```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31277-31278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12269]

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

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 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).
    \2\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 31278]]

harmony with Commerce's Final Scope Ruling. Thus, this notice is 
published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken. 
Additionally, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of 
hardwood plywood subject to the Final Scope Ruling pending expiration 
of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive 
court decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F. 2d 337, 341 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
    \8\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufactures Coalition v. United 
States, 626 F. 3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Final Scope Ruling

    In accordance with the CIT's May 27, 2021, final judgement Commerce 
finds that the Final Scope Ruling must be withdrawn because it was 
based on a deficient request for a scope ruling.

Notification to CBP

    In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if 
appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce 
will notify CBP that its Final Scope Ruling is withdrawn and the 
instructions issued in accordance with that ruling are no longer 
applicable.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(e)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 4, 2021.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations.
[FR Doc. 2021-12269 Filed 6-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```