacturing (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.
Sino-Maple (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd
Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd.
Tongxiang Jisheng Import and Export Co., Ltd.
Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co., Ltd. (successor-in-interest to
Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd.)
Zhejiang Dadongwu Greenhome Wood Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Fuerjia Wooden Co., Ltd
Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd.
[FR Doc. 2024-04074 Filed 2-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P