SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Commerce individually examined Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (Fine Furniture) and the collapsed entity Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd./Dalian Shumaike Floor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (collectively, Dalian Penghong) as mandatory respondents in the third administrative review of the AD order on MLWF from China,^[1] covering the period of review from December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014.^[2] As identified in the Final Results, the calculated margins for Fine furniture and Dalian Penghong were 17.37 percent and 0.00 percent, respectively.^[3] Commerce assigned Fine Furniture's 17.37 percent margin to the companies eligible for a separate rate.^[4]

Fine Furniture and certain separate rate companies (collectively, plaintiffs) challenged Commerce's Final Results. The CIT sustained Commerce's Final Results,^[5] and select plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit).^[6] The Federal Circuit ordered that the case be stayed pending the outcome of Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., v. United States, Appeal Nos. 2018-2335, -2337.^[7]

Following the Federal Circuit's final opinion in Changzhou Hawd that held that Fine Furniture was excluded from the Order,^[8] the Federal Circuit lifted the stay of the appeal of the Final Results and remanded the case to the CIT to oversee Commerce's recalculation of the margin for the companies eligible for a separate rate.^[9] Commerce then requested a voluntary remand from the CIT to recalculate the margin to be applied to the separate rate companies, given Fine Furnitures's exclusion from the Order, and the CIT granted Commerce's request.^[10]

On September 23, 2020, Commerce issued its Remand Results, in which Commerce recalculated the rate applicable to the plaintiff separate rate respondents and assigned the remaining mandatory respondent Dalian Penghong's weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent to the respondents not selected for individual examination that were granted a separate rate in the Final Results and were party to the litigation.^[11] On November 27, 2020, after obtaining leave from the CIT, Commerce issued its Corrected Remand Results, correcting several clerical errors made in its Remand Results.^[12]

On March 3, 2021, the CIT sustained Commerce's Corrected Remand Results.^[13]

Timken Notice

In its decision in Timken,^[14] as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,^[15] the Federal Circuit 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 a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's March 3, 2021, judgment constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

Amended Final Results

Because there is now a final court decision with respect to this case, Commerce is amending its Final Results ( printed page 14725) with to the rate applicable to separate rate plaintiff respondents. Based on the Corrected Remand Results, we find that the applicable margin is 0.00 percent to the separate rate companies listed below:

Liquidation of Suspended Entries

In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) liquidating entries exported from the companies above during the period December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014, at the appropriate rate.

On April 10, 2019, for Armstrong, and on August 11, 2020, for Dunhua City Jisen and Fine Furniture, pursuant to court order lifting the injunctions, Commerce issued liquidation instructions to CBP instructing CBP to liquidate entries for the December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014 period of review without regard to duties given these companies' exclusion from the Order.

Cash Deposit Requirements

Because there have been subsequent administrative reviews for separate rate respondents, the cash deposit rate for these companies will remain the rate established in the most recently completed administrative review.^[17]

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.