81 FR 14086 - 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
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 51 (March 16, 2016)
International Trade Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 51 (March 16, 2016)
| Page Range | 14086-14087 | |
| FR Document | 2016-05942 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 14086-14087] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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
![14086 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Notices
Community Relations in Missouri. clarified by Diamond Sawblades,4 the with this opinion.’’ 9 The Court further
(February 23, 2015 St. Louis; Department is notifying the public that held that with respect to the Marlene,
August 20, 2015 Kansas City) the Court’s final judgment in this case Nadine, and Serpentine chests ‘‘because
Open Comment is not in harmony with the Department’s the (k)(1) factors are non-dispositive {in
Recommendations and Next Steps Ethan Allen Scope Ruling and is the Ethan Allen Scope Ruling the
DATES: The meeting will be held on therefore amending its final scope Department determined that the
Thursday, April 21, 2016, at 11:30 a.m. ruling.5 Marlene, Nadine, and Serpentine chests
CDT DATES: Effective Date: March 10, 2016. were covered by the WBF Order after
Public Call Information: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara analyzing the criteria listed in 19 CFR
Dial: 888–587–0615 Lofaro, Office IV, Enforcement and 351.225(k)(1)}, Commerce should
Conference ID: 4444578 Compliance, International Trade evaluate the (k)(2) factors consistent
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration, U.S. Department of with this decision,’’ in which the Court
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312–353– Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution noted, in part, that ‘‘the proper inquiry
8311 or mwojnaroski@usccr.gov. Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230; should focus on the intended function
telephone: (202) 482–5720. of the product, i.e., whether it was
Dated: March 10, 2016.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: intended and designed for use in the
David Mussatt, bedroom.’’ 10
Chief, Regional Programs Unit. Background
Accordingly, the Department issued
[FR Doc. 2016–05844 Filed 3–15–16; 8:45 am] On May 27, 2014 the Department
the Final Remand Results and,
BILLING CODE 6335–01–P issued the Ethan Allen Scope Ruling, in
consistent with the Court’s analysis,
which it determined that Ethan Allen’s
determined that the Vivica chest is not
Marlene, Nadine, and Serpentine chests
subject to the WBF Order. Furthermore,
were subject to the WBF Order based on
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE in accordance with the Court’s holding
an analysis under 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1),
and that the Vivica chest was also that the Marlene, Nadine, and
International Trade Administration subject merchandise based on an Serpentine chests should be evaluated
analysis of the factors under both 19 using a (k)(2) analysis, Commerce
[A–570–890] CFR 351.225(k)(1) and (k)(2) (the ‘‘(k)(2) conducted such an analysis and
analysis’’). The Department then determined that ‘‘the weight of the
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the requested a voluntary remand to allow record evidence supports a
People’s Republic of China: Notice of further notice to, and comment from, determination that the Nadine, Marlene,
Court Decision Not in Harmony With parties on its (k)(2) analysis of the and Serpentine chests are not covered
Final Scope Ruling and Notice of Vivica chest, which the Court granted. by the scope of the WBF Order.’’ 11
Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant In the Voluntary Remand Results, the In Ethan Allen II, the Court sustained
to Court Decision Department responded to the arguments the Department’s Final Remand Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, of the parties to the dispute and in its entirety.12
International Trade Administration, determined, again, based on a (k)(2)
analysis, that Ethan Allen’s Vivica chest Timken Notice
Department of Commerce.
