83888 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 

18See Order, 73 FR at 45405. 

19See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). 

20See Order, 73 FR at 45405. 

1See 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) (Final Results). 

2 Id. 

3See Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry 

Co., Ltd., et al. , v. United States, 322 F. Supp 3d 

1308 (CIT 2018) (Senmao I). 

4See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Order, Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood 

Industry Co., Ltd., et al. , v. United States, dated 

June 3, 2019 (First Remand Redetermination). 

5See Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry 

Co., Ltd., et al., v. United States, Court No. 15– 

00225. Slip Op. 20–31 (March 11, 2020) (Senmao 

II). 

6 Id. 

the less-than-fair-value investigation, if 

there is no rate for the intermediate 

company(ies) involved in the 

transaction.18 For a full discussion of 

this matter, see Assessment Policy 

Notice.19

For those companies which were not 

individually examined, we will instruct 

CBP to assess antidumping duties at an 

ad valorem rate equal to that companies 

weighted-average dumping margin as 

determined in the final results of this 

review. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8, we 

intend to issue liquidation instructions 

to CBP on or after 41 days after 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The 

cash deposit rate for each specific 

company listed above will be equal to 

the weighted-average dumping margin 

established in the final results of this 

administrative review; (2) for previously 

reviewed or investigated companies not 

listed above, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding in 

which they were reviewed; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or in the 

investigation but the producer is, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding 

for the producer of the merchandise; 

and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 

producers or exporters will continue to 

be the all-others rate of 3.76 percent.20

These cash deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Department’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: December 16, 2020. 

Jeffrey I. Kessler, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review 

V. Companies Not Selected for Individual 

Examination 

VI. Successor-in-Interest 

VII. Single Entity Treatment 

VIII. Discussion of the Methodology 

IX. Currency Conversion 

X. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2020–28347 Filed 12–22–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

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 Results of the Second 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On December 10, 2020, the 

United States Court of International 

Trade (the Court) entered final judgment 

sustaining the final results of the second 

remand redetermination pursuant to 

court order by the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of multilayered wood flooring (MLWF) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(China) covering the period of review 

(POR), December 1, 2012 through 

November 30, 2013. Commerce is 

notifying the public that the final 

judgment in this case is not in harmony 

with Commerce’s final results in the 

2012–2013 administrative review of 

MLWF from China. 

DATES: Applicable December 20, 2020 

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 

On July 15, 2015, Commerce 

published the Final Results in the 2012– 

2013 administrative review of 

multilayered wood flooring from China 

in which Commerce assigned a rate of 

13.74 percent to Jiangsu Senmao 

Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd. 

(Senmao) and all separate rate 

respondents in the Final Results.1

Commerce applied the weighted-average 

dumping margin of Senmao (the only 

mandatory respondent to receive a rate 

that was not de minimis or based solely 

on adverse facts available) to all parties 

eligible for a separate rate, pursuant to 

section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act).2

Senmao and certain separate rate 

respondents appealed the Final Results. 

In its first remand order, the Court 

directed Commerce to reconsider or 

further explain certain of its surrogate 

value selections, its downward 

adjustment for irrevocable VAT, as well 

as its decision to deny voluntary 

respondent status to Fine Furniture 

(Shanghai) Limited (Fine Furniture).3

Upon reconsidering these issues in the 

First Remand Redetermination, 

Commerce made certain changes and 

calculated a revised weighted-average 

dumping margin for Senmao and the 

separate rate companies.4

In Senmao II, the Court affirmed the 

First Remand Redetermination as it 

pertained to the surrogate value 

selections.5 However, the Court found 

that Commerce’s downward adjustment 

for irrevocable VAT was contrary to law 

in relying upon an unlawful 

interpretation of the Act.6 The Court, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 83889 

7See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Order, Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood 

Industry Co., Ltd., et al., v. United States, dated May 

8, 2020 (Second Remand Redetermination). 

