Cubitac Cabinetry Corp. v. United States, 1:18-cv-00211-GSK

Commerce issued antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain hardwood plywood from China on Jan. 4, 2018, excluding certain ready-to-assemble (RTA) kitchen cabinets packaged for end-users.
The Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood and Masterbrand Cabinets (Petitioner-Masterbrand) requested a scope ruling (Apr. 6, 2018), amended that request (July 13, 2018), and Commerce issued a final scope ruling (Sept. 7, 2018) finding the described products within the Orders.
Fabuwood challenged the Final Scope Ruling (filed Oct. 2018). In Fabuwood I, the court concluded Commerce failed to address whether the amended scope request was specific enough and remanded for further explanation (Aug. 19, 2020).
On remand Commerce reexamined the record and reversed its original position, concluding the amended scope request was deficient: it omitted first‑hand/otherwise reasonably available supporting evidence, did not provide cited public records, and inadequately justified coverage of edge‑banded plywood; Commerce allowed refiling or a new request (Remand Results, Jan. 11, 2021).
No party meaningfully challenged Commerce’s Remand Results; the Government urged the court to sustain them. The court found Commerce complied with the remand and affirmed the Remand Results.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Amended Scope Ruling Request met the regulatory specificity requirements for Commerce to proceed	Fabuwood argued Commerce failed to address whether the request was specific enough and did not explain acceptance	Commerce (initially) accepted the request; on remand concluded the request was deficient and did not meet 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(c)(1)	Court upheld Commerce’s remand conclusion that the request was deficient and sustained the Remand Results
Whether the supporting evidence in the request was sufficient (first‑hand statements, public records, proof of production)	Petitioner‑Masterbrand contended their submission complied with regulations and can refile if needed	Commerce found the request lacked reasonably available first‑hand evidence, omitted cited public records, and included unclear second‑hand sources	Court sustained Commerce’s factual determination that the request was insufficiently supported
Whether Commerce complied with the court’s remand and whether its Remand Results are supported by substantial evidence	CNC and others did not meaningfully challenge remand results; CNC agreed Commerce was correct that the request was deficient	Government argued Commerce complied with the remand and that its redetermination is supported by substantial evidence and lawful	Court found Commerce complied with the remand order and that the Remand Results are supported by substantial evidence; judgment for the Government

Fabuwood Cabinetry Corp. v. United States, 469 F. Supp. 3d 1373 (CIT 2020) (court remanded where Commerce did not explain sufficiency of scope‑request basis)
Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States, 106 F. Supp. 3d 1342 (CIT 2015) (remand‑compliance review standard)
United States v. American Home Assurance Co., 151 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right)
Cement Kiln Recycling Coal. v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (cursory, undeveloped arguments do not preserve issues for review)