IKEA Supply AG v. United States
2017 CIT 8
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- IKEA Supply AG sought a Commerce scope ruling (Jan 2014) that two imported towel racks were outside antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China.
- Commerce’s Final Scope Ruling described each towel rack as consisting of a single piece of extruded aluminum plus fasteners (either a plastic gasket or steel brackets) and concluded the racks fell within the Orders.
- At the administrative level IKEA did not dispute Commerce’s parts description; in its court briefing IKEA characterized the racks as a finished product packaged with necessary installation parts (gasket or brackets).
- The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s scope ruling in IKEA Supply AG v. United States (July 5, 2016).
- After that decision, IKEA moved for reconsideration under USCIT Rule 59, asserting the court’s opinion used an inaccurate description of the products (omitting end caps, disks, and permanently attached hooks) and claiming a post-decision district opinion (Meridian) constituted intervening controlling law.
- The court denied reconsideration, holding (1) IKEA failed to exhaust administrative remedies and waived these newly asserted product-description facts, and (2) a non‑binding CIT opinion is not an intervening change in controlling law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by relying on an incorrect description of IKEA’s towel racks | IKEA: Court omitted parts (end caps, steel disks, hooks) that are part of the product and would affect scope analysis | Gov’t: Commerce and parties consistently described racks as single aluminum extrusion plus gasket/brackets; IKEA never disputed that description earlier | DENIED — court found IKEA never raised those parts administratively or earlier in litigation, so omission was not error; exhaustion/waiver bars reconsideration |
| Whether a later CIT opinion (Meridian) is an intervening change in controlling law warranting reconsideration | IKEA: Meridian conflicts with IKEA Supply and thus is intervening controlling law | Gov’t: A single CIT decision does not bind other CIT judges and is not controlling law that mandates rehearing | DENIED — Meridian is not an intervening change in controlling law |
| Whether reconsideration is appropriate under Rule 59 grounds (clear error, new evidence, intervening law, manifest injustice) | IKEA: Reconsideration needed to correct factual/legal error and prevent injustice based on omitted parts and Meridian | Gov’t: No new evidence or controlling legal change; IKEA’s new factual claims were unexhausted and waived | DENIED — none of the Rule 59 grounds satisfied; exhaustion and waiver preclude relief |
| Whether exhaustion doctrine permits belated factual challenges to Commerce’s product description | IKEA: (implied) may now present fuller product description to court | Gov’t: Exhaustion requires presenting claims to agency first; IKEA failed to do so | HELD — exhaustion doctrine applies; IKEA’s new product-description claims are unexhausted and not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 30 C.I.T. 1587 (2006) (grounds for reconsideration under court rules)
- Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 22 C.I.T. 724 (1998) (rehearing is not for relitigation; directs attention to overlooked material matters)
- United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33 (1952) (administrative objections must be raised at the appropriate time; supports exhaustion)
- Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (one CIT judge’s opinion is not binding precedent on other CIT judges)
- Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Ltd. v. United States, 28 C.I.T. 627 (2004) (exhaustion doctrine promotes agency expertise and judicial efficiency)