Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices 10333 

1See 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) (Final Results), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. 

2See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the 

People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011– 

2012, 79 FR 35314 (June 20, 2014) (Amended Final 

Results). 

3See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United 

States, 182 F. Supp 3d 1350 (CIT 2016) (Fine 

Furniture I). 

4 Id. 

5See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Order (August 28, 2017), ECF No. 337–1, 

338–1. 

6See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United 

States, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1282 (CIT 2018) (Fine 

Furniture III). 

7See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 947 F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 2020) 

(Changzhou Hawd). 

8See Changzhou Hawd, 947 F.3d at 793–94. 

9See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. 

United States, Consol. Court No. 14–00135, Slip 

Op. 21–69 (June 2, 2021) (Fine Furniture IV). 

10See Final Results of Remand Redetermination, 

Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. United 

States, Consol. Court No. 14–00135, Slip Op. 21– 

69 (CIT June 2, 2021) (July 12, 2021). 

11See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. 

United States, Consol. Court No. 14–00135, Slip 

Op. 22–9 (CIT February 7, 2022). 

12See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

13See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers 

Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 

14Hangzhou Zhengtian Industrial Co., Ltd. was 

not subject to the first review final results. See Final 

Results. Therefore, this company’s entries would 

have liquidated pursuant to prior liquidation 

instructions. In addition, Dalian Huilong Wooden 

Products Co., Ltd., Dunhua City Dexin Wood 

Industry Co., Ltd., Karly Wood Product Limited, 

and Kunshan Yingyi-Nature Wood Industry Co., 

Ltd. have no outstanding injunction for this period 

of review. Therefore, in accordance with our final 

remand redetermination and the Court’s opinion, 

we are not assigning these companies the revised 

rate. 

Dated: February 17, 2022. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03896 Filed 2–23–22; 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 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; Notice of 

Amended Final Results 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On February 7, 2022, the U.S. 

Court of International Trade (CIT or 

Court) issued its final judgment in Fine 

Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. 

United States, Consol. Court No. 14– 

00135, sustaining the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce)’s remand 

redetermination pertaining to the 2011– 

2012 antidumping duty (AD) 

administrative review of multilayered 

hardwood flooring (wood flooring) from 

the People’s Republic of China (China) 

covering the period May 26, 2011, 

through November 30, 2012. Commerce 

is notifying the public that the CIT’s 

final judgment in this litigation is not in 

harmony with the final of the 2011– 

2012 AD administrative review of wood 

flooring from China, and that Commerce 

is amending the final results of that 

review with respect to the dumping 

margin assigned to certain separate rate 

companies. 

DATES: Applicable February 17, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Drew Jackson, 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) 482–4406. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 9, 2014, Commerce published 

the final results of the first 

administrative review of wood flooring 

from China.1 After correcting certain 

ministerial errors contained in the Final 

Results, on June 20, 2014, Commerce 

published the Amended Final Results, 

in which Commerce amended the final 

weighted-average dumping margins for 

Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (Fine 

Furniture) and certain separate rate 

companies.2

Fine Furniture and certain separate 

rate companies (collectively, plaintiffs) 

challenged Commerce’s Final Results. In 

its first remand opinion, the CIT held 

unlawful the calculation of a deduction 

Commerce made for Chinese 

irrecoverable value-added tax (VAT).3

Furthermore, the CIT held two decisions 

Commerce made in determining the 

normal value of Fine Furnitures’s 

subject merchandise were not supported 

by substantial evidence: (1) Commerce’s 

choice of financial statements for use in 

calculating surrogate financial ratios; 

and (2) the calculation of the surrogate 

value for electricity.4

Commerce filed the first remand 

redetermination on August 28, 2017, 

which included a recalculation of the 

weighted-average dumping margin of 

0.73 percent for Fine Furniture. Based 

on this margin, Commerce assigned a 

rate of 0.73 percent as the revised 

separate rate.5 The CIT sustained 

Commerce’s recalculation of the 

deduction for VAT and its decisions on 

the choice of financial statements; 

however, the CIT ordered Commerce to 

reconsider on remand its selection of 

the surrogate value for Fine Furniture’s 

electricity usage.6

Following the CIT’s opinion and order 

in Fine Furniture III, the court stayed 

the case pending the outcome of 

Changzhou Hawd.7 On February 2, 

2021, following the U.S. Court of 

Appeals of the Federal Circuit (Federal 

Circuit or CAFC) final opinion in 

Changzhou Hawd that held that Fine 

Furniture was excluded from the 

Order,8 the CIT lifted the stay and 

granted Commerce’s voluntary remand 

to recalculate an antidumping duty rate 

applicable to the separate rate 

respondents, given Fine Furniture’s 

exclusion from the order.9

In its final remand redetermination, 

issued in July 2021, Commerce assigned 

a new separate rate of 0.00 percent 

applicable only to those companies that 

are party to the litigation and that have 

an injunction in place.10 The CIT 

sustained Commerce’s final remand 

redetermination.11

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,12 as 

clarified by Diamond Sawblades,13 the 

Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to 

section 516A(c) and (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 a Commerce determination and 

must suspend liquidation of entries 

pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. 

The CIT’s February 7, 2022, judgment 

constitutes a final court decision that is 

not in harmony with Commerce’s Final 

Results. Thus, this notice is published 

in fulfillment of the publication 

requirements of Timken. 