is subject to the scope of the WBF In its decision in Timken 13 as
SUMMARY: On February 29, 2016, the Order.6
United States Court of International clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the
On December 1, 2015, the Court
Trade (‘‘CIT’’ or ‘‘Court’’) sustained the CAFC held that, pursuant to sections
issued its opinion on the Ethan Allen
Department of Commerce’s Scope Ruling, remanding each of the 516A(c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
(‘‘Department’’) final results of Department’s determinations back to the as amended (the ‘‘Act’’), the Department
redetermination 1 in which the agency for further analysis,7 as must publish a notice of a court
Department determined, under protest, discussed in further detail in the Final decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with
that four chests of Ethan Allen Remand Results.8 Specifically, the Court a Department determination and must
Operations, Inc. (‘‘Ethan Allen’’) are not held that with respect to the Vivica suspend liquidation of entries pending
subject to the scope of the WBF Order,2 chest, ‘‘because the (k)(1) factors are a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s
pursuant to the CIT’s remand order in dispositive as to the Vivica chest and February 29, 2016, judgment in Ethan
Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. v. United demonstrate that the Vivica chest is not Allen II, sustaining the Department’s
States, Consol. Court No. 14–00147 within the scope of the WBF Order, the decision in the Final Remand Results
(December 1, 2015) (‘‘Ethan Allen’’). court does not proceed to an analysis of that the four chests at issue are not
Consistent with the decision of the the (k)(2) factors and remands to covered by the scope of the WBF Order,
United States Court of Appeals for the Commerce to issue a ruling consistent constitutes a final decision of that court
Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken,3 as that is not in harmony with the Ethan
4 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. Allen Scope Ruling. This notice is
1 Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. v. United States, United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) published in fulfillment of the
Court No. 14–000147, Slip Op. 16–19 (CIT February (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’). publication requirements of Timken.
5 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy
29, 2016) (‘‘Ethan Allen II’’), which sustained the Accordingly, the Department will
Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Order, Ethan Allen Operations, Inc. v. United Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Wooden continue the suspension of liquidation
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
States, dated February 11, 2016 (‘‘Final Remand Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of of the chests at issue pending expiration
Results’’). China: Scope Ruling on Ethan Allen Operations of the period to appeal or, if appealed,
2 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Inc.’s Chests’’ (May 27, 2014) (‘‘Ethan Allen Scope
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Ruling’’).
6 See Final Results of Voluntary Redetermination 9 See Ethan Allen at 16.
Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
10 Id.at 13.
People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, Pursuant To Court Order, dated November 26, 2014.
2005) (‘‘WBF Order’’). (‘‘Voluntary Remand Results’’). 11 See Final Remand Results at 14.
3 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 7 See Ethan Allen. 12 See Ethan Allen II.
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’). 8 See Final Remand Results at 1–2. 13 See Timken, 893 F.2d at 341.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Mar 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_14137/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2016 / Notices 14087
pending a final and conclusive court (POR) is August 1, 2013, through July Scope of the Order
decision. 31, 2014. As a result of our analysis of The scope of this order covers large
the comments and information received, liquid dielectric power transformers
Amended Final Determination
these final results differ from the (LPTs) having a top power handling
Because there is now a final court Preliminary Results. For the final
decision with respect to the Ethan Allen capacity greater than or equal to 60,000
weighted-average dumping margins, see kilovolt amperes (60 megavolt amperes),
Scope Ruling, the Department is the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section
amending its final scope ruling. The whether assembled or unassembled,
below. complete or incomplete. The
Department finds that the scope of the DATES: Effective Date: March 16, 2016.
WBF Order does not cover the products merchandise subject to the order is
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: currently classified in the Harmonized
addressed in the Ethan Allen Scope
Brian Davis (Hyosung) or Edythe Tariff Schedule of the United States at
Ruling. The Department will instruct
Artman (Hyundai), AD/CVD Operations, subheadings 8504.23.0040,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, 8504.23.0080 and 8504.90.9540.7
(‘‘CBP’’) that the cash deposit rate will
International Trade Administration,
be zero percent for the four chests Analysis of Comments Received
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
imported by Ethan Allen. In the event
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., All issues raised in the case and
that the CIT’s ruling is not appealed, or
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) rebuttal briefs by parties to this
if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the
482–7924 or (202) 482–3931, administrative review are addressed in
Department will instruct CBP to
respectively. the Issues and Decision Memorandum.8
liquidate entries of Ethan Allen’s four
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A list of the issues that parties raised
chests at issue without regard to
and to which we responded is attached
antidumping and/or countervailing Background to this notice as an Appendix. The
duties, and to lift suspension of
On September 4, 2015, the Issues and Decision Memorandum is a
liquidation of such entries.
