Slip Op. 17-113 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

LINYI BONN FLOORING 

MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., 

Plaintiff, 

OLD MASTER PRODUCTS, INC. & 

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS SERVICES, 

LLC, 

Plaintiff-Intervenors, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant, 

COALITION FOR AMERICAN 

HARDWOOD PARITY, 

Defendant-Intervenor. 

 Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Chief Judge 

 Court No. 15-00227 

OPINION

[Sustaining a decision in response to court order in litigation contesting a final determination in 

an administrative review of an antidumping duty order] 

Dated:

Jeffrey S. Neeley, Husch Blackwell LLP, of Washington D.C., for plaintiff Linyi Bonn 

Flooring Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

John Robert Magnus and Sheridan Scott McKinney, Tradewins LLC, of Washington 

D.C., for plaintiff-intervenor Old Master Products, Inc. 

Mark Rett Ludwikowski, Clark Hill PLC, of Washington D.C., for plaintiff-intervenor 

Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC. 

Tara K. Hogan, Senior Trial Counsel, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of 

Washington D.C., for defendant United States. With her on the brief were Benjamin C. Mizer, 

August 25, 2017
Court No. 15-00227 Page 2 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Claudia Burke, 

Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Shelby M. Anderson, Office of Chief Counsel for 

Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C. 

Jeffrey Steven Levin, Levin Trade Law, P.C., of Bethesda, M.D., for defendant-intervenor 

Coalition for American Hardwood Parity. 

Stanceu, Chief Judge: Before the court is the decision (the “Remand Redetermination”) 

the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the 

“Department”) issued in response to the court’s order in Linyi Bonn Flooring Mfg. Co. v. United 

States, 41 C.I.T. __, 222 F. Supp. 3d 1274 (2017) (“Linyi Bonn”). Final Results of 

Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order (June 19, 2017), ECF No. 53 (“Remand Redeterm.”). 

For the reasons set forth below, the court sustains the Remand Redetermination. 

I. BACKGROUND

Background in this case is set forth in Linyi Bonn and is summarized and supplemented 

herein. 44 C.I.T. at __, 22 F. Supp. 3d at 1277-81. This litigation arose from a challenge by 

plaintiff Linyi Bonn Flooring Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Linyi Bonn”) to the final results of the 

second periodic administrative review of an antidumping duty order multilayered wood flooring 

(“MLWF”) from the People’s Republic of China (“Final Results”). See Multilayered Wood 

Flooring from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review; 2012-2013, 80 Fed. 

Reg. 41,476 (Int’l Trade Admin. July 15, 2015). The second review pertained to the period of 

December 1, 2012 through November 30, 2013. Id., 80 Fed. Reg. at 41,476. In the Final 

Results, Commerce assigned Linyi Bonn an antidumping duty rate of 58.84%. Id., 80 Fed. Reg. 

at 41,478, 41,478 n.18. Commerce took this action upon concluding that Linyi Bonn was part of 

the “PRC-wide entity” based on Linyi Bonn’s failure to submit “a certification of no shipment, 
Court No. 15-00227 Page 3 

separate rate application or separate rate certification” following the initiation of the second 

review. Id. 

Prior to the issuance of the Final Results, Linyi Bonn had been assigned a zero margin 

and zero cash deposit rate in a new shipper review (“NSR”) that covered the period of 

December 1, 2012 through May 31, 2013, i.e., a period parallel to the first six months of the 

period of review for the second review. See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews; 2012-2013, 79 

Fed. Reg. 66,355 (Int’l Trade Admin. Nov. 7, 2014). 

A. The Court’s Decision in Linyi Bonn 

In Linyi Bonn, the court held that the assignment of the 58.84% rate to Linyi Bonn was 

unlawful because Commerce failed to provide Linyi Bonn notice of the availability of “a special 

procedure by which Linyi Bonn could have sought to retain its previously-obtained zero margin 

and its previously-obtained zero cash deposit rate in the second review . . . .” Linyi Bonn, 

41 C.I.T. at __, 222 F. Supp. 3d at 1282-83. The court referred to that procedure as a procedure 

for a “partial no shipment certification.” Id., 41 C.I.T. at __, 222 F. Supp. 3d at 1291. The court 

observed that two other parties to the new shipper review, Dalian Huade Wood Product Co., Ltd. 

(“Huade”) and Zhejiang Fuerjia Wooden Co., Ltd. (“Fuerjia”), had availed themselves of such a 

procedure. Id., 41 C.I.T. at __, 222 F. Supp. 3d at 1284. The court stated that “[o]n remand, 

Commerce must correct the problem” created by its failure to provide notice of the special 

procedure to Linyi Bonn. Id., 41 C.I.T. at __, 222 F. Supp. 3d at 1291. 
Court No. 15-00227 Page 4 

B. The Remand Redetermination 

In response to the court’s order in Linyi Bonn, Commerce requested that “Linyi Bonn 

provide confirmation of no shipments during the applicable portion of the period of review that 

was not covered by the Final Results of NSR (i.e., June 1, 2013, through November 30, 2013).” 

Remand Redeterm. 4. After receiving this confirmation and consulting with U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (“CBP”), Commerce in the Remand Redetermination “determined that Linyi 

Bonn had no shipments during the period of review that were not covered in the overlapping 

period of review for the partially concurrent NSR.” Id. The Remand Redetermination states that 

“[a]ccordingly, the Department has determined that Linyi Bonn had no shipments that are subject 

to the second administrative review.” Id. It informs the court of the Department’s intention to 

“take the necessary steps to correct its prior assessment instructions with respect to Linyi Bonn 

to: (1) give effect to the finding of no shipments during the period June 1, 2013, through 

November 30, 2013; and (2) ensure that liquidation of any entries of subject merchandise that 

were produced and exported by Linyi Bonn during the period December 1, 2012, through 

May 31, 2013 are liquidated in accordance with the Final Results of the NSR.” Id. at 5. 

Regarding timing, Commerce stated that its intended actions are pending “a final and conclusive 

court decision in this litigation, including all appeals and remand proceedings, as provided in 

section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.” Id. at 4-5. 

C. Comments on the Remand Redetermination 

On July 5, 2017, plaintiff indicated its support for the Remand Redetermination in 

comments submitted to the court. Comments on Remand Results, ECF No. 55. Neither 

plaintiff-intervenors nor defendant-intervenor commented on the Remand Redetermination. On 

July 20, 2017, defendant responded to plaintiff’s comments, requesting that the court “sustain the 
Court No. 15-00227 Page 5 

Remand Redetermination and enter judgment in favor of the United States.” Def.’s Resp. to 

Comments Regarding the Remand Redetermination 3, ECF No. 57. 

II. DISCUSSION

The court will sustain the Remand Redetermination because it concludes that Commerce 

has complied with the court’s order in Linyi Bonn and because no party has objected to the 

Remand Redetermination. In this Opinion, the court presents its reasoning for concluding that 

the Remand Redetermination complies with the court’s order and addresses certain matters 

involving the implementation of the Remand Redetermination by Commerce and CBP, 

specifically, the cash deposit rate and the liquidation of affected entries. 

A. Compliance with the Court’s Order in Linyi Bonn 

In Linyi Bonn, the court ordered Commerce to correct the problem created by the failure 

to provide Linyi Bonn notice of the partial no shipment certification procedure. Linyi Bonn, 

41 C.I.T. at __, 222 F. Supp. 3d at 1291. The court held that “[b]ecause the procedural flaw was 

prejudicial to Linyi Bonn, the only remedy that will suffice is one that affords Linyi Bonn the 

opportunity it would have had if the Department’s failure to provide notice had not occurred.” 

Id. The court did not direct a specific method by which Commerce could provide that 

opportunity, instead allowing the Department discretion as to how to proceed. Id. 

Exercising its discretion, Commerce requested a “partial no shipment” certification from 

Linyi Bonn, which Linyi Bonn supplied on May 23, 2017. Remand Redeterm. 4. “Additionally, 

the Department issued a no shipment inquiry to CBP to confirm that Linyi Bonn did not ship 

subject merchandise to the United States during the period June 1, 2013, through November 30, 

2013.” Id. (footnote omitted). Commerce added that “[o]n June 5, 2017, the Department 
Court No. 15-00227 Page 6 

received notice from CBP that Linyi Bonn did not have any shipments of MLWF from June 1, 

2013, through November 30, 2013.” Id. 

The court concludes that the court’s order was satisfied by the Department’s method of 

allowing Linyi Bonn the opportunity to demonstrate for the record that it had no shipments of 

subject merchandise during the period of June 1 through November 30, 2013. Accordingly, the 

court sustains the Department’s ultimate determination that “Linyi Bonn had no shipments that 

are subject to the second administrative review.”1

 Id. 

B. Cash Deposit Rate 

Commerce explained that Linyi Bonn’s cash deposit rate will not change as a result of 

implementation of the Remand Redetermination because Linyi Bonn’s weighted-average 

dumping margin for the fourth administrative review, the final results for which were issued on 

May 26, 2017, was zero, which is also the cash deposit rate.2 Remand Redeterm. 5. Commerce 

further explained that any excess cash deposits on entries of subject merchandise occurring 

during the period of review for the fourth review (December 1, 2014 through November 30, 

2015) will be refunded with interest upon liquidation. Id. 

 1

 In reaching this ultimate determination, based on a procedure of its own choosing, 

Commerce does not indicate that its determination is being made under protest. 

2

 The court notes that in the intervening review, the third administrative review, 

Commerce found that Linyi Bonn had no shipments during the period for that review 

(December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014). Multilayer Wood Flooring from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 

81 Fed. Reg. 46,899, 46,900 (Int’l Trade Admin. July 19, 2016). 
Court No. 15-00227 Page 7 

C. Liquidation of Entries 

In the Remand Redetermination, Commerce determined that it would “ensure that 

liquidation of any entries of subject merchandise that were produced and exported by Linyi Bonn 

during the period December 1, 2012, through May 31, 2013 are liquidated in accordance with the 

Final Results of the NSR.” Id. In the final results of the new shipper review, Commerce 

determined a zero weighted-average dumping margin for Linyi Bonn. Linyi Bonn, 41 C.I.T. at 

__, 222 F. Supp. 3d at 1280 (citing Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews; 2012-2013, 79 Fed. 

Reg. 66,355 (Int’l Trade Admin. Nov. 7, 2014)). Commerce stated that its determination is 

“pending a final and conclusive court decision in this litigation, including all appeals and remand 

proceedings, as provided in section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).” 

Remand Redeterm. 4-5 (footnote omitted). Commerce explained that “[t]here is an active 

injunction for Linyi Bonn’s exports of subject merchandise that were entered, or withdrawn for 

warehouse, for consumption on or after December 1, 2012, until November 30, 2013.” Id. 5 n.20 

(citation omitted). Commerce added that “[a]bsent any further order by the Court, the 

Department cannot instruct CBP to liquidate entries during the period covered by the injunction 

until there is a final and conclusive court decision in this case.” Id. In the judgment to be 

entered, the court will order that the entries at issue in this litigation be liquidated in accordance 

with the final court decision in this case. 
Court No. 15-00227 Page 8 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the court will enter judgment sustaining the Remand 

Redetermination. 

/s/ Timothy C. Stanceu 

Timothy C. Stanceu 

Chief Judge 

Dated: 

New York, New York 

August 25, 2017