[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35217-35219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15878]


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

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 Second Amended Final 
Determination and Notice of Third Amended Final Determination of the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation

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

SUMMARY: On July 3, 2018, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT or Court) entered its final judgment in Changzhou Hawd 
Flooring Co., et al. v. United States, sustaining, 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 from the 
People's Republic of China (China). Commerce is notifying the public 
that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's 
final determination in the LTFV investigation of multilayered wood 
flooring from China. Pursuant to the CIT's final judgment, Dunhua City 
Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and 
Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. are being excluded from the 
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

    The litigation in this case relates to Commerce's final 
determination in the antidumping duty investigation covering 
multilayered wood flooring from China,\1\ which was later amended.\2\ 
In the First Amended Final Determination and Order, Commerce assigned a 
rate of 3.30 percent to all separate rate respondents.\3\ Commerce 
derived this rate by averaging the rates of the two individually 
investigated respondents with weighted-average margins above de 
minimis, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act). Pursuant to a series of remand orders issued by the 
Court that resulted in five remand redeterminations, Commerce (1) 
revised its calculation of dumping margins for two mandatory 
respondents and the China-wide entity; and, (2) made certain findings 
regarding the dumping margins that were calculated for eight separate 
rate respondents that were plaintiffs in the litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
    \2\ 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).
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the dumping margins for two mandatory respondents in the 
investigation, on April 23, 2014, the Court granted a consent motion 
for severance and entered final judgment in Baroque Timber Industries 
(Zhongshan) Company, Limited v. United States with respect to Layo Wood 
and the Samling Group.\4\ 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), Commerce gave notice of this decision, 
as well as the amended dumping margins of zero percent calculated for 
Layo Wood and Samling Group.\5\ Further, because Commerce changed the 
surrogate values in its first remand redetermination for mandatory 
respondents Layo Wood and Samling Group,\6\ the highest calculated 
transaction-specific rate on the record became 25.62 percent, which 
Commerce assigned to the China-wide entity.\7\ The CIT sustained 
Commerce's remand redetermination as it pertained to Layo

[[Page 35218]]

Wood and Samling Group\.8\ Consequently, pursuant to section 735(a)(4) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.204(e)(1), Commerce excluded Layo Wood and 
Samling Group from the Order.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The full names of those companies are Zheijiang 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 Samling Group).
    \5\ 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) (Second Amended Final 
Determination).
    \6\ See 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), at 2-3.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ See also Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co. v. United 
States, 971 F.Supp.2d 1333, 1336 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014).
    \9\ See First Remand Redetermination, dated November 14, 2013. 
On May 23, 2014, Commerce provided liquidation instructions to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for both Layo Wood and Samling 
Group explaining that Commerce has determined that merchandise 
produced and exported by Layo Wood and Samling Group are ``excluded 
from the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from 
{China{time} ''. See CBP Message from Commerce, ``Liquidation 
instructions for multilayered wood flooring from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC'') produced and exported by Zhejiang Layo 
Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (A-570-970-001),'' dated May 23, 3014, 
Message Number 4143303; see also CBP Message from Commerce, 
``Liquidation instructions for multilayered wood flooring from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') produced and exported by the 
Samling Group (A-570-970-002),'' dated May 23, 3014, Message Number 
4143304.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commerce was subsequently remanded by the CIT \10\ and the CAFC 
\11\ to revise its determination of the separate rate. Specifically, in 
its third remand redetermination, Commerce assigned seven of the eight 
separate rate respondents, which were plaintiffs in the litigation, an 
unspecified above de-minimis rate.\12\ In the fourth remand 
redetermination, Commerce assigned the eighth separate rate plaintiff, 
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., a cash deposit rate consistent with the 
other separate rate plaintiffs, until Changzhou Hawd's' new cash 
deposit and assessment rate was established in the final results of the 
second administrative review.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 77 F. 
Supp. 3d 1351 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015) (Changzhou Hawd 2015).
    \11\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 848 F.3d 
1006, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Changzhou Hawd 2017).
    \12\ See 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). Commerce 
inferred that the margins of the separate rate plaintiffs were 
above-de minimis in the second remand redetermination. Commerce 
based this inference on two primary considerations. First, Commerce 
observed that 110 companies did not respond to the quantity and 
value questionnaire, that certain of those companies could have been 
selected as mandatory respondents, and that it is reasonable to 
infer those companies would have received above-de minimis rates. 
Second, Commerce corroborated this inference using the intervening 
results of the first administrative review, where Commerce found 
continued dumping. See 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).
    \13\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT sustained Commerce's determinations; however, the CAFC 
vacated the CIT's judgment and remanded back to the CIT with 
instructions to remand to Commerce to revise its determination of the 
separate rate and apply the ``expected method'' under section 735(c)(5) 
of the Act, or to justify any departure.\14\ In its fifth remand 
redetermination, Commerce was unable to make the necessary findings to 
justify departure from the expected method, and thus applied the 
expected method for the separate rate, averaging the calculated rates 
for the mandatory respondents, resulting in a zero rate.\15\ Commerce 
further determined that the relevant statutory and regulatory 
provision, section 735(a)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.204(e)(1), did 
not provide a basis for excluding from the order producers that were 
not individually investigated and assigned individual dumping margins. 
Commerce also denied a request to terminate the order completely for 
lack of any individually calculated dumping margins above de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Changzhou Hawd 2015, 77 F. Supp. 3d 1351; Changzhou 
Hawd 2017, 848 F.3d 1006, 1008.
    \15\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Order, Court No. 12-00020, dated February 15, 2017 (Fifth Remand 
Redetermination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 3, 2018, the CIT sustained, in part, Commerce's fifth 
remand redetermination.\16\ The CIT sustained Commerce's determination 
not to terminate the order because the order was imposed, in part, 
based on indirect evidence of dumping by the China-wide entity, a 
finding which was not challenged.\17\ 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 Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture 
(Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. The 
CIT held that Commerce's application of the exclusion regulation, 19 
CFR 351.204(e)(1), was arbitrary with respect to these respondents.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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).
    \17\ Id. at 11-12.
    \18\ Id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 CIT's July 3, 2018, final 
judgment affirming the Fifth Remand Redetermination,\19\ sustaining the 
recalculated separate rate of zero (applicable to the separate rate 
plaintiffs), and ordering the exclusion of Dunhua City Jisen Wood 
Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong 
Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. from the order 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third Amended Final Determination

    There is now a final court decision with respect to the Second 
Amended Final Determination as it concerns the eight separate rate 
respondents listed below. 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. Accordingly, Commerce 
is amending the Second Amended Final Determination. The revised 
weighted-average dumping margins for these companies are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
                        Exporter                          dumping margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co..............................            0.00
Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd................            0.00
Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd................            0.00
Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd.................            0.00
Kunshan Yingy-Nature Wood Industry Co., Ltd.............            0.00

[[Page 35219]]

 
Karly Wood Product Limited..............................            0.00
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited.......................            0.00
Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd..............            0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, pursuant to the CIT's July 3, 2018, final judgment, 
Commerce is also excluding Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., 
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products 
(Kunshan) Co., Ltd., from the 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 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 Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture 
(Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. 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.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of the APO is a violation subject to 
sanction.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
516A(e)(1), 735, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 18, 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. 2018-15878 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P