Global Commodity Group LLC v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4682
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- GCG appeals the Court of International Trade's judgment sustaining Commerce's Final Scope Determination on Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the PRC and other countries.
- The scope orders cover all grades and blends of citric products, with a 40% threshold for blends with other ingredients.
- GCG's merchandise consists of 35% citric acid from the PRC and 65% citric acid from other countries.
- GCG sought a scope ruling in Nov. 2010; Commerce issued a Preliminary Determination in March 2011 and a Final Scope Determination on May 2, 2011.
- Commerce concluded GCG's product is commingled citric acid, not a traditional blend, so the first-sentence scope governs and duties apply proportionally to PRC content.
- The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce's interpretation and GCG timely appealed, challenging both the interpretation and its impact on scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GCG's product is a 'blend' under the scope order. | GCG contends it is a blend with other ingredients, including non-subject citric acid. | Commerce held it is a commingled citric acid, not a blend with other ingredients. | Commerce's blend interpretation reasonable; not a clear error. |
| Whether Commerce impermissibly expands the scope by omitting country-of-origin references. | GCG argues the omission could cover non-subject materials from other countries. | Commerce accounts for country of origin while applying duties; interpretation within terms of order. | Commerce's interpretation not expansion; reasonable within the scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- King Supply Co. v. United States, 674 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (scope rulings and substantial-deference review framework)
- Walgreen Co. v. United States, 620 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (scope interpretation and deference principles)
- Sango Int'l L.P. v. United States, 484 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (substantial-evidence review of Commerce scope determinations)
- Dupont Teijin Films USA, LP v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (highly deferential review of Commerce interpretations of scope orders)
- Ugine & ALZ Belg., N.V. v. United States, 517 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007) (criteria for merchandise to be subject to an order (product type and origin))
- Eckstrom Indus., Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (cannot interpret an order to change its terms)