[Federal Register: January 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 1511]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10ja06-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
International Trade Administration
A-570-890
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from The People's Republic of China:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of International
Trade (``Court'') sustained the final remand determination made by the
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') pursuant to the Court's
remand of the amended final determination of the investigation of
wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China. See Decca
Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United States, Ct. No. 05-00002, Slip
Op. 05-161 (Ct. Int'l Trade December 20, 2005) (``Decca Remand II'').
This case arises out of the Department's Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's
Republic of China, 69 FR 67313 (November 17, 2004), as amended, 70 FR
329 (January 4, 2005) (``Final Determination''). The final judgment in
this case was not in harmony with the Department's January 2005 Final
Determination.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0414.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United States, 391 F.
Supp. 2d 1298 (CIT 2005), the Court remanded the Department's
determination to reject, as untimely, certain information submitted by
Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC on behalf of its affiliate Decca
Furniture, Ltd. (``Decca''). Specifically, the Court's order directed
that:
In its remand determination Commerce may reopen the record and may
find (a) that Decca received actual and timely notice of the Section A
Questionnaire requirement, (b) that the evidence Decca presented does
not satisfy the evidentiary requirements for a separate rate, or (c)
that Decca is entitled to a separate rate.
Id. at 1317.
On October 25, 2005, the Department issued its draft results of
redetermination pursuant to remand for comment by the interested
parties. On October 27, 2005, Decca submitted comments in response to
the Department's draft results of redetermination. No other party filed
comments in response to the Department's draft results of
redetermination pursuant to remand. On November 7, 2005, the Department
issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to remand to the
Court. The remand redetermination explained that option (a) of the
Court's remand instructions was not a viable option for the Department
to pursue because it was not possible for the Department to determine
if Decca received actual and timely notice of the Section A
Questionnaire requirement. Therefore, pursuant to options (b) and (c),
the Department reopened the record and allowed Decca to resubmit its
July 2, 2004, submission in order to analyze the evidence presented by
Decca to determine its eligibility for a separate rate. Additionally,
the Department issued two supplemental questionnaires to Decca to
address some deficiencies found in Decca's July 2, 2004, submission.
Decca submitted timely and complete responses to these questionnaires.
Based on our analysis of Decca's evidence, we determined that Decca
qualifies for a separate rate in the investigation of wooden bedroom
furniture from the PRC. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, November 7, 2005.
On December 20, 2005, the Court found that the Department duly
complied with the Court's remand order and sustained the Department's
remand redetermination. See Decca Remand II. The granting of a separate
rate to Decca changes Decca's antidumping duty rate from the PRC-wide
rate of 198.08 percent to the Section A respondent rate of 6.65
percent.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), the Department must
publish a notice of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a
Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries
pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The Court's decision in Decca
Remand II on December 20, 2005, constitutes a final decision of that
court that is not in harmony with the Department's final determination
of sales at less than fair value. This notice is published in
fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the
Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject
merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, if
appealed, upon a final and conclusive court decision.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section
516A(c)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 20, 2005.
Gary S. Taverman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-77 Filed 1-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S