Amended Final Results 

Because there is now a final court 

judgment, Commerce is amending its 

Final Results with respect to the 

dumping margin assigned to entries of 

wood flooring produced and/or 

exported from China, which were 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption during the period May 

26, 2011, through November 30, 2012, 

for the separate rate companies listed in 

the appendix.14 The amended weightedaverage dumping margin for the 

companies that participated in the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
10334 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2022 / Notices 

15 Id.; see also Appendix. 

16See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

17As noted above, Hangzhou Zhengtian 

Industrial Co., Ltd. was not subject to the first 

review final results. See Final Results. Therefore, 

this company’s entries would have liquidated 

pursuant to prior liquidation instructions. In 

addition, Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., 

Ltd., Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd., 

Karly Wood Product Limited, and Kunshan YingyiNature Wood Industry Co., Ltd. have no 

outstanding injunction for this period of review. 

Therefore, in accordance with our final remand 

redetermination and the Court’s opinion, we are not 

providing these companies with the revised rate. 

1See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the 

Republic of Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Final 

Determination of No Shipments; 2019–2020, 87 FR 

7118 (February 8, 2022). 

litigation and have injunctions in place 

is 0.00 percent.15

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Because the companies listed in the 

appendix have a superseding cash 

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

results published in subsequent 

administrative reviews for the 

companies listed above, we will not 

issue revised cash deposit instructions 

to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP). This notice will not affect the 

current cash deposit rates for those 

exporters/producers. 

Liquidation of Suspended Entries 

At this time, Commerce remains 

enjoined by CIT order from liquidating 

entries of subject merchandise that were 

exported by any of the companies listed 

above and that were entered into the 

United States, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption during the 

period May 26, 2011, through November 

30, 2012. These entries will remain 

enjoined pursuant to the terms of the 

injunction during the pendency of any 

appeals process. 

In the event the CIT’s ruling is not 

appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a 

final and conclusive court decision, 

Commerce intends to instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on 

unliquidated entries of subject 

merchandise exported by the companies 

listed above in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by the 

review when the importer-specific ad 

valorem assessment rate is not zero or 

de minimis. Where an importer-specific 

ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de 

minimis,16 we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate the appropriate entries 

without regard to antidumping duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(c) and 

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

Dated: February 17, 2022. 

Lisa W. Wang, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix 

Separate Rate Companies 17

1. Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd. 

2. Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC 

3. GTP International Limited 

4. Guangzhou Panyu Kangda Board Co., Ltd. 

5. Guangzhou Panyu Southern Star Co., Ltd. 

6. Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood 

Industry Co., Ltd. 

7. Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd. 

8. Jiashan HuiJiaLe Decoration Material Co., 

Ltd. 

9. Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., 

Ltd. 

10. Puli Trading Ltd. 

11. Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd. 

12. Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd. 

13. Zhejiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd. 

14. Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., 

Ltd./The Lizhong Wood Industry 

Limited Company of Shanghai 

15. Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc. 

16. Baishan Huafeng Wood Product Co., Ltd. 

17. Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd. 

18. Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd. 

19. Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd. 

20. Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry 

Co., Ltd. 

21. Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry 

Co., Ltd. 

22. Fujian Wuyishan Werner Green Industry 

Co., Ltd. 

23. Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd. 

24. Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd. 

25. Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden Industry 

Co., Ltd. 

26. Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd. 

27. Huzhou Fulinmen Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 

28. Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. 

29. Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring 

Group Co., Ltd. 

30. Mudanjiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., 

Ltd. 

31. Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., 

Ltd. 

32. Shanghai Eswell Timber Co., Ltd. 

33. Shanghai Shenlin Corporation 

34. Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd. 

35. Zhejiang Fuma Warm Technology Co., 

Ltd. 

36. Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03923 Filed 2–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–489–829] 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From 

the Republic of Turkey: Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Final Determination of NoShipments; 2019–2020; Correction 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) published a notice in the 

Federal Register on February 8, 2022, in 

which Commerce announced the final 

results of the 2019–2020 administrative 

review of the antidumping duty (AD) 

order on steel concrete reinforcing bar 

(rebar) from the Republic of Turkey 

(Turkey). This notice corrects the name 

of the respondent for which we tied the 

rates for non-selected companies to in 

that determination. 

DATES: Applicable February 24, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak or Jose Rivera, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–3642 or (202) 482–0842, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of February 8, 

2022, in the FR Doc 2022–02638 on 

page 7119, in the second column, 

correct the last sentence in the section 

‘‘Rates for Non-Selected Companies:’’ 

‘‘Accordingly, Commerce is assigning 

Colakoglu’s rate of 1.02 percent to 

companies not selected for individual 

examination.’’ The corrected sentence 

should read: ‘‘Accordingly, Commerce 

is assigning Kaptan Demir’s rate of 1.02 

percent to companies not selected for 

individual examination.’’ 

Background 

On August 6, 2021, Commerce 

published in the Federal Register the 

notice of the final results of the 2019– 

2020 administrative review.1 We 

inadvertently misstated in the ‘‘Rates for 

Non-Selected Companies’’ section of the 

notice that ‘‘Commerce is assigning 

Colakoglu’s rate of 1.02 percent to 

companies not selected for individual 

examination.’’ The correct rate for nonselected companies is the rate 

calculated for Kaptan Demir Celik 

Energji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. 

(Kaptan Demir) of 1.02 percent. This 

notice serves as a notification of this 

correction to the Federal Register notice 

published on February 8, 2022. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a) and 

777(i) of the Act. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1