80 FR 44029 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination and Amended Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 142 (July 24, 2015)

On July 6, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (``CIT'') issued Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, Ct. No. 12-20, Slip Op. 15-71 (CIT July 6, 2015), affirming the Department of Commerce's (the ``Department'') amended final determination of sales at less than fair value in the antidumping duty investigation on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China (``Amended Final Determination''),\1\ as modified by the Department's fourth remand redetermination pursuant to court order. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44029-44031]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18214]


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

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 Final Determination 
and Amended Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation

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

SUMMARY: On July 6, 2015, the United States Court of International 
Trade (``CIT'') issued Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 
Ct. No. 12-20, Slip Op. 15-71 (CIT July 6, 2015), affirming the 
Department of Commerce's (the ``Department'') amended final 
determination of sales at less than fair value in the antidumping duty 
investigation on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic 
of China (``Amended Final

[[Page 44030]]

Determination''),\1\ as modified by the Department's fourth remand 
redetermination pursuant to court order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 
64318 (October 18, 2011) (``Final Determination''); 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) (``Amended Final 
Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 
F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 
2010) (``Diamond Sawblades''), the Department is notifying the public 
that the Court's final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the 
Amended Final Determination, and that the Department is revising its 
Amended Final Determination.

DATES: Effective Date: July 16, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Galantucci and Brandon 
Farlander, 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-
2923 and (202) 482-0182, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The litigation in this case relates to the Department's final 
determination in the antidumping duty investigation covering 
multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''),\2\ which was later amended.\3\ Pursuant to a series of 
remand orders issued by the CIT \4\ that resulted in four remand 
redeterminations,\5\ the Department: (1) Revised its calculation of 
dumping margins for two mandatory respondents and the PRC-wide entity; 
and (2) the Department made certain findings regarding the dumping 
margins for eight separate rate respondents that were plaintiffs in the 
litigation, as summarized below.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Final Determination, 76 FR at 64318.
    \3\ See Amended Final Determination, 76 FR at 76690.
    \4\ See Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (CIT July 31, 2013); Baroque Timber 
Indus. (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 2d 1333 
(CIT March 31, 2014); Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 
44 F. Supp. 3d 1376 (CIT January 23, 2015).
    \5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Order, Court No. 12-00007, dated November 14, 2013; Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Court No. 12-00007, dated 
May 29, 2014; Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Order, Court No. 12-00020, dated October 14, 2014; and Final Results 
of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Court No. 12-00020, 
dated March 24, 2015.
    \6\ The eight separate rate respondents were cooperative 
respondents, but were not individually investigated in the 
antidumping duty investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the dumping margins for two mandatory respondents in the 
investigation, on April 23, 2014, the CIT granted a consent motion for 
severance and entered final judgment in Baroque Timber Industries 
(Zhongshan) Company, Limited v. United States and Zhejiang Layo Wood 
Industry Co., Ltd. v. United States with respect to Layo Wood and the 
Samling Group.\7\ The Department previously gave notice of this 
decision, as well as the amended dumping margins of zero percent 
calculated for Layo Wood and Samling Group, in accordance with the 
notice requirements of Timken.\8\ Further, because we changed the 
surrogate values in our first remand redetermination for mandatory 
respondents Layo Wood and Samling Group, the highest calculated 
transaction-specific rate on the record became 25.62 percent, and we 
assigned that rate to the PRC-wide entity.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The full names of those companies are Zhejiang Layo Wood 
Industry Co. Ltd. (``Layo Wood'') and Baroque Timber Industries 
(Zhongshan) Co., Ltd., Riverside Plywood Corporation, Samling 
Elegant Living Trading (Labuan) Limited, Samling Global USA, Inc., 
Samling Riverside Co., Ltd., and Suzhou Times Flooring Co., Ltd. 
