7840 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2015 / Notices 

1See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant 

To Court Remand, Consol. Court Nos. 11–00109 and 

11–00110, Slip Ops. 13–63 and 13–64 (CIT May 23, 

2013), dated January 17, 2014, (‘‘AR6 Remand’’) 

available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/

13-63&64.pdf. 

2See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant 

To Court Remand, Consol. Court No. 11–00252, Slip 

Op. 13–91 (CIT July 22, 2013), dated January 17, 

2014, (‘‘NSR7 Remand’’) available at http://

enforcement.trade.gov/remands/13-91.pdf. 

3See AR6 Remand at 41–46. As we explain 

below, the Department’s recalculation of these 

surrogate values now yields an above de minimis 

weighted-average dumping margin for Vinh Hoan. 

Thus, consistent with our practice, the Department 

has amended the final results with respect to Vinh 

Hoan. 

4These companies include: 1) An Giang Fisheries 

Import and Export Joint Stock Company (aka 

Agifish or An Giang Fisheries Import and Export); 

2) East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability Company 

(formerly known as East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture 

Co., Ltd.) (‘‘ESS LLC’’); and 3) Southern Fishery 

Industries Co., Ltd. (‘‘South Vina’’). 

5See NSR7 Remand at 39–41. 

C. Benefitting in any way from any 

transaction involving any item exported 

or to be exported from the United States 

that is subject to the Regulations, or in 

any other activity subject to the 

Regulations. 

Second, no person may, directly or 

indirectly, do any of the following: 

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf 

of a Denied Person any item subject to 

the Regulations; 

B. Take any action that facilitates the 

acquisition or attempted acquisition by 

a Denied Person of the ownership, 

possession, or control of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States, including financing or other 

support activities related to a 

transaction whereby a Denied Person 

acquires or attempts to acquire such 

ownership, possession or control; 

C. Take any action to acquire from or 

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted 

acquisition from a Denied Person of any 

item subject to the Regulations that has 

been exported from the United States; 

D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the 

United States any item subject to the 

Regulations with knowledge or reason 

to know that the item will be, or is 

intended to be, exported from the 

United States; or 

E. Engage in any transaction to service 

any item subject to the Regulations that 

has been or will be exported from the 

United States and which is owned, 

possessed or controlled by a Denied 

Person, or service any item, of whatever 

origin, that is owned, possessed or 

controlled by a Denied Person, if such 

service involves the use of any item 

subject to the Regulations that has been 

or will be exported from the United 

States. For purposes of this paragraph, 

servicing means installation, 

maintenance, repair, modification or 

testing. 

Third, in addition to the Related 

Person named above, after notice and 

opportunity for comment as provided in 

section 766.23 of the Regulations, any 

other individual, firm, corporation, or 

other association or organization or 

other person related to a Denied Person 

by ownership, control, position of 

responsibility, affiliation, or other 

connection in the conduct of trade or 

business may also be made subject to 

the provisions of this Order if necessary 

to prevent evasion of this Order. 

Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 

and Section 766.25(g) of the 

Regulations, Maple Pacific may file an 

appeal of the issuance of this Order 

against it with the Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Industry and Security. 

The appeal must be filed within 45 days 

from the date of this Order and must 

comply with the provisions of Part 756 

of the Regulations. 

Fifth, in accordance with Part 756 and 

Section 766.23(c) of the Regulations, 

Hsu may file an appeal of naming him 

as a related person in this Order with 

the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security. This appeal must 

be filed within 45 days from the date of 

this Order and must comply with the 

provisions of Part 756 of the 

Regulations. 

Sixth, a copy of this Order shall be 

provided to Maple Pacific and Hsu and 

shall be published in the Federal 

Register. 

Seventh, this Order is effectively 

immediately and shall remain in effect 

until February 6, 2022. 

Issued this 5th day of February, 2015. 

Thomas Andrukonis, 

Acting Director, Office of Exporter Services. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02912 Filed 2–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–801] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice 

of Court Decisions Not in Harmony 

With Final Results of Administrative 

and New Shipper Reviews and Notice 

of Amended Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

SUMMARY: On December 18, 2014, the 

United States Court of International 

Trade (‘‘the Court’’) issued final 

judgments in Catfish Farmers of 

America et al. v. United States, Consol. 

Court No. 11–00109 and Catfish 

Farmers of America et al. v. United 

States, Court No. 11–00110, sustaining 

the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the 

Department’’) AR6 Remand final results 

which included an aligned new shipper 

review.1 On December 19, 2014, the 

Court issued final judgment in Catfish 

Farmers of America et al. v. United 

States, Court No. 11–00252, sustaining 

the Department’s NSR7 Remand final 

results.2 In the AR6 Remand, the 

Department recalculated the weightedaverage dumping margin for Vinh Hoan 

Corporation (‘‘Vinh Hoan’’) using 

revised surrogate values for by-products 

(fish waste, broken meat, and fish skin) 

and made adjustments for the inventory 

changes in the surrogate financial 

statements.3 Because Vinh Hoan’s 

margin is now above de minimis, it also 

becomes the margin for those companies 

not individually examined but receiving 

a separate rate.4 The margins for the 

voluntary respondent Vinh Quang 

Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Vinh Quang’’) 

and the new shipper Cuu Long Fish 

Joint Stock Company (‘‘CL–Fish’’) did 

not change and remain de minimis. 

In the NSR 7 Remand, the Department 

recalculated the weighted-average 

dumping margin for IDI Corporation 

(‘‘IDI’’) and Thien Ma Seafood Company 

(‘‘THIMACO’’) using revised surrogate 

values for by-products (fish waste, 

broken meat and fish skin).5 However, 

the margins for IDI and THIMACO did 

not change and remain de minimis. 

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’’), the 

Department is notifying the public that 

the final judgment in these cases is not 

in harmony with the Department’s final 

results of the antidumping duty 

administrative and new shipper reviews 

of the antidumping duty order on 

certain frozen fish fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’) covering the period of 

review August 1, 2008, through July 31, 

2009 (‘‘AR6 POR’’), and August 1, 2009, 

through February 15, 2010 (‘‘NSR7 

POR’’). With respect to the AR6 POR, 

the Department is amending the final 

results with respect to the weightedaverage dumping margins for Vinh 

Hoan, Agifish, ESS LLC and South 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2015 / Notices 7841 

6See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist’s Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the 

Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 

and Sixth New Shipper Review, 76 FR 15941 

(March 22, 2011) (‘‘AR6 Final Results’’) and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

7 Id. 

8Catfish Farmers of America and the following 

individual U.S. catfish processors: America’s Catch, 

Consolidated Catfish Companies, LLC dba Country 

Select Catfish, Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., Harvest 

Select Catfish, Inc., Heartland Catfish Company, 

Pride of the Pond, and Simmons Farm Raised 

Catfish, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

9See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United 

States, Court No. 11–00109, Slip Op. 13–63 (CIT 

May 23, 2013). 

10See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 76 FR 

35403 (June 17, 2011) (‘‘NSR7 Final Results’’). 

11See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United 

States, Court No. 11–00252, Slip Op. 13–91 (CIT 

July 22, 2013). 

12See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United 

States, Court No. 11–00109, Slip. Op. 14–144 (CIT 

December 18, 2014); and Catfish Farmers of 

America et al. v. United States, Court No. 11–00110, 

Slip. Op. 14–145 (CIT December 18, 2014). 

13See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United 

States, Court No. 11–00252, Slip. Op. 14–149 (CIT 

December 19, 2014). 

Vina.6 As the rates did not change for 

the new shipper reviews, the 

Department is not amending those final 

results. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 29, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations 

Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–2243. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 22, 2011, the Department 

issued AR6 Final Results.7 Vinh Hoan 

and Petitioners 8 timely filed complaints 

with the Court and challenged certain 

aspects of the AR6 Final Results. On 

May 23, 2013, the Court remanded the 

Department’s AR6 Final Results and 

instructed the Department to reconsider 

each of the following issues: (1) 

