Notice2024-22971
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping 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
October 4, 2024
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
On September 18, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd., et al v. United States, Consol. Court no. 19-00144, sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)'s remand results pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on Multilayered Wood Flooring (MLWF) from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the period December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2017. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's final results of the administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the dumping margin assigned to exporters that were eligible for a separate rate but not selected for individual examination.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 193 (Friday, October 4, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 193 (Friday, October 4, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80872-80874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22971]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 18, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(CIT) issued its final judgment in Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co.,
Ltd., et al v. United States, Consol. Court no. 19-00144, sustaining
the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)'s remand results pertaining
to the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on
Multilayered Wood Flooring (MLWF) from the People's Republic of China
(China) covering the period December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2017.
Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is not
in harmony with Commerce's final results of the administrative review,
and that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the
dumping
[[Page 80873]]
margin assigned to exporters that were eligible for a separate rate but
not selected for individual examination.
DATES: Applicable September 28, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Lipka, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7976.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 5, 2019, Commerce published its Final Results in the
2016-2017 AD administrative review of MLWF from China.\1\ In that
review, Commerce calculated the dumping margin assigned to the non-
individually examined companies found to be eligible for a separate
rate as the simple-average of the two individually examined mandatory
respondents' rates, a zero percent rate and an 85.13 percent rate based
on facts available with an adverse inference (AFA), resulting in a
margin of 42.57 percent.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Final Determination of No Shipments; 2016-2017, 84 FR 38002, 38003
(August 5, 2019) (Final Results).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory respondent Sino-Maple (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. (Sino Maple),
certain separate rate companies,\3\ and certain companies subject to
the China-wide entity \4\ rate appealed Commerce's Final Results. On
December 22, 2022, the CIT remanded the Final Results to Commerce,
sustaining Commerce's use of AFA to calculate Sino-Maple's rate and the
separate rate eligibility determinations while remanding the Final
Results on the issue of whether Commerce's use of Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo
and Wood Industry Co., Ltd.'s (Senmao) highest transaction-specific
dumping margin as Sino-Maple's AFA rate was authorized by section
776(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).\5\ The Court
reserved decision on certain other challenges to Commerce's calculation
of the separate rate assigned to the respondents not selected for
individual examination. Commerce filed a motion for reconsideration of
Fusong I, which was granted by the CIT on October 4, 2023, and found
that Commerce's method for selecting AFA for Sino-Maple was lawful and
relieved Commerce of a remand redetermination on that issue.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Appendix for a list of the separate rate companies under
injunction.
\4\ The enjoined companies subject to the China-wide rate are:
Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd., Dalian Penghong Floor
Products Co., Ltd., Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group
Co., Ltd., Kingman Floors Co., Ltd., and Scholar Home (Shanghai) New
Material Co., Ltd. See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 2016-2017, 83 FR 65630 (December 21, 2018)
and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 6, 7, and 12
(unchanged in the final results).
\5\ See Fusong Jinlong Wooden Grp. Co., Ltd. v. United States,
617 F.Supp.3d 1221 (CIT 2022) (Fusong I).
\6\ See Fusong Jinlong Wooden Grp. Co. v. United States, Slip
Op. 23-145 (CIT October 4, 2023) at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addressing the issue on reserve, on March 11, 2024, the CIT
again remanded the Final Results for Commerce to reconsider or further
explain its decision to calculate the separate rate as the simple-
average of the mandatory respondents' zero percent and AFA rates, which
the CIT viewed as a departure from its normal practice of using the
expected method.\7\ Specifically, citing section 735(c)(5)(B) of the
Act and the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA),\8\ the Court
found that the statutory exception permits Commerce to use any
reasonable method to establish the separate rate, but that in such
cases the expected method Commerce would follow is to weight average a
zero or de minimis margin with the AFA margin and that by choosing to
use a simple average, Commerce was required to provide a reasonable
explanation for its departure.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Fusong Jinlong Wooden Grp. Co., Ltd. v. United States,
693 F.Supp.3d 1302 (CIT 2024) (Fusong II).
\8\ See Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994), at
873.
\9\ See Fusong II at 1307-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In compliance with the CIT's order, Commerce calculated a weighted-
average dumping margin of 31.63 percent for non-individually examined
companies eligible for a separate rate.\10\ The CIT sustained
Commerce's final redetermination.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd. et al v. United
States, Court No. 19-144, Slip Op. 24-29 (CIT September 18, 2024),
dated June 7, 2024, available at <a href="http://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx">http://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx</a>.
\11\ See Fusong Jinlong Wooden Grp. Co. v. United States, Slip
Op. 24-103 (CIT September 18, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\12\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\13\ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held
that, pursuant to section 516A(c) and (e) of the Act, Commerce must
publish a notice of 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 September 18, 2024, judgment
constitutes a final decision of the CIT 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 non-individually-examined
companies as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average dumping
Exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Individually-Examined Respondents Eligible for a 31.63
Separate Rate \14\....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because all separate rate respondents subject to injunction have a
superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been final results
published in a subsequent administrative review, 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 rate for
those companies.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined from liquidating entries
that were exported by the non-individually-examined companies, and were
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
[[Page 80874]]
consumption during the period December, 1, 2016 through November 30,
2017.\15\ These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of
the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Appendix.
\15\ See Appendix for a list of the non-examined respondents
eligible for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, is
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 non-individually examined separate
rate respondents in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), where
appropriate. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review at the AD rate noted in the
table above.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 27, 2024.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Non-Individually Examined Respondents Eligible To Receive a Separate
Rate Under Injunction
A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd.
Benxi Wood Company
Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd.
Dalian Jiahong Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
Dalian Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd.
Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC
Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd.
Dunhua Shengda Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd.
Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd.
Hailin Linjing Wooden Products Co., Ltd.
Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd.
Hunchun Xingjia Wooden Flooring Inc.
Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd.
Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd
Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., Ltd.
Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd.
Jiashan Huijiale Decoration Material Co., Ltd.
Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.
Linyi Anying Wood Co., Ltd.
Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd.
Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc.
Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd.
Pinghe Timber Manufacturing (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.
Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co. Ltd.
Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd.
Tongxiang Jisheng Import and Export Co., Ltd
Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Biyork Wood Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Dadongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Fuerjia Wooden Co., Ltd.
[FR Doc. 2024-22971 Filed 10-3-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 4, 2024.
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.