Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

14724

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 51 / Thursday, March 18, 2021 / Notices
20. Ningbo Zhongan Forging Co., Ltd.
21. Q.C. Witness International Co., Ltd.
22. Qingdao Bestflow Industrial Co., Ltd.
23. Shanghai Lon Au Stainless Steel Materials Co., Ltd.
24. Shanghai Longnai High Pressure Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd.
25. Shanghai Tongyang Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd.
26. Shanghai Yochoic Pipefittings Co., Ltd.
27. Witness International Co., Ltd.
28. Xin Yi International Trade Co., Limited 29. Yancheng Boyue Tube Co., Ltd.
30. Yancheng Haohui Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd.
31. Yancheng Jiuwei Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd.
32. Yancheng Manda Pipe Industry Co., Ltd.
33. Yingkou Guangming Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd.
34. Yingkou Liaohe Machinery & Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd.
35. Yuyao Wanlei Pipe Fitting Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
FR Doc. 202105587 Filed 31721; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 3510DSP

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration A570970

Multilayered Wood Flooring From the Peoples Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of the Third Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of the Third Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 3, 2021, the United States Court of International Trade CIT
issued its final judgment sustaining the Department of Commerces Commerce corrected final results of remand redetermination pursuant to court order.
Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerces final results in the third administrative review of the antidumping duty AD order on multilayered wood flooring MLWF
from the Peoples Republic of China China, covering the period of review from December 1, 2013, through November 30, 2014, and that Commerce is amending its calculation of the rate applicable to separate rate respondents.
DATES: March 13, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Aleksandras Nakutis, AD/CVD
Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

AGENCY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:49 Mar 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
202 4823147.
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 Furnitures 17.37 percent margin to the companies eligible for a separate rate.4
Fine Furniture and certain separate rate companies collectively, plaintiffs challenged Commerces Final Results.
The CIT sustained Commerces 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. 20182335, 2337.7
Following the Federal Circuits 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 Commerces recalculation of the margin for the companies eligible for a separate rate.9 Commerce then requested a voluntary remand from the 1 See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the Peoples Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 76690 December 8, 2011 Order.
2 See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the Peoples Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013
2014, 81 FR 46899 July 19, 2016, as amended in Multilayered Wood Flooring from the Peoples Republic of China: Correction to the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 81 FR
53120 August 11, 2016 collectively, Final Results.
3 See Final Results, 81 FR at 46901.
4 Id.
5 See Fine Furniture Shanghai Limited, et al., v.
United States, 353 F. Supp. 3d 1323 CIT 2018.
6 See Fine Furniture Shanghai Limited, et al. v.
United States, Appeal Nos. 20191499, 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503 Fine Furniture Federal Circuit.
7 Id., ECF No. 40 March 28, 2019.
8 See Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 947 F.3d 781, 79394 Fed. Cir. 2020
Changzhou Hawd.
9 See Fine Furniture Federal Circuit, ECF No. 56
August 4, 2020.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

CIT to recalculate the margin to be applied to the separate rate companies, given Fine Furnituress exclusion from the Order, and the CIT granted Commerces 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 Penghongs 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 Commerces 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 516Ae 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 CITs March 3, 2021, judgment constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with Commerces 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 10 See Fine Furniture Shanghai Limited, et al., v. United States, Consol. Court No. 1600145
August 25, 2020.
11 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order at 4 September 23, 2020 Remand Results.
12 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Order November 27, 2020 Corrected Remand Results.
13 See Fine Furniture Shanghai Limited, et al., v. United States, Consol. Court No. 1600145, Slip Op. 2127.
14 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d. 337
Fed. Cir. 1990 Timken.
15 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d. 1374 Fed. Cir. 2010
Diamond Sawblades.

E:FRFM18MRN1.SGM

18MRN1