(collectively, ``the Samling Group'').
    \8\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final 
Determination and Amended Final Determination of the Antidumping 
Duty Investigation, 79 FR 25109 (May 2, 2014).
    \9\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Order, Court No. 12-00007, dated November 14, 2013, at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the dumping margins for the eight separate rate 
respondents that were plaintiffs to this litigation, the CIT issued a 
series of a remand orders before affirming the Department's fourth 
remand redetermination.\10\ As a result of the Department's second 
redetermination on remand, the Department assigned to seven of the 
eight separate rate respondents above de minimis antidumping duty rates 
for the investigation, but found that it was unnecessary to calculate 
an exact rate for those respondents because any rate assigned for the 
investigation stage of the proceeding would be superseded by the rates 
assigned to those companies in the first administrative review and 
would not be used for liquidation purposes. The CIT affirmed this 
portion of the Department's remand redetermination on January 23, 
2015.\11\ However, the eighth separate rate respondent, Changzhou Hawd 
Flooring Co. (``Changzhou Hawd''), did not have any shipments of 
subject merchandise during the first period of review and the 
Department did not assign Changzhou Hawd a separate rate from the first 
administrative review. Thus, in a fourth remand redetermination, the 
Department assigned Changzhou Hawd a margin of 3.30 percent (Changzhou 
Hawd's original rate from the Department's Amended Final Determination 
in the investigation),\12\ effective for cash deposit purposes only, 
pending final establishment in the second administrative review of 
Changzhou Hawd's new cash deposit rate and assessment rate. On July 6, 
2015, the CIT found that the Department's methodology in applying this 
rate was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with 
law.\13\ Subsequent to the CIT's entry of judgment, the Department 
published the final results of the second administrative review, which 
have superseded the cash deposit rate of 3.30 percent assigned to 
Changzhou Hawd for purposes of this litigation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, Ct. No. 
12-20, Slip Op. 15-71 (CIT July 6, 2015).
    \11\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 44 F. 
Supp. 3d 1376, 1387-88 (CIT January 23, 2015). The seven respondents 
to which the Department's determination applied were: Fine Furniture 
(Shanghai) Limited, Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., 
Dunhua City; Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Dunhua City Dexin Wood 
Industry Co., Ltd., Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd., 
Kunshan Yingyi-Nature Wood Industry Co., Ltd., and Karly Wood 
Product Limited.
    \12\ This cash deposit rate of 3.30 percent was the original 
rate applied to Changzhou Hawd in the Amended Final Determination. 
The rate was calculated by taking the simple average of the two non-
de minimis rates calculated for Layo Wood and the Samling Group in 
the Amended Final Determination. Although Layo Wood's and the 
Samling Group's rates were subsequently changed on remand (thus 
altering the basis for Changzhou Hawd's 3.30 percent rate), the 
Department provided evidence that the rate was ``reasonably 
reflective'' of Changzhou Hawd's ``potential dumping margin,'' and 
the CIT sustained this determination. See Changzhou Hawd, Slip Op. 
15-71 (CIT July 6, 2015), at 11.
    \13\ See Changzhou Hawd, Slip Op. 15-71 (CIT July 6, 2015), at 
3-4.
    \14\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Final Results of New Shipper Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 41476 
(July 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the 
CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(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

[[Page 44031]]

liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision.
    The CIT's July 6, 2015 final judgment affirming the Department's 
redetermination constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not 
in harmony with the original Amended Final Determination. This notice 
is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

Amended Final Determination

    There is now a final court decision with respect to the Amended 
Final Determination as it concerns the eight separate rate respondents 
and the PRC-wide entity in this matter. For the eight separate rate 
respondents, as of the date of this notice, all eight companies have 
received updated cash deposit rates, and their rates will not change as 
a result of this litigation. However, for the PRC-wide entity, the 
Department is amending the Amended Final Determination and the revised 
cash deposit rate for this entity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Cash deposit
                        Exporter                          rate (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-wide entity........................................           25.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 20, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-18214 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P