Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co. v. United States
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 854
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- Yuanda appeals a CIT judgment affirming Commerce's scope ruling that curtain wall units fall within the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China.
- ITC investigated aluminum extrusions from China for injury to domestic industry; Commerce issued orders on May 26, 2011.
- CWC companies (Walters & Wolf, Bagatelos, Architectural Glass & Aluminum) sought a scope ruling to include curtain wall units under the Orders; Commerce found standing under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9)(C).
- Commerce treated curtain wall units as within the scope language based on the order’s broad description of subject extrusions and the “parts for curtain walls” language.
- Yuanda challenged standing, scope language, and the supposed finished-merchandise exclusion; the CIT affirmed Commerce, and Yuanda appeals to the Federal Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CWC had standing to request scope ruling | Yuanda: CWC members do not produce extrusions; lack standing | Commerce: CWC certified as manufacturers/wholesalers of a domestic like product | Yes, CWC had standing |
| Whether curtain wall units fall within the scope language | Yuanda: curtain wall units are not aluminum extrusions; not within scope | Commerce: scope language includes parts for curtain walls and curtain wall units; broad. | Yes, curtain wall units fall within scope language |
| Whether finished-merchandise exclusion excludes curtain wall units | Yuanda: finished-merchandise exclusion applies; units are finished products | Commerce: exclusion does not apply to curtain wall units; they are parts/subassemblies | No, finished-merchandise exclusion does not exclude curtain wall units |
| Whether 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2) factors were warranted given dispositive scope language | Yuanda: should evaluate k(2) factors | If dispositive, k(2) not considered | Declined to consider k(2) factors; scope language dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (deference to Commerce in scope rulings; interpretive expertise)
- King Supply Co. v. United States, 674 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (framework for scope rulings and reliance on petition/ITC investigations)
- Walgreen Co. of Deerfield, IL v. United States, 620 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (scope language as cornerstone of interpretation)
- Eckstrom Indus., Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (k(2) factors only when (k)(1) dispositive)
- Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (injury determinations limit scope expansion)
- Torrington Co. v. United States, 745 F. Supp. 718 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1990) (tariff classifications not dispositive for scope)
- Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303 (Supreme Ct. 1961) (statutory interpretation principles cited)
- Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149 (U.S. 2003) (construction canons referenced)