Department published the Preliminary public document and is on-file
This notice is issued and published in
Results. In accordance with 19 CFR electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is
accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of
351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to available to registered users at http://
the Act.
comment on our Preliminary Results.2 access.trade.gov and in the Central
Dated: March 9, 2016. Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main
On October 16, 2015, Hyundai timely
Paul Piquado, Department of Commerce building. In
submitted a case brief and on October
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 19, 2015, Hyosung and ABB Inc. addition, a complete version of the
Compliance. Issues and Decision Memorandum can
(Petitioner) timely submitted case
[FR Doc. 2016–05942 Filed 3–15–16; 8:45 am]
briefs.3 Rebuttal briefs were also timely be accessed directly on the Internet at
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P filed by Hyosung, Hyundai, and http://enforcement.ita.doc.gov/frn/
Petitioner, on October 27, 2015.4 On index.html. The signed Issues and
December 22, 2015, the Department Decision Memorandum and the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE issued a memorandum extending the electronic version of the Issues and
time period for issuing the final results Decision Memorandum are identical in
International Trade Administration content.
of this administrative review from
[A–580–867] January 4, 2016 to February 24, 2016.5 Changes Since the Preliminary Results
On February 29, 2016, the Department
Large Power Transformers From the further extended the final results to Based on a review of the record and
Republic of Korea: Final Results of March 8, 2015.6 comments received from interested
Antidumping Duty Administrative parties regarding our Preliminary
Review; 2013–2014 2 The Department issued the briefing schedule in Results, we recalculated Hyosung’s and
a Memorandum to the File, dated September 9,
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 2015. This briefing schedule was later extended at Extension of Deadline for Final Results of
International Trade Administration, the request of interested parties to October 16, 2015 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013–
Department of Commerce. for briefs and October 26, 2015 for rebuttal briefs. 2014’’ (February 29, 2016); see also Memorandum
3 See Case Brief from Petitioner regarding
SUMMARY: On September 4, 2015, the to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Assistant
Hyundai, (Petitioner Brief Hyundai), Brief from Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding
Department of Commerce (the Petitioner regarding Hyosung (Petitioner Brief ‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of
Department) published the preliminary Hyosung), and Hyosung Brief, all dated October 19, the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,’’
results of the administrative review of 2015, and Hyundai Brief, dated October 16, 2015. dated January 27, 2016. As explained in this
4 See Hyosung Rebuttal Brief, Hyundai Rebuttal memorandum, the Department has exercised its
the antidumping duty order on large
Brief and Petitioner Rebuttal Brief: All dated discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due
power transformers from the Republic of October 26, 2015. Petitioner requested an extension to the recent closure of the Federal Government. All
Korea.1 The review covers five for the briefing schedule to 30 days after Hyundai’s deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have
producers/exporters of the subject submission of a post-verification supplemental been extended by four business days. The revised
merchandise, Hyosung Corporation questionnaire and an extension for filing rebuttal deadline for the final determination is now March
briefs, which the Department partially granted for 8, 2016.
(Hyosung), Hyundai Heavy Industries all parties in a letter dated September 29, 2015 and 7 For a full description of the scope of the order,
Co., Ltd. (Hyundai), ILJIN, ILJIN Electric extended in a letter dated October 13, 2015. See see the Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy
Co., Ltd. (ILJIN Electric), and LSIS Co., Letter to Petitioner dated September 29, 2015 and Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Ltd. (LSIS). ILJIN, ILJIN Electric, and Letter to Petitioner dated October 13, 2015. Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
5 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
LSIS, were not selected for individual Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, ‘‘Large Compliance, titled ‘‘Issues and Decision
examination. The period of review Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: Memorandum for the Final Results of the
Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
1 See Large Power Transformers From the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– Order on Large Power Transformers from the
Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of 2014’’ (December 22, 2015). Republic of Korea; 2013–2014’’ (Issues and Decision
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– 6 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Memorandum), which is issued concurrently with,
2014, 80 FR 53496 (September 4, 2015) (Preliminary Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, ‘‘Large and hereby adopted by, this notice.
Results). Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: 8 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:11 Mar 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM 16MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_14137/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2016-03-15 23:43:52
Document Modified: 2016-03-15 23:43:52
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| 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. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 14086 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR