Shenyang Yuanda Alum. Indus. Eng'g Co. v. United States
2017 CIT 163
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty Orders on aluminum extrusions from China, which include “parts” for curtain walls to be assembled after importation.
- Plaintiffs (Yuanda, Permasteelisa, Jangho) imported unitized curtain wall "units" under long-term supply contracts in phases and sought a scope exclusion as "finished goods kits" or "subassemblies."
- Petition Exhibit I-5 listed examples of non-subject "finished goods kits," including an entry for "unassembled unitized curtain walls," a point contested by the parties.
- Commerce concluded in a scope ruling that Yuanda’s unitized curtain wall entries are within the Orders because, although subassemblies, they do not contain all parts or require no further finishing or fabrication to be installed "as is."
- On remand, Commerce reiterated that Yuanda’s documents and drawings showed missing components (hangers, shims, gaskets, dynamic silicone, trimmed/punched aluminum, etc.) and additional finishing steps were necessary, so the merchandise failed the subassemblies/finished goods kit exclusion.
- The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s Third Remand Results, finding Commerce’s determination supported by substantial evidence and reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yuanda’s imported curtain wall units qualify as excluded "finished goods kits"/subassemblies | Units are subassemblies/finished goods kits under Petition example and are "self-sealing" and ready to install; Exhibit I-5 supports exclusion | Units are sold as parts of a complete curtain wall under a supply contract but lack all necessary parts and require finishing, so they fall within the Orders | Held: Units are subassemblies that do not meet the finished goods kit exclusion because they are not ready to be installed "as is"; inclusion in Orders sustained |
| Proper interpretation of Exhibit I-5 example "unassembled unitized curtain walls" | Exhibit I-5 covers unitized curtain walls imported in phases under supply contracts like Yuanda’s | Exhibit I-5 does not control here; regardless, Yuanda’s units must pass the subassembly "as is" test to be excluded | Held: Court did not definitively resolve Exhibit I-5 ambiguity; concluded Yuanda’s entries fail the subassembly test regardless |
| Whether Commerce relied on substantial evidence showing missing components/finishing | Plaintiffs contend Commerce ignored record or improperly focused on installation procedures | Commerce cited contracts, invoices, technical drawings, and other record items showing missing hardware and required finishing | Held: Commerce pointed to record evidence; court finds determination supported by substantial evidence |
| Preclusive effect of prior Federal Circuit decision (Yuanda) | Plaintiffs/Intervenors suggested prior decision controls here | Government/Intervenors argued prior decision did not address finished goods kit exclusion | Held: Prior Federal Circuit decision does not control under stare decisis or res judicata because it did not address the finished goods kit issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (order language is the cornerstone for scope analyses)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (describing substantial-evidence review of agency findings)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (substantiality of evidence must account for record evidence that detracts from weight)
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1966) (possibility of drawing inconsistent conclusions does not preclude substantial evidence)
- DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (definition and discussion of substantial evidence)
- Eckstrom Indus., Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (if (k)(1) factors are dispositive Commerce issues a final scope ruling)
- Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (prior scope litigation affirming that curtain wall units can be "parts" within the Orders, but did not address finished goods kit exclusion)