Meridian Products, LLC v. United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5359
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Meridian Products imported aluminum trim kits and requested a Commerce scope ruling that the kits are excluded from antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC as "finished goods kits."
- Commerce's initial scope ruling found the trim kits within the Orders, rejecting Meridian's claim that the kits met the finished goods kit exclusion.
- The Court of International Trade remanded multiple times; after three remands Commerce (under protest) concluded the kits are excluded and the CIT sustained that third remand in Meridian V.
- The Government appealed to the Federal Circuit, which reviewed whether the Orders' scope language unambiguously includes Meridian's trim kits and whether Commerce's initial ruling was supported by substantial evidence.
- The Federal Circuit reversed the CIT, holding the Orders' scope is unambiguous that kits composed solely of aluminum extrusions (with only fasteners/extraneous packaging materials) do not qualify for the finished goods kit exclusion, and reinstated Commerce's initial scope ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Meridian) | Defendant's Argument (United States/Commerce) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Orders' scope language is unambiguous | The finished goods kit exclusion applies if a product meets the definition of a kit; inclusion of fasteners or extraneous materials is not dispositive | The exclusion contains qualifying language: a kit that merely includes fasteners with aluminum extrusions is not excluded | The scope is unambiguous; the exclusion does not cover kits composed only of aluminum extrusions plus fasteners |
| Whether Commerce must defer to CIT’s interpretation | CIT's reading (excluding kits that otherwise meet the definition) should control | Commerce’s interpretation of its own orders is entitled to deference when consistent with the order text and prior rulings | Court rejected the CIT’s interpretation and upheld Commerce’s reading of the scope text and prior rulings |
| Whether Commerce’s initial scope ruling was supported by substantial evidence about kit contents | Meridian: kits include non-extrusion items and meet exclusion | Commerce: record shows trim, grilles, strips are extrusions; brackets/screws are fasteners (exception applies); instructions/wrenches/hinge covers not part of assembled product | Substantial evidence supports Commerce’s finding that the kits are essentially aluminum extrusions with fasteners and thus fall within the Orders |
| Whether prior scope rulings and the Orders' other language support Commerce’s reading | Exclusion should be read contextually to avoid sweeping coverage of extrusion-only kits | Prior Commerce rulings and the Orders’ distinctions between products "containing" extrusions vs. products consisting only of extrusions support Commerce’s interpretation | Prior rulings and the Orders confirm Commerce’s interpretation; CIT’s reading would create internal inconsistency |
Key Cases Cited
- Housewares & Hardware Co. v. United States, 745 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir.) (remedial nature of trade remedy laws)
- Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng’g Co. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for scope rulings)
- Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir.) (scope language is the cornerstone; descriptions cannot substitute for order text)
- Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 725 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir.) (use of prior scope rulings under §351.225(k)(1))
- ArcelorMittal Stainless Belg. N.V. v. United States, 694 F.3d 82 (Fed. Cir.) (unambiguous scope language controls)
- King Supply Co. v. United States, 674 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (deference to Commerce on interpretation of its own orders)