617 F.Supp.3d 1263
Ct. Int'l Trade2023Background
- Cambria petitioned Commerce (2018) leading to antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain quartz surface products (QSP Orders); Commerce specifically excluded “crushed glass surface products” but defined that exclusion by four cumulative criteria (including visible pieces >1 cm and a ≤3-inch distance requirement).
- SMA Surfaces imported crushed-glass surface slabs and requested a scope ruling that three products (Grey Concrete Leather, Andes, Twilight) met the crushed-glass exclusion.
- Commerce interpreted the term “glass piece” in criterion 4 to incorporate the >1 cm size from criterion 3, examined photographs submitted by SMA, and concluded all three products were within the QSP Orders (i.e., did not qualify for the exclusion).
- SMA challenged the Final Scope Ruling in the Court of International Trade, arguing (1) Commerce misinterpreted “glass piece,” (2) Commerce’s factual finding was unsupported by substantial evidence (photographs), and (3) Commerce improperly considered or failed to address §351.225(k)(1) evidence and prior rulings.
- The court held Commerce’s interpretation of “glass piece” was lawful, found substantial evidence supported inclusion of Grey Concrete Leather and Andes, but concluded the record did not contain substantial evidence to support inclusion of Twilight and remanded as to Twilight only; Commerce’s consideration of §351.225(k)(1) factors was lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of “glass piece” in criterion 4 | "Any single glass piece" can mean any visible piece (including <1 cm); criterion 4 is not limited by criterion 3 | Criterion 3 defines “glass pieces” (>1 cm); criterion 4 refers back to that defined term | Commerce’s interpretation is consistent with plain text and lawful; "glass piece" refers to pieces >1 cm |
| Whether photographic record constitutes substantial evidence that products meet the 3-inch requirement | Photographs show the required >1 cm pieces are within 3 inches for all three products | Photographs support Commerce’s finding that some >1 cm pieces exceed 3 inches for at least some products; any ambiguities favor Commerce | Substantial evidence supports inclusion of Grey Concrete Leather and Andes; photographic evidence for Twilight is adequate to show the opposite, so Commerce’s finding as to Twilight is not supported and is remanded |
| Commerce’s use of §351.225(k)(1) materials and prior rulings (e.g., Panmin) | Commerce ignored key visual evidence and unlawfully relied on a flawed prior scope ruling | Commerce reviewed the petition, investigation record, prior rulings and Panmin; Panmin’s interpretation is consistent and aids analysis | Commerce’s consideration of §351.225(k)(1) sources and citation to Panmin was lawful and not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States, 851 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (articulates the three-step scope inquiry and standard of review)
- MS Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 32 F.4th 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (upholds Commerce’s scope modification to prevent evasion and gives deference to petitioner intent)
- Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (agency may not interpret orders contrary to their terms)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (defines substantial-evidence standard)
- NMB Sing. Ltd. v. United States, 557 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (agency explanation must make its path reasonably discernible)
- Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (U.S. 2019) (deference to agency interpretations applies only when regulation is genuinely ambiguous)