SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 8, 2016, Commerce initiated an LTFV investigation on plywood from China,^[1] and we issued our Final Determination in this investigation in November 2017.^[2] In the Final Determination, Commerce calculated the normal value (NV) for mandatory respondent Chengen by applying the “intermediate input” methodology and valuing Chengen's consumption of wood veneers,^[3] rather than by valuing Chengen's consumption of wood logs.^[4] Commerce further assigned to the companies eligible for a separate rate, in combination with their suppliers, an estimated weighted-average dumping margin based on Chengen's estimated weighted-average dumping margin.^[5]

In Linyi Chengen Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 3d 1283 (CIT 2019) ( Remand Order I), the CIT requested further explanation regarding our Final Determination. On remand, Commerce provided further explanation and continued to apply the intermediate input methodology, as in the underlying Final Determination, and made no change to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Chengen and assigned to the Separate Rate Plaintiffs.^[6]

In its Remand Order II, the CIT found Commerce's explanation contrary to law and instructed it to accept certain information previously not permitted on the record.^[7] On remand and under respectful protest, Commerce accepted this new factual information from Chengen, reconsidered the application of the intermediate input methodology to Chengen, and calculated an estimated weighted-average dumping margin based on the valuation of Chengen's log FOPs, which resulted in an estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Chengen of zero percent.^[8] Because Chengen received a zero percent rate, Commerce explained that it intended to exclude hardwood plywood produced by Linyi Dongfangjuxin Wood Co., Ltd. (Dongfangjuxin) and exported by Chengen from the Order.^[9] In addition, Commerce revised the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the China-wide entity to be equal to the highest dumping margin alleged in the Petition, 114.72 percent,^[10] and revised the estimated weighted-average dumping margin assigned to the Separate Rate Plaintiffs by averaging Chengen's zero percent rate with the ( printed page 77967) rate assigned to the China-wide entity, 57.36 percent.^[11]

In its Remand Order III,^[12] the CIT sustained Commerce's revised estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Chengen but requested further explanation of its calculation of the rate applied to the Separate Rate Plaintiffs.^[13] In Redetermination III,^[14] Commerce provided additional explanation concerning its conclusions in Redetermination II and made no changes to its calculation of the estimated dumping margin for the Separate Rate Plaintiffs.

In its Remand Order IV,^[15] the Court held that Commerce's selection of the all-others separate rate was not reasonable and was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded the assignment of the separate rate to Commerce.^[16] In Redetermination IV, Commerce reviewed the record and provided further explanation why it continued to reasonably apply the simple average of the AFA rate and the zero percent rate calculated for Chengen.^[17]

In its Remand Order V,^[18] the Court held that Commerce's selection of the 57.36 percent rate assigned to the Separate Rate Plaintiffs was unreasonable as applied and not supported by substantial evidence.^[19] The Court instructed Commerce to reconsider the all-others separate rate consistent with its opinion, including whether other evidence on the record supports a lower rate after the applicable rates are averaged.^[20] In Redetermination V, Commerce, determined, under protest, to apply Chengen's zero percent rate to the Separate Rate Plaintiffs.^[21] Commerce also determined to exclude from the Order the exporter/producer combinations assigned to Jiangyang and Dehua TB, the only two companies that provided all information required to be eligible for consideration as voluntary respondents.^[22]

Timken Notice

In its decision in Timken,^[23] as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,^[24] the U.S. 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 October 10, 2023, judgment constitutes a final decision of the CIT that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Determination. Thus, this notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

Amended Final Determination

Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending the Order with respect Chengen, Dehua TB, Jiangyang, the China-wide entity, and the Separate Rate Plaintiffs. The revised weighted-average dumping margins for Chengen, Dehua TB, Jiangyang, the China-wide entity, and the Separate Rate Plaintiffs for the period April 1, 2016, through September 30, 2016, are as follows:

Partial Exclusion From Antidumping Duty Order

Pursuant to section 735(a)(4) of the Act, Commerce “shall disregard any weighted average dumping margin that is de minimis as defined in section 733(b)(3) of the Act.” ^[27] Furthermore, section 735(c)(2) of the Act states that “the investigation shall be terminated upon publication of that negative determination” and Commerce shall “terminate the suspension of liquidation” and “release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit.” ^[28] As a result of this amended final determination, in which Commerce has calculated an estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent for Chengen, and assigned Chengen's zero percent rate and eligibility for exclusion under section 735(c)(2) of the Act to Dehua TB and Jiangyang, in combination with their suppliers as noted above, Commerce is hereby excluding subject merchandise produced by Dongfangjuxin and exported by Chengen, produced and exported by Jiangyang, and produced by Dehua TB New Decoration Co., Ltd., or Zhangjiagang Jiuli Wood Co., Ltd., and exported by Dehua TB. Accordingly, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and ( printed page 77968) Border Protection (CBP) to release any bonds or other security and refund cash deposits pertaining to any suspended entries attributable to the exporter-producer combinations assigned to Chengen, Dehua TB, and Jiangyang referenced above. This exclusion does not apply to any other companies or exporter-producer combinations.

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

Pursuant to Timken, the suspension of liquidation must continue during the pendency of the appeals process. Thus, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all unliquidated entries under the applicable exporter-producer combinations for Chengen, Dehua TB, Jiangyang, and Separate Rate Plaintiffs ^[29] at a cash deposit rate of 0.00 percent which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after October 20, 2023, which is ten days after the CIT's final decision, in accordance with section 516A of the Act.^[30] If the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed and upheld, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate entries from the exporter-producer combinations assigned to Chengen, Dehua TB, Jiangyang without regard to antidumping duties. In addition, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate suspension and to liquidate entries from the exporter-producer combinations assigned to the Separate Rate Plaintiffs without regard to antidumping duties for all completed reviews of this Order, except where those Separate Rate Plaintiffs were subsequently assigned an above- de minimis margin or lost their separate rate. As a result of the exclusion, Commerce will not initiate any new administrative reviews of entries from the exporter-producer combinations assigned to Chengen, Dehua TB, or Jiangyang, pursuant to the Order.

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.

Appendix

List of Separate Rate Plaintiffs

88 FR 77966