SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

As explained in further detail in the Notice of Court Decision and Notice of Third Amended Final Determination,^[1] on July 3, 2018, the CIT sustained, in part, Commerce's fifth remand redetermination.^[2] In particular, the CIT sustained Commerce's determination not to terminate the AD order ^[3] because the order was imposed, in part, based on indirect evidence of dumping by the China-wide entity, a finding which was not challenged.^[4] 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, Fine Furniture, and Armstrong Wood. The CIT held that Commerce's application of the exclusion regulation, 19 CFR 351.204(e)(1), was arbitrary with respect to these respondents.^[5] The CIT sustained Commerce's determination not to exclude the remaining separate rate plaintiffs that did not seek voluntary examination in the investigation.^[6]

Pursuant to the CIT's July 3, 2018, final judgment, on July 25, 2018, Commerce issued the Notice of Court Decision and Notice of Third Amended Final Determination, which explained that the CIT's July 3, 2018, final judgment was a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Second Amended Final Determination, and excluded Dunhua City Jisen, Fine Furniture, and Armstrong Wood from the AD order.^[7]

On August 15, 2018, in response to an unopposed motion filed by Fine Furniture, the CIT amended its July 3, 2018, final judgment, and ordered the exclusion of Fine Furniture's affiliate, Double F Limited, a party previously collapsed with Fine Furniture into a single entity,^[8] from the AD order.^[9] This notice is published in accordance with the CIT's August 15, 2018, order, and amends Commerce's July 25, 2018, Notice of Court Decision and Notice of Third Amended Final Determination to exclude Double F Limited, along with Fine Furniture, Donghua City Jisen, and Armstrong Wood.

Amendment to Timken Notice

In its decision in Timken,^[10] as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,^[11] the United States Court for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that, pursuant to section 516A(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 Commerce's determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's August 15, 2018, amendment to its July 3, 2018, final judgment ordering the exclusion of Double F Limited 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.

Amendment to Third Amended Final Determination

Pursuant to the CIT's August 15, 2018, order, we are amending the Notice of Court Decision and Notice of Third Amended Final Determination to exclude Double F Limited from the AD 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 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (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 Double F Limited. 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.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 735, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.