31276 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Notices 

3See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Mattress Petitioners’ 

Rebuttal Brief,’’ dated April 9, 2021. 

4See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Rescission of the 2020 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of 

Mattresses from the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

issued concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, 

this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). 

5 Id. 

6See Mattresses from the People’s Republic of 

China: Antidumping Duty Order, 84 FR 68395 

(December 16, 2019). 

1See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from 

India and the Russian Federation: Initiation of LessThan-Fair-Value Investigations, 86 FR 10926 

(February 23, 2021). 

April 9, 2021.3 No party requested a 

hearing in this matter. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

are all types of youth and adult 

mattresses from China. The products 

subject to the order are currently 

properly classifiable under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule for the United States 

(HTSUS) subheadings: 9404.21.0010, 

9404.21.0013, 9404.29.1005, 

9404.29.1013, 9404.29.9085, and 

9404.29.9087. Products subject to this 

order may also enter under HTSUS 

subheadings: 9404.21.0095, 

9404.29.1095, 9404.29.9095, 

9401.40.0000, and 9401.90.5081. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise subject to this order is 

dispositive. For a complete description 

of the scope of the order, see the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum.4

Analysis of Comments Received 

The issue discussed in the case and 

rebuttal briefs is addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum.5 The Issues 

and Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file via Enforcement 

and Compliance’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 

ACCESS is available to registered users 

at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a 

complete version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ 

frn/. The sole issue raised in the case 

brief is listed in the appendix to this 

notice. 

Rescission of the Antidumping New 

Shipper Review 

For the reasons explained in the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, 

Commerce continues to find that the 

sale made by Sunbeauty is not a bona 

fide sale for purposes of the 

antidumping duty law. Commerce 

reached this conclusion based on the 

totality of the evidence, including, 

among other things, the sales price and 

quantity. Because Sunbeauty made no 

bona fide sales during the period of 

review (POR), we are rescinding the 

NSR. 

Assessment Rates 

As Commerce is rescinding this NSR, 

Sunbeauty’s status with respect to the 

antidumping duty order on mattresses 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(China) remains unchanged. Sunbeauty 

remains part of the China-wide entity 

and, accordingly, entries of its subject 

merchandise into the United States 

during the POR will be assessed at the 

China-wide rate. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Because we are rescinding this NSR, 

we are not determining a companyspecific cash deposit rate for Sunbeauty. 

Sunbeauty continues to be part of the 

China-wide entity and is, therefore, 

subject to the China-wide entity cash 

deposit rate of 1,731.75 percent.6

Administrative Protective Order 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to an administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under an APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return or destruction of APO 

materials, or conversion to judicial 

protective order, is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

rescission in accordance with sections 

751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: June 7, 2021. 

Christian Marsh, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

Appendix 

List of Sections in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Discussion of the Issues 

Comment: Whether Sunbeauty’s Sale is 

Bona Fide 

V. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2021–12315 Filed 6–10–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–899, A–821–829] 

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 

From India and the Russian 

Federation: Postponement of 

Preliminary Determinations in the 

Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Applicable June 11, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexis Cherry at (202) 482–0607 (India) 

or Jaron Moore at (202) 482–3640 (the 

Russian Federation (Russia)), AD/CVD 

Operations, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 16, 2021, the Department 

of Commerce (Commerce) initiated lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of 

imports of polytetrafluoroethylene resin 

from India and Russia.1 Currently, the 

preliminary determinations are due no 

later than July 6, 2021. 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations 

Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

Commerce to issue the preliminary 

determination in an LTFV investigation 

within 140 days after the date on which 

Commerce initiated the investigation. 

However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act 

permits Commerce to postpone the 

preliminary determination until no later 

than 190 days after the date on which 

Commerce initiated the investigation if: 

(A) The petitioner makes a timely 

request for a postponement; or (B) 

Commerce concludes that the parties 

concerned are cooperating, that the 

investigation is extraordinarily 

complicated, and that additional time is 

necessary to make a preliminary 

determination. Under 19 CFR 

351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a 

request for postponement 25 days or 

more before the scheduled date of the 

preliminary determination and must 

state the reasons for the request. 

Commerce will grant the request unless 

it finds compelling reasons to deny the 

request. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Notices 31277 

2The petitioner is Daikin America, Inc. 

3See Petitioner’s Letters, ‘‘Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from India: Request 

to Extend Due Date for Preliminary Determination,’’ 

dated June 3, 2021; and ‘‘Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Russia: Request 

to Extend Due Date for Preliminary Determination,’’ 

dated June 3, 2021. 

4 Id. 

1See Requestors Letters, ‘‘Certain Hardwood 

Plywood Products from the People’s Republic of 

China: Request for Scope Ruling,’’ dated April 6, 

2018 (Initial Scope Ruling Request); and ‘‘Certain 

Hardwood Plywood Products from the People’s 

Republic of China: Amendment to Request for 

Scope Ruling,’’ dated July 13, 2018 (Amended 

Scope Ruling Request). 

2See Memorandum, ‘‘Final Scope Ruling for 

Certain Hardwood Plywood Products from the 

People’s Republic of China: Request by the 

Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood and 

Masterbrand Cabinets Inc.,’’ dated September 7, 

2018 (Final Scope Ruling) at 1; see also See Certain 

Hardwood Plywood Products from the People’s 

Republic of China: Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping 

Duty Order, 83 FR 504 (January 4, 2018); and 

Certain Hardwood Plywood Products from the 

People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Duty 

Order, 82 FR 513 (January 4, 2018) (collectively, 

Orders). 

3See Fabuwood Cabinetry Corp. v. United States, 

469 F. Supp. 3d 1373, 1383–84 (CIT August 19, 

2020). 

4 Id., 469 F. Supp. 3d at 1389. 

5See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 

to Court Remand, Fabuwood Cabinetry Corp. v. 

United States, Consol. Court No. 18–00208, Slip 

Op. 20–121 (CIT August 19, 2020), at 8–11, 16–18, 

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

20-121.pdf. 

6 Id. at 20–28, 31–32. 

7See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F. 2d 337, 

341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken). 

8See Diamond Sawblades Manufactures 

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

2010) (Diamond Sawblades). 

On June 3, 2021, the petitioner 2

submitted a timely request that 

Commerce postpone the preliminary 

determinations in these LTFV 

investigations.3 The petitioner stated 

that it requests postponement so that 

Commerce may review the petitioner’s 

comments on the questionnaire 

responses, issue supplemental 

questionnaires, and conduct a complete 

and thorough analysis in these 

investigations.4

For the reasons stated above, and 

because there are no compelling reasons 

to deny the request, Commerce, in 

accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of 

the Act, is postponing the deadline for 

the preliminary determinations by 50 

days (i.e., 190 days after the date on 

which these investigations were 

initiated). As a result, Commerce will 

issue its preliminary determinations no 

later than August 25, 2021. In 

accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the 

deadline for the final determinations in 

these investigations will continue to be 

75 days after the date of the preliminary 

determinations, unless postponed at a 

later date. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). 

Dated: June 7, 2021. 

Christian Marsh, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12316 Filed 6–10–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–051; C–570–052] 

Certain Hardwood Plywood Products 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Notice of Court Decision Not in 

Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and 

Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling 

Pursuant to Court Decision 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 27, 2021, the U.S 

Court of International Trade (CIT) 

issued its final judgment in Fabuwood 

Cabinetry Corp. v. United States, 

Consol. Court no. 18–00208, sustaining 

the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce)’s first remand 

redetermination pertaining to the scope 

ruling for the antidumping duty (AD) 

and countervailing duty (CVD) orders 

on certain hardwood plywood products 

(hardwood plywood) from the People’s 

Republic of China (China). Commerce is 

notifying the public that the CIT’s final 

judgment in this case is not in harmony 

with Commerce’s scope ruling, and that 

Commerce is withdrawing its scope 

ruling because the request suffered from 

several critical deficiencies. 

DATES: Applicable June 6, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4047. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 7, 2018, Commerce 

found hardwood plywood in three 

product categories, described by the 

Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood 

Plywood and Masterbrand Cabinets Inc. 

(collectively, the requestors) in their 

Amended Scope Ruling Request,1 to be 

within the scope of the Orders.2 As a 

result of the Final Scope Ruling, 

Commerce instructed U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to continue the 

suspension of liquidation of entries of 

certain hardwood plywood products 

from China, including the plywood in 

the three product categories described 

by the requestors in their Amended 

Scope Ruling Request. 

Fabuwood Cabinetry Corp., Cubitac 

Cabinetry Corp., CNC Associates, N.Y., 

Inc., and Ikea Supply AG appealed 

Commerce’s Final Scope Ruling. On 

August 19, 2020, the CIT remanded the 

Final Scope Ruling to Commerce, 

holding that Commerce’s scope ruling 

failed to address: (1) The threshold 

question of whether the product 

definitions in the requestors’ Amended 

Scope Ruling Request were specific 

enough to provide an adequate basis for 

a scope ruling, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.225(c)(1); and (2) the opposing 

comments submitted by the interested 

parties with respect to the sufficiency of 

the accompanying supporting 

evidence.3 Accordingly, the CIT held 

that the Final Scope Ruling was invalid 

and remanded it to Commerce to further 

explain its acceptance of the Amended 

Scope Ruling Request in light of 

opposing comments submitted by 

interested parties.4

In its final remand redetermination 

issued in January 2021, Commerce 

revisited the record and determined that 

the Amended Scope Ruling Request 

provided a sufficiently-specific 

description of the products in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(c)(1).5

However, in reexamining the record, 

Commerce determined that the 

Amended Scope Ruling Request, 

including record evidence 

accompanying the Initial Scope Ruling 

Request which remained on the record, 

did not meet the requirements of 19 CFR 

351.225(c)(1), because it suffered from 

several deficiencies that must be 

remedied before Commerce is able to 

evaluate the products for which the 

requestors were seeking a scope ruling.6

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken,7 as clarified 

by Diamond Sawblades,8 the Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit held 

that, pursuant to sections 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 

May 27, 2021, judgment constitutes a 

final decision of the CIT that is not in 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES