Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co. v. United States
961 F. Supp. 2d 1291
Ct. Intl. Trade2014Background
- Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty Orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC in May 2011 after investigations by Commerce and the ITC.
- Defendant-intervenors (Curtain Wall Coalition, CWC) requested a scope ruling asking Commerce to confirm that curtain wall units and other curtain wall parts are within the Orders’ scope.
- Commerce concluded from the Orders’ language and the petition that curtain wall units are "parts for" curtain walls and thus within the Orders; it declined to apply the five Diversified Products (k)(2) secondary factors.
- Plaintiffs (manufacturers/importers of curtain wall units) argued their units were finished merchandise (in-filled with glass and ready for installation) and therefore excluded, and that Commerce should have considered the "finished goods kit" exception; they also challenged CWC standing and Commerce’s liquidation instructions to Customs.
- The Court reviewed the scope language, prior petition/initiation materials, and Commerce’s prior preliminary finding, and sustained Commerce’s Final Scope Ruling that curtain wall units fall within the Orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether curtain wall units are within the Orders’ scope | Curtain wall units in-filled with glass are finished goods (like finished windows) and excluded | Orders expressly include "parts for" curtain walls; curtain wall units are subassemblies/parts | Court: Included — curtain wall units are "parts for" curtain walls and fall within the Orders |
| Whether Commerce should have applied the "finished goods kit" exception | Plaintiffs: their entries qualify for the finished goods kit exclusion and Commerce erred by not addressing it | Commerce: CWC requested only a ruling that curtain wall parts are within the scope; not an entry-by-entry kit inquiry | Court: Commerce properly limited its ruling to the CWC request; plaintiffs may seek separate scope rulings for kit treatment |
| Standing of CWC to submit scope request | Plaintiffs: CWC lacks standing because their products are not subject merchandise | CWC: They manufacture domestic like products (aluminum extrusions for curtain wall parts) and thus are interested parties | Court: CWC has standing because its products fall within the Orders and meet the Tariff Act’s "interested party" definition |
| Validity/retroactivity of Commerce’s instructions to Customs (suspension of liquidation) | Plaintiffs: Instructions inconsistent with Ruling and unlawfully retroactive | Commerce: Instructions merely confirm existing scope; suspension began with preliminary determinations | Court: Instructions consistent with ruling; suspension was proper because curtain wall parts were subject since preliminary determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Walgreen Co. v. United States, 620 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (scope language of order is the cornerstone of a scope determination)
- Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (scope must be interpreted from order language and may be reasonably read to include disputed merchandise)
- Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Commerce need not open a formal scope inquiry when the order’s meaning is clear)
- Diversified Prods. Corp. v. United States, 6 C.I.T. 155 (CIT 1983) (origin of the five-factor Diversified Products criteria used when scope is ambiguous)