Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following:
See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details.
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 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. 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.
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).
Id.
Mandatory respondent Sino-Maple (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. (Sino Maple), certain separate rate companies, and certain companies subject to the China-wide entity 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). 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.
See Appendix for a list of the separate rate companies under injunction.
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).
See Fusong Jinlong Wooden Grp. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 617 F.Supp.3d 1221 (CIT 2022) ( Fusong I).
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. Specifically, citing section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act and the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), 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.
See Fusong Jinlong Wooden Grp. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 693 F.Supp.3d 1302 (CIT 2024) ( Fusong II).
See Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994), at 873.
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. The CIT sustained Commerce's final redetermination.
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 http://access.trade.gov/public/FinalRemandRedetermination.aspx.
See Fusong Jinlong Wooden Grp. Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 24-103 (CIT September 18, 2024).
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 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.
See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ( Timken).
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: