Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 3, 2018, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) entered its final judgment in Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., et al. v. United States, sustaining, in part, the final results of remand redetermination pursuant to court order by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China (China). Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final determination in the LTFV investigation of multilayered wood flooring from China. Pursuant to the CIT's final judgment, Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. are being excluded from the order.
Applicable July 13, 2018.
Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Aleksandras Nakutis, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3147.
End Further Info
Start Supplemental Information
The litigation in this case relates to Commerce's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation covering multilayered wood flooring from China,
which was later amended.
In the First Amended Final Determination and Order, Commerce assigned a rate of 3.30 percent to all separate rate respondents.
Commerce derived this rate by averaging the rates of the two individually investigated respondents with weighted-average margins above de minimis, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Pursuant to a series of remand orders issued by the Court that resulted in five remand redeterminations, Commerce (1) revised its calculation of dumping margins for two mandatory respondents and the China-wide entity; and, (2) made certain findings regarding the dumping margins that were calculated for eight separate rate respondents that were plaintiffs in the litigation.
Regarding the dumping margins for two mandatory respondents in the investigation, on April 23, 2014, the Court granted a consent motion for severance and entered final judgment in Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Company, Limited v. United States with respect to Layo Wood and the Samling Group.
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades), Commerce gave notice of this decision, as well as the amended dumping margins of zero percent calculated for Layo Wood and Samling Group.
Further, because Commerce changed the surrogate values in its first remand redetermination for mandatory respondents Layo Wood and Samling Group,
the highest calculated transaction-specific rate on the record became 25.62 percent, which Commerce assigned to the China-wide entity.
The CIT sustained Commerce's remand redetermination as it pertained to Layo Start Printed Page 35218Wood and Samling Group
Consequently, pursuant to section 735(a)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.204(e)(1), Commerce excluded Layo Wood and Samling Group from the Order.
Commerce was subsequently remanded by the CIT 
and the CAFC 
to revise its determination of the separate rate. Specifically, in its third remand redetermination, Commerce assigned seven of the eight separate rate respondents, which were plaintiffs in the litigation, an unspecified above de-minimis rate.
In the fourth remand redetermination, Commerce assigned the eighth separate rate plaintiff, Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., a cash deposit rate consistent with the other separate rate plaintiffs, until Changzhou Hawd's' new cash deposit and assessment rate was established in the final results of the second administrative review.
The CIT sustained Commerce's determinations; however, the CAFC vacated the CIT's judgment and remanded back to the CIT with instructions to remand to Commerce to revise its determination of the separate rate and apply the “expected method” under section 735(c)(5) of the Act, or to justify any departure.
In its fifth remand redetermination, Commerce was unable to make the necessary findings to justify departure from the expected method, and thus applied the expected method for the separate rate, averaging the calculated rates for the mandatory respondents, resulting in a zero rate.
Commerce further determined that the relevant statutory and regulatory provision, section 735(a)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.204(e)(1), did not provide a basis for excluding from the order producers that were not individually investigated and assigned individual dumping margins. Commerce also denied a request to terminate the order completely for lack of any individually calculated dumping margins above de minimis.
On July 3, 2018, the CIT sustained, in part, Commerce's fifth remand redetermination.
The CIT sustained Commerce's determination not to terminate the order because the order was imposed, in part, based on indirect evidence of dumping by the China-wide entity, a finding which was not challenged.
With respect to the separate rate plaintiffs, the CIT ordered exclusion from the order for three separate respondents that sought voluntary examination in the investigation, but were denied: Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. The CIT held that Commerce's application of the exclusion regulation, 19 CFR 351.204(e)(1), was arbitrary with respect to these respondents.
In its decision in Timken, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with Commerce's determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's July 3, 2018, final judgment affirming the Fifth Remand Redetermination,
sustaining the recalculated separate rate of zero (applicable to the separate rate plaintiffs), and ordering the exclusion of Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. from the order constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Second Amended Final Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.
Third Amended Final Determination
There is now a final court decision with respect to the Second Amended Final Determination as it concerns the eight separate rate respondents listed below. As of the date of this notice, all eight companies have received updated cash deposit rates, and their rates will not change as a result of this litigation. Accordingly, Commerce is amending the Second Amended Final Determination. The revised weighted-average dumping margins for these companies are as follows:
|Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co||0.00|
|Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd||0.00|
|Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd||0.00|
|Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd||0.00|
|Kunshan Yingy-Nature Wood Industry Co., Ltd||0.00|
|Start Printed Page 35219|
|Karly Wood Product Limited||0.00|
|Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited||0.00|
|Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd||0.00|
Further, pursuant to the CIT's July 3, 2018, final judgment, Commerce is also excluding Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., from the order. Section 735(c)(2)(A)-(B) of the Act instructs Commerce to terminate suspension of liquidation and to release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit, in the event of a negative determination. Here, suspension of liquidation must continue during the pendency of the appeals process (in accordance with Timken and as discussed above), and, therefore, we will continue to instruct CBP at this time to (A) continue suspension at a cash deposit rate of zero percent until instructed otherwise; and (B) release any bond or other security, and refund any cash deposit made pursuant to the order by Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, and Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or appealed and upheld by the CAFC, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate those unliquidated entries of subject merchandise without regard to antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of the APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 735, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
End Supplemental Information
Dated: July 18, 2018.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-15878 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P