Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co. v. United States
181 F. Supp. 3d 1348
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2016Background
- Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty Orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC, covering aluminum extrusions and "aluminum extrusion components" and excluding "finished goods" and certain "finished goods kits."
- Yuanda (producer/importer), Jangho, and Permasteelisa challenged Commerce’s scope ruling that Yuanda’s unitized curtain wall units (imported in phases under supply contracts) were within the Orders.
- Earlier rulings (CWC Scope Ruling; Yuanda I and Yuanda II) held that single curtain wall units are parts/subassemblies of a curtain wall and thus ordinarily within the scope; those decisions did not address the finished goods kit exclusion or Commerce’s subassemblies test for exclusion.
- The Petition for the original investigation listed "unassembled unitized curtain walls" as an example of excluded finished goods kits, prompting remand for Commerce to consider (k)(1) materials (petition and investigatory record) in interpreting the Orders.
- On first remand Commerce read the Petition to mean only single-entry, unitized curtain walls could be excluded; the court remanded again, finding that reading unreasonable because parties conceded no such single-entry product exists.
- On the second remand Commerce, under protest, excluded Yuanda’s unitized curtain wall units from the Orders; the Curtain Wall Coalition (CWC) challenged that result and the court remanded again for further consideration of (k)(1) materials and proper application of the subassemblies test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior appellate and CIT rulings (Yuanda I/II) preclude Commerce from excluding Yuanda's units (stare decisis/res judicata) | Yuanda: Court precedent already found curtain wall units are within scope; Commerce cannot now exclude them | CWC/Commerce: Prior rulings did not decide the finished goods kit exclusion or the subassemblies test for Yuanda’s specific imports | Court: No preclusion — prior decisions did not address the finished goods kit or (k)(1) petition issue, so Commerce may reconsider exclusion claims |
| Whether Commerce reasonably interpreted the Orders using (k)(1) materials (petition, investigation) | Yuanda/Jangho/Permasteelisa: Petition listed "unassembled unitized curtain walls" as excluded; Commerce must read the Petition and record realistically and explain its interpretation | Commerce: Petition language supported a narrow rule (single-entry unitized curtain wall exclusion) and absence of industry practice on multi-entry kits undermines exclusion | Court: Commerce’s first remand reading was unsupported and counterfactual; second remand still failed to meaningfully and reasonably assess the (k)(1) materials and thus requires further consideration |
| Proper application of Commerce's subassemblies test to curtain wall units | Plaintiffs: Curtain wall units may be finished subassemblies if they meet the subassemblies test (require no further finishing, contain necessary hardware, ready for installation) | Commerce/CWC: Curtain wall units are parts of a larger system (curtain wall) and therefore cannot meet the finished-goods/subassembly exclusion; Yuanda II is binding precedent | Court: Commerce misapplied the subassemblies test by reverting to a "part-of-a-larger-system" analysis instead of (1) determining if units are subassemblies and then (2) assessing whether they require no further finishing and are ready for installation; remand required |
| Whether Commerce’s reasoning on remand complied with administrative-review standards (substantial evidence, reasoned explanation) | Plaintiffs: Commerce must consider the whole record and explain departure from prior treatments when changing position | Commerce: Asserted its interpretation and reliance on precedent and record facts | Court: Commerce failed to provide a reasoned, record-based explanation consistent with (k)(1) obligations and prior applications of the subassemblies test; remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimble v. Marvel Entm't, 135 S. Ct. 2401 (U.S. 2015) (stare decisis principle on courts following prior decisions)
- United States v. Tohono O'Odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307 (U.S. 2011) (res judicata/claim preclusion rule)
- Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (interpretation of antidumping orders starts with the order language)
- Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (if order requires interpretation, agency uses (k)(1) materials)
- Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 725 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (describing (k)(1) materials and their role)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (substantial evidence standard requires accounting for record detracting evidence)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (agency must consider important aspects of the problem and explain decisions)
- Chenery Corp. v. SEC, 332 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1947) (court reviews agency action only on the grounds the agency invoked)
- Yuanda II, Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (curtain wall unit held a part/subassembly of curtain wall)
- King Supply Co., LLC v. United States, 674 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (review standard for (k)(1) materials and substantial evidence)