Bamboo v. United States, 060818 USCIT, 15-00225

Docket Nº:15-00225, Slip Op. 18-67
Opinion Judge:TIMOTHY C. STANCEU, CHIEF JUDGE.
Party Name:JIANGSU SENMAO BAMBOO AND WOOD INDUSTRY CO., LTD., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and GUANGDONG YIHUA TIMBER INDUSTRY CO., LTD., et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, and COALITION FOR AMERICAN HARDWOOD PARITY, et al., Defendant-Intervenors.
Attorney:Jeffrey S. Neeley, Husch Blackwell LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiffs and defendant-intervenors Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd., Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industrial Co., Ltd., Chinafloors...
Judge Panel:Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Chief Judge
Case Date:June 08, 2018
Court:Court of International Trade
 
FREE EXCERPT

JIANGSU SENMAO BAMBOO AND WOOD INDUSTRY CO., LTD., et al., Plaintiffs,

and

GUANGDONG YIHUA TIMBER INDUSTRY CO., LTD., et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant,

and

COALITION FOR AMERICAN HARDWOOD PARITY, et al., Defendant-Intervenors.

No. 15-00225

Slip Op. 18-67

Court of Appeals of International Trade

June 8, 2018

[Remanding to the agency a determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order of certain multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China]

Jeffrey S. Neeley, Husch Blackwell LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiffs and defendant-intervenors Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd., Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industrial Co., Ltd., Chinafloors Timber (China) Co., Ltd., Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Dalian Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd., Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC., Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd., Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd., Fusong Jinqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Panyu Kangda Board Co., Ltd., Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden Industry Co., Ltd., Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Kentier Wood Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd., Jiashan HuiJiaLe Decoration Material Co., Ltd., Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd., Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry Co., Ltd., Puli Trading Limited, Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd./The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai/Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd., Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd., Tongxiang Jisheng Import And Export Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd.

Gregory S. Menegaz, deKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd. and Yingyi-Nature (Kunshan) Wood Industry Co., Ltd. With him on the brief were Alexandra H. Salzman, James K. Horgan, and Judith L. Holdsworth.

Jill A. Cramer, Mowry & Grimson, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiff, plaintiff-intervenor, and defendant-intervenor Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited. With her on the brief were Kristin H. Mowry, Jeffrey S. Grimson, and Sarah M. Wyss.

Harold D. Kaplan, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. and Armstrong Flooring, Inc. With him on the brief was Craig A. Lewis.

Mark R. Ludwikowski, Clark Hill PLC, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC.

Ronald M. Wisla, Kutak Rock LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenors, and defendant-intervenors BR Custom Surface, CDC Distributors, Inc., CLBY Inc. doing business as D&M Flooring, Custom Wholesale Floors, Inc., Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd., Doma Source LLC, Dunhua City Hongyuan Wooden Products Co., Ltd., Galleher Corporation, HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd., Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Zhengtian Industrial Co., Ltd., Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd., Huzhou Fulinmen Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc., Mudanjiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd., Pinnacle Interior Elements, Ltd., Real Wood Floors, LLC, Shanghai Eswell Timber Co., Ltd., Shanghai Shenlin Corporation, Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd., Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd., Swiff Train Co., Timeless Design Import LCC, V.A.L. Floors, Inc., Wego Chemical & Mineral Corp., Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Dadongwu Greenhome Wood Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Fuma Warm Technology Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Tianzhen Bamboo & Wood Development Co., Ltd. With him on the brief was Lizbeth R. Levinson.

John R. Magnus, Tradewins LLC, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff, plaintiff-intervenor, and defendant-intervenor Old Master Products, Inc. With him on the brief was Sheridan S. McKinney.

Jonathan M. Zielinski, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-intervenor Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. With him on the brief was Thomas M. Beline.

Jeffrey S. Levin, Levin Trade Law, P.C., of Bethesda, MD, for plaintiff and defendant-intervenor Coalition for American Hardwood Parity.

Tara K. Hogan, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington D.C., argued for defendant United States. With her on the brief were Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Claudia Burke, Assistant Director. Of counsel was Mercedes C. Morno, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Chief Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

TIMOTHY C. STANCEU, CHIEF JUDGE.

In this consolidated action, numerous parties contest the final determination the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce" or the "Department"), issued to conclude the second periodic administrative review of an antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China ("China" or the "PRC"). Concluding that the contested determination is contrary to law in certain respects, the court remands the determination to Commerce for reconsideration and correction as appropriate.

I. Background

A. The Contested Decision

The determination contested in this litigation (the "Final Results") is Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review; 2012-2013, 80 Fed. Reg. 41, 476 (Int'l Trade Admin. July 15, 2015) ("Final Results").1 Incorporated by reference in the Final Results is the Department's issues and decision memorandum ("Final Issues and Decision Memorandum"). Issues and Decision Mem. for the Final Results of 2012-2013 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Multilayered Wood Floor from the People's Republic of China (Int'l Trade Admin. July 8, 2015) (P.R. Doc. 418), available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/prc/2015-17368-1.pdf (last visited June 5, 2018) ("Final I&D Mem.").

B. Proceedings before Commerce

Commerce issued the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from the PRC (the "Order") in late 2011. Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 76, 690 (Int'l Trade Admin. Dec. 8, 2011). Commerce identified the "subject merchandise, " i.e., the merchandise that is subject to the Order, as "multilayered wood flooring" ("MLWF") but stated that this merchandise "is often referred to by other terms, e.g., 'engineered wood flooring' or 'plywood flooring.'" Id. at 76, 690. The Order defines such flooring generally as "composed of an assembly of two or more layers or plies of wood veneer(s)" in which "[t]he several layers, along with the core, are glued or otherwise bonded together to form a final assembled product." Id. (footnote omitted).

In December 2013, Commerce announced the opportunity for interested parties to request a review of the Order. Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 78 Fed. Reg. 72, 636 (Int'l Trade Admin. Dec. 3, 2013). The Coalition for American Hardwood Parity (the "Coalition"), the petitioner in the antidumping duty investigation culminating in the Order (and a plaintiff and defendant-intervenor in this litigation), requested that Commerce review 91 Chinese exporter/producers of the subject merchandise, and 45 additional interested parties also requested a review. See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 Fed. Reg. 1, 388 (Int'l Trade Admin. Jan. 9, 2015) ("Prelim. Results"). Commerce initiated the second periodic administrative review of the Order ("second review") on February 3, 2014, covering the period of December 1, 2012 through November 30, 2013 (the "period of review" or "POR"). Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 79 Fed. Reg. 6, 147 (Int'l Trade Admin. Feb. 3, 2014).

On April 21, 2014, Commerce determined it impracticable to examine individually all of the respondents subject to the review and, therefore, selected the two...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP