ITA Explains Policy on Conflicting Scope Terms, as CIT Affirms in China Wooden Bedroom Furniture Case
The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Administration’s reversal of a scope ruling for the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China, after remanding twice on the ITA’s treatment of Legacy Classic Furniture’s product. The ITA had originally found the combination bench/storage unit in scope based on the scope’s explicit inclusion of chests, but CIT in its second remand said the product is clearly an excluded bench, which outweighs its arguable inclusion as a chest. In light of the court’s findings, the ITA found the “Heritage Court Bench” out of the scope of the AD duty order. The ITA also gave a short explanation of its policy when scope inclusions and exclusions are in conflict with regard to a product.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Legacy’s Heritage Court Bench is a backless wooden seating bench measuring 50 inches wide by 20 inches tall by 19 inches deep. The top of the bench is padded leather, attached by hinges to the base, and has a cedar-lined interior storage area. As such, the bench also functions as a storage unit. Importantly, the item is advertised by Legacy as “seating.” While the item is listed on Legacy’s website under two tabs labeled “seating” and “bedroom,” it is not listed under the tab “bedroom chests,” but instead under “bedroom seating.” The scope of the wooden bedroom furniture order includes specified chests but specifically excludes all seating furniture, including benches.
Product Ambiguously Excluded as Chest, but Clearly Excluded as Bench
In the first remand, the court didn’t find fault with the ITA’s determination that the scope is ambiguous under Section 351.225(k)(1), but remanded on the ITA’s determination that the product is in scope based on (k)(2) factors. But in its section remand, in September 2012, CIT reversed course and remanded on concerns of whether the language of the scope is ambiguous at all as to whether it includes the product.
In its second remand, the court said the Heritage Court Bench is undoubtedly a bench. But the scope’s inclusion of chests is based on certain conditions, including that the chest be taller than it is wide. Noting that Legacy’s product is wider than it is tall, the court said the scope unambiguously excludes it as a bench, while the product can only arguably be included as a chest. CIT also ordered the agency to explain its policy where specific scope inclusions and exclusions are in conflict.
In its second remand redetermination, dated Jan.4, the ITA found the Heritage Court Bench to be outside the scope of the AD duty order, given the court’s findings.
ITA Explains Policy for Conflicting Exclusions/Inclusions
On its policy when the language of the scope is in conflict regarding a product, the ITA said it “follows the general principle that the provisions with more specific language, whether used to define the subject merchandise or to define an exclusion from the subject merchandise, control the Department’s scope clarifications. The Department’s policy is to decide such questions on a case-by-case basis, depending on the language of the order, the criteria in 19 CFR 351.225, and the facts on the record before us in each case.”
(Legacy Classic Furniture, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 13-28, dated 03/06/13, Judge Carman)
Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of the ITA's remand redetermination.
(See ITT's Online Archives 11121905 for summary of the first remand of the scope determination, and 12092036 for summary of the second.)