Elysium Tiles, Inc. v. United States
2025 CIT 25
Ct. Intl. Trade2025Background
- Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering ceramic tile from China in June 2020.
- Elysium Tiles, Inc. requested a scope ruling from Commerce, seeking to confirm that its marble composite tile was not covered by the scope of those orders.
- Elysium's composite tile is made by sandwiching a marble layer between two porcelain tiles, bonded by epoxy, then splitting to yield tiles with a marble top layer.
- Commerce initially ruled the composite tile was within scope, finding the porcelain base was covered and the marble was a decorative feature.
- The Court previously remanded Commerce’s determination, finding the agency’s interpretation and use of record evidence insufficiently supported by the record and law.
- Upon remand, Commerce reaffirmed its scope decision, again claiming Elysium’s tile fell within the orders, which the Court now finds unsupported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether scope language covers composite tile with marble top layer | Elysium argues the plain scope language, requiring fired raw materials, does not cover products like its composite tile with a dominant marble surface and extensive processing post-firing. | Commerce argues all ceramic tiles, including those with decorative features or added layers, are covered by the scope language, and the porcelain base layer is in-scope. | The scope language is ambiguous and does not definitively cover Elysium’s marble composite tile; Commerce’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence. |
| Relevance of “decorative features” language in scope order | Elysium asserts the term "decorative features" is irrelevant, as the marble layer is integral, not merely decorative, and scope does not specifically extend to composite tiles with non-ceramic tops. | Commerce claims the marble layer is a “decorative feature,” so the composite tile remains within scope per order language. | Without more evidence, “decorative features” does not support including these composite tiles in scope; Commerce’s reliance on this is unpersuasive. |
| Whether the processing involved takes product out of scope | Elysium claims the extensive post-firing process creates a new product outside the scope of the orders, unlike minor processing referenced in the order. | Commerce argues even significant processing does not take ceramic tile out of scope if the end product retains characteristics outlined in the order. | The process here goes beyond minor processing; this aspect needs further fact-finding under (k)(2) factors on remand. |
| Sufficiency of Commerce’s factual findings under (k)(1) and (k)(2) | Elysium argues Commerce did not adequately analyze (k)(1) and failed to address all (k)(2) factors required by regulation and the Court’s remand. | Commerce asserts (k)(1) sources are dispositive and (k)(2) analysis unnecessary. | Commerce must apply the (k)(2) factors on remand, as required by law, given the ambiguity in the scope language and record evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng’g Co. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (scope language is the cornerstone of any scope determination)
- Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (plain meaning of unambiguous scope order language governs scope determinations; scope cannot be expanded beyond its terms)
- OMG, Inc. v. United States, 972 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (if order language is not ambiguous, its plain meaning governs the scope)
- Eckstrom Indus., Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Commerce cannot interpret an order contrary to its terms)
- Ericsson GE Mobile Commc’ns, Inc. v. United States, 60 F.3d 778 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Commerce may clarify, but not expand, the scope of orders)