CIT Upholds Commerce's Decision to Exclude Door Thresholds From Aluminum Extrusions AD/CVD Orders
The Court of International Trade in a pair of Dec. 16 opinions upheld the Commerce Department's decisions on remand to exclude importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. After previously remanding the decision for not being submitted in a form that was judicially reviewable, Judge Timothy Stanceu said that this time around the agency has made a scope decision "in a form the court is able to sustain."
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.
"Columbia is again pleased with the Court’s thorough analysis and Order in this proceeding, which confirmed Commerce’s finding that Columbia’s assembled thresholds are finished merchandise excluded from the scope of the Orders," Jeremy Dutra of Squire Patton, counsel for Columbia, said in an emailed statement. "This is the only conclusion to draw from the record evidence, text of the AD/CVD Orders, and case law. We are optimistic that Judge Stanceu’s Order will represent the conclusion of this process."
Commerce initially found the door thresholds subject to AD/CVD for a number of reasons, including that door thresholds are specifically mentioned in the scope and that they are subassemblies of larger doors and can’t qualify for the “finished merchandise” exemption from aluminum extrusions duties. The trade court ruled that Commerce based its analysis on inferences that were contradicted by other information on the record. The agency went back to the drawing board, and in its second remand results, excluded the thresholds under the finished merchandise exclusion.
While CIT had questioned Commerce’s reasoning in its prior decisions on the scope rulings, the trade court said that the second remand redetermination also misunderstands the issues identified by CIT. The court said that Commerce failed to present any reasoning for ruling that the door thresholds are outside of the scope of the orders, and that the remand is not a final agency decision that can be sustained by the court (see 2208110044).
In its third remand results, Commerce stuck by its position on Worldwide and Columbia, though it offered further explanation. The agency said that the scope of the order excludes “finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry, such as finished windows with glass, doors with glass or vinyl, picture frames with glass pane and backing material, and solar panels.” To qualify as finished merchandise, the good in question must have extrusions as parts plus an additional non-extruded aluminum component. Worldwide's and Columbia's door thresholds satisfy these conditions, the agency said (see 2209090056).
Addressing the court's concern that the remand was not final agency action, Commerce said that it doesn't intend to issue a scope ruling after the court's review. As a result, a Federal Register notice will be released that will state that consistent with the court's holdings, Worldwide's and Columbia's thresholds are excluded from the scope of the orders.
Stanceu found these results satisfactory. "As the court explained in Columbia III, Commerce was required to make a decision on whether the goods are within the scope of the Orders based on the record as a whole," the opinions said. "Commerce has now done so in its decision in the Third Remand Redetermination in a form the court is able to sustain. The essential agency findings supporting the decision that the door thresholds, in the entirety, are outside the scope of the Orders are supported by substantial evidence on the record of this case." Stanceu rejected arguments from defendant-intervenors Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee and Endura Products as recycling arguments already rejected by the court.
(Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., Slip Op. 22-143, CIT # 19-00012, dated 12/16/22, Judge Timothy Stanceu. Attorneys: John Foote of Kelley Drye for plaintiff Worldwide Door Components; Aimee Lee for defendant U.S. government; Robert DeFrancesco of Wiley Rein for defendant-intervenors Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee and Endura Products)
(Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., Slip Op. 22-144, CIT # 19-00013, dated 12/16/22, Judge Timothy Stanceu. Attorneys: Jeremy Dutra of Squire Patton for plaintiff Columbia Aluminum Products; Aimee Lee for defendant U.S. government; Robert DeFrancesco of Wiley Rein for defendant-intervenors Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee and Endura Products)