8 Id. 

9See Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry 

Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 

19–00225 (Senmao III). In Senmao III, the Court did 

not address a previous issue concerning Fine 

Furniture. However, on September 9, 2020, the 

Court granted Fine Furniture’s request to dissolve 

its injunction covering subject entries during the 

POR, ECF No. 174, because Fine Furniture and 

Double F Limited are excluded from the order and 

no party sought appeal of Changzhou Hawd 

Flooring Co. v. United States, 947 F.3d 781 (Fed Cir. 

2020) (affirming Fine Furniture and Double F 

Limited’s exclusion from the order). Accordingly, 

because Fine Furniture and Double F Limited are 

excluded from the order, the issue regarding Fine 

Furniture is moot. 

10 Id. 

11See Final Results. 

12 Imports of subject merchandise from the 

following are excluded: Produced and exported by 

Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (Fine Furniture) 

and Double F Limited; produced and exported by 

Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. 

(Armstrong); and produced and exported by 

Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (Dunhua 

City Jisen). 

13Commerce inadvertently omitted this company 

from the Second Remand Redetermination; 

however, this company is entitled to the revised 

rate as it was subject to the administrative review 

and was a party to litigation. 

14Commerce inadvertently omitted this company 

from the Second Remand Redetermination; 

however, this company is entitled to the revised 

rate as it was subject to the administrative review 

and was a party to litigation. 

15Commerce inadvertently omitted this company 

from the Second Remand Redetermination; 

however, this company is entitled to the revised 

rate as it was subject to the administrative review 

and was a party to litigation. 

thus, remanded the case, so that 

Commerce could correct the error 

regarding the downward adjustment for 

irrevocable VAT. 

In the Second Remand 

Redetermination,7 Commerce removed 

the downward adjustment for 

irrevocable VAT as directed by the 

Court and revised the weighted-average 

dumping margin for Senmao to 3.92 

percent.8 Additionally, because the rate 

for separate rate respondents was based 

entirely on Senmao’s weighted-average 

dumping margin, Senmao’s margin of 

3.92 percent was applied to those 

separate rate respondents which were 

party to the litigation. 

On December 10, 2020, the Court 

entered final judgment in Senmao III.9

The Court sustained the Second 

Remand Redetermination excluding any 

downward adjustment for irrevocable 

VAT and revising the weighted-average 

dumping margin for Senmao and the 

other separate rate entities that are party 

to the litigation. 

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken, as clarified 

by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held 

that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of 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 

Court’s December 10, 2020 final 

judgment affirming the Second Remand 

Redetermination 10 constitutes a final 

decision of the Court that is not in 

harmony with the Final Results.11 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 Final Results with 

respect to the irrevocable VAT 

adjustment. Accordingly, Commerce is 

amending the Final Results and 

assigning the revised weighted-average 

dumping margin for Senmao and the 

separate rate respondents which are 

parties to the litigation. Additionally, 

Commerce is amending the revised 

weighted-average dumping margins for 

these companies as follows: 

Exporter 12

Weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and 

Wood Industry Co., Ltd ........... 3.92 

Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd., (aka Baishan 

Huafeng Wood Product Co., 

Ltd.) ......................................... 3.92 

Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone 

Hongtu Wood Industrial Co., 

Ltd ........................................... 3.92 

Chinafloors Timber (China) Co., 

Ltd ........................................... 3.92 

Dalian Kemian Wood Industry 

Co., Ltd ................................... 3.92 

Dalian Penghong Floor Products 

Co., Ltd ................................... 3.92 

Dalien Qianqiu Wooden Product 

Co., Ltd ................................... 3.92 

Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd 3.92 

Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC ................................... 3.92 

Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood 

Industry Co., Ltd ..................... 3.92 

Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd 3.92 

Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd ........................ 3.92 

Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group 

Co., Ltd ................................... 3.92 

Fusong Jinqiu Wooden Product 

Co., Ltd ................................... 3.92 

Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd ............................. 3.92 

Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd .............................. 3.92 

Guangzhou Panyu Kangda 

Board Co., Ltd ......................... 3.92 

HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd .................................. 3.92 

Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd .... 3.92 

Hangzhou Zhengtian Industrial 

Co., Ltd ................................... 3.92 

Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden 

Industry Co., Ltd ..................... 3.92 

Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., 

Ltd ........................................... 3.92 

Huzhou Fulinmen Imp. & Exp. 

Co., Ltd ................................... 3.92 

Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd 3.92 

Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd ............................. 3.92 

Jiangsu Kentier Wood Co., Ltd .. 3.92 

Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., 

Ltd.13 ....................................... 3.92 

Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., 

Ltd.14 ....................................... 3.92 

Jiashan HuiJiale Decoration Material Co., Ltd .......................... 3.92 

Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao 

Flooring Group Co., Ltd .......... 3.92 

Exporter 12

Weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

Kemian Wood Industry 

(Kunshan) Co., Ltd .................. 3.92 

Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, 

Inc ........................................... 3.92 

Mudanjiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd .............................. 3.92 

Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture 

(Dalian) Co., Ltd ...................... 3.92 

Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry 

Co., Ltd ................................... 3.92 

Puli Trading Limited .................... 3.92 

Shanghai Eswell Timber Co., Ltd 3.92 

Shanghai Shenlin Corp .............. 3.92 

Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd./The Lizhong 

Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai/Linyi 

Youyou Wood Co., Ltd ........... 3.92 

Shenyang Haobainian Wooden 

Co., Ltd ................................... 3.92 

Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods 

Co., Ltd ................................... 3.92 

Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., 

Ltd.15 ....................................... 3.92 

Tongxiang Jisheng Import and 

Export Co., Ltd ........................ 3.92 

Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd 3.92 

Yingyi-Nature (Kunshan) Wood 

Industry Co., Ltd ..................... 3.92 

Zhejiang Dadongwu Greenhome 

Wood Co., Ltd ......................... 3.92 

Zheijiang Fudeli Timber Industry 

Co., Ltd ................................... 3.92 

Zhejiang Fuma Warm Technology Co., Ltd ........................ 3.92 

Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering 

Co., Ltd ................................... 3.92 

Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd 3.92 

Zhejiang Tianzhen Bamboo & 

Wood Development Co., Ltd .. 3.92 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Because Senmao and the separate rate 

companies have superseding cash 

deposit rates, i.e. , there have been final 

results published in a subsequent 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
83890 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 

1See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the 

People’s Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the 

Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: 

Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 71741 (December 

3, 2014) (AD Orders). 

2See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the 

People’s Republic of China and Taiwan: 

Countervailing Duty Orders, 79 FR 71749 

(December 3, 2014) (CVD Orders) (collectively, 

Orders). 

3See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 84 

FR 58687 (November 1, 2019). 

4See Domestic Interested Party’s Substantive 

Responses, ‘‘Five Year (‘Sunset’) Review of 

Antidumping Duty Order on Non-Oriented 

Electrical Steel From the People’s Republic of 

China: Domestic Interested Party Substantive 

Response,’’ dated November 27, 2019; ‘‘Five Year 

(‘Sunset’) Review Of Antidumping Duty Order On 

Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany: 

Domestic Interested Party Substantive Response,’’ 

dated November 27, 2019; ‘‘Five-Year (‘Sunset’) 

Review Of Antidumping Duty Order On NonOriented Electrical Steel From The Republic of 

Korea: Domestic Interested Party Substantive 

Response,’’ dated November 27, 2019; ‘‘Five-Year 

(‘Sunset’) Review Of Antidumping Duty Order On 

Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From Japan: Domestic 

Interested Party Substantive Response,’’ dated 

November 27, 2019; ‘‘Five Year (‘Sunset’) Review 

Of Antidumping Duty Order On Non-Oriented 

Electrical Steel From Sweden: Domestic Interested 

Party Substantive Response,’’ dated November 27, 

2019; ‘‘Five Year (‘Sunset’) Review of Antidumping 

Duty Order on Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From 

Taiwan: Domestic Interested Party Substantive 

Response,’’ dated November 27, 2019. 

5See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From People’s 

Republic of China, Germany, Japan, Republic of 

Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Final Results of 

Expedited First Sunset Reviews of Antidumping 

Duty Orders, 85 FR 11337 (February 27, 2020) 

(Final Results). 

6See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the 

Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing 

Duty Order, 85 FR 11339 (February 27, 2020); NonOriented Electrical Steel From Taiwan: Final 

Results of the Expedited Five-Year Sunset Review 

of the Countervailing Duty Order, 85 FR 13135 

(March 6, 2020). 

7See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from China, 

Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan, 

(Investigation Nos. 701–TA–506 and 508 and 731– 

TA–1238–1243), 85 FR 81486, (December 16, 2020). 

administrative review, this notice will 

not affect the current cash deposit rates. 

Liquidation of Suspended Entries 

If the Court’s final judgment is not 

appealed, or if appealed and upheld, 

Commerce will instruct CBP to 

terminate the suspension of liquidation, 

and to liquidate and to assess duties at 

a rate of 3.92 percent for entries during 

the POR that were exported by the 

companies listed above. 

On April 10, 2019, for Armstrong, and 

on July 24, 2020 and September 9, 2020, 

respectively, for Dunhua City Jisen and 

Fine Furniture, pursuant to Court order 

lifting the injunctions Commerce issued 

liquidation instructions to CBP 

instructing CBP to liquidate entries for 

the 2012–2013 POR without regard to 

duties given these companies’ exclusion 

from the order. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 

751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 17, 2020. 

Joseph A. Laroski Jr., 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Negotiations. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28400 Filed 12–21–20; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–996, A–428–843, A–588–872, A–580– 

872, A–401–809, A–583–851, C–570–997, C– 

583–852] 

Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From 

People’s Republic of China, Germany, 

Japan, Republic of Korea, Sweden, and 

Taiwan: Continuation of Antidumping 

Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: As a result of the 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) and the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

(AD) orders on non-oriented electrical 

steel (NOES) from People’s Republic of 

China (China), Germany, Japan, 

Republic of Korea (Korea), Sweden, and 

Taiwan and revocation of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) orders on 

NOES from China and Taiwan would 

likely lead to a continuation or 

recurrence of dumping, countervailable 

subsidies, and material injury to an 

industry in the United States, 

Commerce is publishing a notice of 

continuation of these AD and CVD 

orders. 

DATES: Applicable December 23, 2020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Abdul Alnoor, Eva Kim, or Paola 

Aleman Ordaz, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4554, 

(202) 482–8283, or (202) 482–4031, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 3, 2014, Commerce 

published in the Federal Register the 

notice of the AD orders on NOES from 

China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Sweden, 

and Taiwan 1 and the notice of the CVD 

orders on NOES from China and 

Taiwan.2 On November 1, 2019, 

Commerce published the initiation of 

the first sunset reviews of the Orders, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).3

Commerce conducted these sunset 

reviews on an expedited basis, pursuant 

to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), because we 

received a complete, timely, and 

adequate response from a domestic 

interested party but no substantive 

responses from respondent interested 

parties.4 As a result of Commerce’s 

review, Commerce determined pursuant 

to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the 

Act, that revocation of the AD Orders 

would likely lead to a continuation or 

recurrence of dumping. Commerce also 

notified the ITC of the magnitude of the 

dumping margins likely to prevail 

should the AD Orders be revoked.5

Commerce also determined, pursuant to 

sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, 

that revocation of the CVD Orders on 

NOES from China and Taiwan would be 

likely to lead to the continuation or 

recurrence of countervailable subsidies 

and notified the ITC of the magnitude of 

the subsidy rates likely to prevail 

should the CVD Orders be revoked.6 On 

December 16, 2020, the ITC published 

notice of its determination, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation 

of the Orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States within a reasonably foreseeable 

time.7

Scope of the Orders 

The merchandise subject to the 

Orders consists of non-oriented 

electrical steel (NOES), which includes 

cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel 

products, whether or not in coils, 

regardless of width, having an actual 

thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which 

the core loss is substantially equal in 

any direction of magnetization in the 

plane of the material. The term 

‘‘substantially equal’’ means that the 

cross-grain direction of core loss is no 

more than 1.5 times the straight grain 

direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of 

core loss. NOES has a magnetic 

permeability that does not exceed 1.65 

Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/ 

m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along (i.e., 

parallel to) the rolling direction of the 

sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains 

by weight more than 1.00 percent of 

silicon but less than 3.5 percent of 

silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of 

carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent 

of aluminum. NOES has a surface oxide 

coating, to which an insulation coating 

may be applied. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES