Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United States, No. 16-00145 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2021)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 28, 2016.
Download PDF
Slip Op. 21–27 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE ____________________________________ : FINE FURNITURE (SHANGHAI) : LIMITED, ET AL., : : Plaintiffs, : : and : : ARMSTRONG WOOD PRODUCTS : (KUNSHAN) CO., LTD., GUANGDONG : YIHUA TIMBER INDUSTRY CO., LTD., : OLD MASTER PRODUCTS, INC., : LUMBER LIQUIDATORS SERVICES, : LLC, SHANGHAI LAIRUNDE WOOD : Before: Richard K. Eaton, Judge CO., LTD., CHANGZHOU HAWD : FLOORING CO., LTD., DALIAN : Consol. Court No. 16-00145 HUILONG WOODEN PRODUCTS CO., : LTD., DUNHUA CITY JISEN WOOD : INDUSTRY CO., LTD., DUNHUA CITY : DEXIN WOOD INDUSTRY CO., LTD., : DUNHUA CITY HONGYUAN WOOD : INDUSTRY CO., LTD., JIAXING : HENGTONG WOOD CO., LTD., : KARLY WOOD PRODUCT LIMITED, : YINGYI-NATURE (KUNSHAN) WOOD : INDUSTRY CO., LTD., XIAMEN YUNG : DE ORNAMENT CO., LTD., ZHEJIANG : SHUIMOJIANGNAN NEW MATERIAL : TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., : : Plaintiff-Intervenors, : : v. : : UNITED STATES, : : Defendant. : ____________________________________: JUDGMENT Before the court is the United States Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce” or the Consol. Court No. 16-00145 Page 2 “Department”) corrected remand redetermination (“Remand Results”), ECF No. 183, issued pursuant to the court’s order dated August 25, 2020, ECF No. 174. Because individually examined respondent and Plaintiff Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited is no longer subject to the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, 1 it was necessary for Commerce to recalculate its separate rate. See Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. v. United States, No. 2019-1499, 2020 WL 8254416, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 4, 2020) (citing Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 947 F.3d 781, 793-94 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). In its August 25, 2020 order, the court directed Commerce to reconsider its calculation of the rate applicable to separate rate respondents, and dismissed Plaintiff-Intervenor Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. from the case. In response, Commerce issued the Remand Results, stating that Commerce has revised the separate rate for those companies which were granted a separate rate in the Final Results and were party to this litigation. The revised separate rate is 0.00 percent, based solely on [Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd./ Dalian Shumaike Floor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.’s] weighted-average dumping margin. Remand Results at 6. The court finds that Commerce has complied with its instructions because the Department recalculated the rate applicable to separate rate respondents based on the sole remaining individually examined respondent’s weighted-average dumping margin. No party contests the Remand Results. See Certain Consol. Pls.’ Comments on Corrected Remand Redetermination, ECF No. 185; Certain Consol. Pls.’ Comments on Remand Results, ECF. No. 186; Pl.-Intervenor Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co.’s Comments on Remand 1 See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Rep. of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 76,690 (Dep’t Commerce Dec. 8, 2011), as amended in Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Rep. of China: Amended Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 Fed. Reg. 5484 (Dep’t Commerce Feb. 3, 2012). Consol. Court No. 16-00145 Page 3 Results, ECF No. 187; Def.’s Comments on Remand Results, ECF No. 188. There being no further dispute in this matter, it is hereby ORDERED that the Remand Results are sustained. /s/ Richard K. Eaton Richard K. Eaton, Judge Dated: March 3, 2021 New York, New York
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