Surrogate country selection; (2) the 

surrogate values for by-products (fish 

waste, broken meat and fish skin); (3) 

alleged subsidies in one of the surrogate 

financial statements; and (4) ministerial 

allegations and effects on margins.9

On June 17, 2011, the Department 

issued NSR7 Final Results.10 IDI and 

THIMACO and Petitioners timely filed 

complaints with the Court and 

challenged certain aspects of the NSR7 

Final Results. On July 22, 2013, the 

Court remanded the Department’s NSR7 

Final Results and instructed the 

Department to reconsider each of the 

following issues: (1) Surrogate country 

selection; and (2) the surrogate values 

for by-products (fish waste, broken meat 

and fish skin).11

On January 17, 2014, the Department 

filed the AR6 Remand and NSR7 

Remand with the Court. With regard to 

the AR6 Remand and NSR7 Remand 

issues stated above, first, the 

Department maintained the selection of 

Bangladesh as the primary country. 

Second, the Department selected 

different surrogate values for the fish 

waste, broken meat, and fish skin byproducts. With regard to the AR6 

Remand only, the Department 

continued to use the same financial 

statements to calculate the surrogate 

financial ratios because the record did 

not contain evidence to provide a reason 

to believe or suspect that a 

countervailable subsidy was received 

during the relevant financial period. In 

addition, we accounted for all 

calculation changes as a result of the 

original ministerial error allegations and 

addressed the issues raised by the Court 

regarding the financial statements. 

As a result, there are calculation 

changes due to selecting different byproduct surrogate values and making an 

adjustment for the inventory changes in 

the financial statements. With regard to 

the AR6 Remand, after accounting for 

all such changes and issues, the 

resulting antidumping margin for the 

only mandatory respondent, Vinh Hoan, 

is $0.06 per kilogram. Because Vinh 

Hoan’s margin is now above de minimis, 

it would also become the margin for 

those companies not individually 

examined, but receiving a separate rate. 

The margins for the voluntary 

respondent Vinh Quang and the new 

shipper CL-Fish did not change and 

remain de minimis. On December 18, 

2014, the Court entered judgments 

sustaining the AR6 Remand.12

With regard to the NSR7 Remand, 

after accounting for all such changes 

and issues, the resulting antidumping 

margins for IDI and THIMACO remain 

de minimis. On December 19, 2014, the 

Court entered judgment sustaining the 

Remand.13

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 

341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 

the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 

516A(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 

Court’s December 18, 2014, judgment 

sustaining the AR6 Remand constitutes 

a final decision of the Court that is not 

in harmony with the Department’s AR6 

Final Results. In addition, the Court’s 

December 19, 2014, judgment sustaining 

the NSR 7 Remand constitutes a final 

decision of the Court that is not in 

harmony with the Department’s NSR7 

Final Results. This notice is published 

in fulfillment of the publication 

requirement of Timken. 

Amended Final Results 

Because there is now a final court 

decision, the Department is amending 

the AR6 Final Results with respect to 

Vinh Hoan, Agifish, ESS LLC, and 

South Vina. The revised weightedaverage dumping margins for these 

exporters during the period April 1, 

2009, through March 31, 2010, follow: 

Exporter name 

Weighted average 

dumping margin 

(dollars per kilogram) 

Vinh Hoan Corporation .............................................................................................................................................. 0.06 

An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company (aka Agifish or An Giang Fisheries Import and Export) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.06 

East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability Company (formerly known as East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd.) .. 0.06 

Southern Fishery Industries Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................... 0.06 

Accordingly, the Department will 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of the subject merchandise pending the 

expiration of the period of appeal or, if 

appealed, pending a final and 

conclusive court decision. In the event 

the Court’s ruling is not appealed or, if 

appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the 

Department will instruct U.S. Customs 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
7842 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2015 / Notices 

14See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012– 

2013, 80 FR 2394 (January 16, 2015). For ESS LLC 

prior to the publication of the final results of review 

on January 16, 2015 the cash deposit rate remained 

the rate established prior to losing its separate rate 

status, which was 1.20 U.S. dollars per kilogram. 

See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Amended Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011– 

2012, 79 FR 37714 (July 2, 2014). 

1See Letter from Zhejiang Fuma to the 

Department regarding, ‘‘Multilayered Wood 

Flooring from the People’s Republic of China: 

Request for Expedited Changed Circumstances 

Review’’ (November 24, 2014) (‘‘CCR Request’’). 

2See Letter from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, 

Office IV, AD/CVD Operations, to Zhejiang Fuma, 

regarding ‘‘Multilayered Wood Flooring From the 

People’s Republic of China: Request for a Changed 

Circumstances Review’’ (December 22, 2014). 

3See Letter from Zhejiang Fuma to the 

Department, regarding ‘‘Multilayered Wood 

Flooring from the People’s Republic of China: 

Request for Expedited Changed Circumstances 

Review’’ (December 31, 2014) (‘‘Supplemental 

Response’’); Letter from Zhejiang Fuma to the 

Department, regarding ‘‘Multilayered Wood 

Flooring from the People’s Republic of China: 

Request for Expedited Changes Circumstances 

Review’’ (January 20, 2015) (‘‘Second Supplemental 

Response’’). 

4For a complete description of the Scope of the 

Order, see Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant 

Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from 

Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances 

Review: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (‘‘Preliminary Results 

Memo’’), dated concurrently with, and adopted by, 

this notice. 

and Border Protection to assess 

antidumping duties on unliquidated 

entries of subject merchandise exported 

by Vinh Hoan, Agifish, ESS LLC, and 

South Vina using the assessment rate 

calculated by the Department in the 

Remand and listed above. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The cash deposit rate will remain the 

respondent-specific rate established for 

the subsequent and most-recent period 

during which the respondent was 

reviewed. The cash deposit rate for the 

Vietnam-wide entity, which is 2.39 U.S. 

dollars per kilogram, is the rate 

established for the subsequent and 

most-recent period during which the 

Vietnam-wide entity, including ESS 

LLC, was reviewed.14

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(e), 

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

Dated: February 3, 2015. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02973 Filed 2–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–970] 

Initiation and Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review: Multilayered 

Wood Flooring From the People’s 

Republic of China 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) preliminarily 

determines that Zhejiang Fuma Warm 

Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhejiang Fuma’’) 

is the successor-in-interest to Huzhou 

Fuma Wood Bus. Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huzhou 

Fuma’’) for purposes of the antidumping 

duty order on multilayered wood 

flooring from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) and, as such, is entitled 

to Huzhou Fuma’s cash deposit rate 

with respect to entries of subject 

merchandise. Interested parties are 

invited to comment on this preliminary 

determination. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 12, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Martinelli or Krisha Hill, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2923 or (202) 482– 

4037, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 24, 2014, Zhejiang 

Fuma requested that the Department 

initiate an expedited changed 

circumstances review to confirm that 

Zhejiang Fuma is the successor-ininterest to Huzhou Fuma for purposes of 

determining antidumping duty 

liabilities.1 We received no comments 

opposing Zhejiang Fuma’s request. 

On December 22, 2014, the 

Department extended the time period 

for determining whether to initiate a 

changed circumstances review by an 

additional 30 days, until February 7, 

2015.2

On December 31, 2014 and January 

20, 2015, Zhejiang Fuma responded to 

supplemental questionnaires issued by 

the Department.3

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

includes multilayered wood flooring, 

subject to certain exceptions.4

Imports of the subject merchandise 

are provided for under the following 

subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’): 4412.31.0520; 

4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 

4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 

4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 

4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 

4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 

4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 

4412.31.3175; 4412.31.6000; 

4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 

4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 

4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 

4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 

4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 

4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 

4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 

4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 

4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 

4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 

4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 

4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 

4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 

4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 

4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 

4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 

4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 

4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 

4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 

4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 

4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 

4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 

4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 

4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 

4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 

4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 

4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 

4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 

4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 

4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5710; 

4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 

4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 

4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 

4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; 

4418.72.9500; and 9801.00.2500. 

While HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

subject merchandise is dispositive. 

Initiation of Changed Circumstances 

Review 

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’) and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the 

Department will conduct a changed 

circumstances review upon receipt of 

information concerning, or a request 

from an interested party for a review of, 

an antidumping duty finding which 

shows changed circumstances sufficient 

to warrant a review of the order. The 

information submitted by Zhejiang 

Fuma claiming that Zhejiang Fuma is 

the successor-in-interest to Huzhou 

Fuma demonstrates changed 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES