Notice2022-03923
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
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 24, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10333-10334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03923]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 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.
\2\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United States, 182 F.
Supp 3d 1350 (CIT 2016) (Fine Furniture I).
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order
(August 28, 2017), ECF No. 337-1, 338-1.
\6\ See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United States, 321 F.
Supp. 3d 1282 (CIT 2018) (Fine Furniture III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd. v. United States, 947
F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Changzhou Hawd).
\8\ See Changzhou Hawd, 947 F.3d at 793-94.
\9\ See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. United
States, Consol. Court No. 14-00135, Slip Op. 21-69 (June 2, 2021)
(Fine Furniture IV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 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).
\11\ See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, et al. v. United
States, Consol. Court No. 14-00135, Slip Op. 22-9 (CIT February 7,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\13\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 weighted-average
dumping margin for the companies that participated in the
[[Page 10334]]
litigation and have injunctions in place is 0.00 percent.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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 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.
\15\ Id.; see also Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As 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 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 providing these companies with the
revised rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 24, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.