83 FR 44027 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Amendment to Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Second Amended Final Determination and Amendment to Notice of Third Amended Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 168 (August 29, 2018)

On August 15, 2018, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) amended its July 3, 2018, final judgment in Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., et al. v. United States, which sustained, in part, the final results of remand redetermination pursuant to court order by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the less- than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation on multilayered wood flooring (MLWF) from the People's Republic of China (China). On July 25, 2018, Commerce notified the public that the CIT's July 3, 2018, final judgment in the case was not in harmony with Commerce's final determination in the LTFV investigation of MLWF from China, and, pursuant to the CIT's July 3, 2018, final judgment, Commerce issued an amended final determination excluding Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (Dunhua City Jisen), Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (Fine Furniture), and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. (Armstrong Wood) from the antidumping duty (AD) order. Pursuant to the CIT's August 15, 2018, amendment to its July 3, 2018, final judgment, we are excluding Double F Limited from the AD order.

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44027-44028]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18725]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-970]


Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: 
Amendment to Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Second 
Amended Final Determination and Amendment to Notice of Third Amended 
Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation

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

SUMMARY: On August 15, 2018, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT or Court) amended its July 3, 2018, final judgment in 
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., et al. v. United States, which sustained, 
in part, the final results of remand redetermination pursuant to court 
order by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation on multilayered wood flooring 
(MLWF) from the People's Republic of China (China). On July 25, 2018, 
Commerce notified the public that the CIT's July 3, 2018, final 
judgment in the case was not in harmony with Commerce's final 
determination in the LTFV investigation of MLWF from China, and, 
pursuant to the CIT's July 3, 2018, final judgment, Commerce issued an 
amended final determination excluding Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry 
Co., Ltd. (Dunhua City Jisen), Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (Fine 
Furniture), and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. (Armstrong 
Wood) from the antidumping duty (AD) order. Pursuant to the CIT's 
August 15, 2018, amendment to its July 3, 2018, final

[[Page 44028]]

judgment, we are excluding Double F Limited from the AD order.

DATES: Applicable July 13, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aleksandras Nakutis, 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

    As explained in further detail in the Notice of Court Decision and 
Notice of Third Amended Final Determination,\1\ on July 3, 2018, the 
CIT sustained, in part, Commerce's fifth remand redetermination.\2\ In 
particular, the CIT sustained Commerce's determination not to terminate 
the AD order \3\ because the order was imposed, in part, based on 
indirect evidence of dumping by the China-wide entity, a finding which 
was not challenged.\4\ With respect to the separate rate plaintiffs, 
the CIT ordered exclusion from the order for three separate respondents 
that sought voluntary examination in the investigation, but were 
denied: Dunhua City Jisen, Fine Furniture, and Armstrong Wood. The CIT 
held that Commerce's application of the exclusion regulation, 19 CFR 
351.204(e)(1), was arbitrary with respect to these respondents.\5\ The 
CIT sustained Commerce's determination not to exclude the remaining 
separate rate plaintiffs that did not seek voluntary examination in the 
investigation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Notice 
of Court Decision Not in Harmony with the Second Amended Final 
Determination and Notice of Third Amended Final Determination of the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 83 FR 35217 (July 25, 2018) (Notice 
of Court Decision and Notice of Third Amended Final Determination). 
See also Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, 971 
F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1336 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014); Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Baroque Timber Industries 
(Zhongshan) Company, Limited, et al. v. United States, dated 
November 14, 2013 (First Remand Redetermination); Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Baroque Timber Industries 
(Zhongshan) Company, Limited, et al. v. United States, dated May 30, 
2014 (Second Remand Redetermination); Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. 
United States, 77 F. Supp. 3d 1351 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015); Changzhou 
Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 848 F.3d 1006, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 
2017); Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, 
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, dated 
October 16, 2014 (Third Remand Redetermination); Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order, Changzhou Hawd Flooring 
Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, dated March 24, 2015 (Fourth 
Remand Redetermination); Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 
to Court Order, Court No. 12-00020, dated February 25, 2017 (Fifth 
Remand Redetermination).
    \2\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., et al. v. United States, 
Ct. No. 12-20, Slip Op. 18-82 (Ct. Int'l Trade July 3, 2018).
    \3\ 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) (First 
Amended Final Determination and Order).
    \4\ See Slip Op. 18-82 at 11-12.
    \5\ Id. at 16.
    \6\ Id. at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the CIT's July 3, 2018, final judgment, on July 25, 
2018, Commerce issued the Notice of Court Decision and Notice of Third 
Amended Final Determination, which explained that the CIT's July 3, 
2018, final judgment was a final decision of that court that is not in 
harmony with the Second Amended Final Determination, and excluded 
Dunhua City Jisen, Fine Furniture, and Armstrong Wood from the AD 
order.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice of Court Decision and Notice of Third Amended 
Final Determination, 83 FR at 35219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 15, 2018, in response to an unopposed motion filed by 
Fine Furniture, the CIT amended its July 3, 2018, final judgment, and 
ordered the exclusion of Fine Furniture's affiliate, Double F Limited, 
a party previously collapsed with Fine Furniture into a single 
entity,\8\ from the AD order.\9\ This notice is published in accordance 
with the CIT's August 15, 2018, order, and amends Commerce's July 25, 
2018, Notice of Court Decision and Notice of Third Amended Final 
Determination to exclude Double F Limited, along with Fine Furniture, 
Donghua City Jisen, and Armstrong Wood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
2011-2012, 79 FR 26712 (May 9, 2014); unchanged in Multilayered Wood 
Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 35314 (June 20, 2014).
    \9\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., et al. v. United States, 
Ct. No. 12-20, Dkt. No. 199 (Ct. Int'l Trade Aug. 15 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken,\10\ as clarified by Diamond 
Sawblades,\11\ the United States Court for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 
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 Commerce's determination and must 
suspend liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. 
The CIT's August 15, 2018, amendment to its July 3, 2018, final 
judgment ordering the exclusion of Double F Limited constitutes a final 
decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Second Amended 
Final Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the 
publication requirements of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990) (Timken).
    \11\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to Third Amended Final Determination

    Pursuant to the CIT's August 15, 2018, order, we are amending the 
Notice of Court Decision and Notice of Third Amended Final 
Determination to exclude Double F Limited from the AD order. Section 
735(c)(2)(A)-(B) of the Act instructs Commerce to terminate suspension 
of liquidation and to release any bond or other security, and refund 
any cash deposit, in the event of a negative determination. Here, 
suspension of liquidation must continue during the pendency of the 
appeals process (in accordance with Timken and as discussed above), 
and, therefore, we will continue to instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) at this time to (A) continue suspension at a cash 
deposit rate of zero percent until instructed otherwise; and (B) 
release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit made 
pursuant to the order by Double F Limited. In the event that the CIT's 
ruling is not appealed, or appealed and upheld by the CAFC, Commerce 
will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to 
liquidate those unliquidated entries of subject merchandise without 
regard to antidumping duties.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e)(1), 735, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 24, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-18725 Filed 8-28-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P