Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 946 F.3d 1300

Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty Orders in 2012 covering "crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells, whether or not assembled into modules," and excluding certain thin-film products.
Sunpreme imports bifacial modules made with amorphous silicon thin films deposited on crystalline silicon wafers; it entered those products as duty-exempt (type 01) until Customs questioned them in 2015.
On April 20, 2015 Customs determined Sunpreme’s entries were covered and suspended liquidation (requiring cash deposits); Sunpreme requested a Commerce scope ruling on Nov. 16, 2015 and Commerce initiated a scope inquiry on Dec. 30, 2015.
Commerce issued a final scope ruling (July 2016) finding Sunpreme’s modules within the Orders (CSPV cells, ≥20 µm, p/n junction including p/i/n, not a thin‑film exclusion) and instructed Customs to continue suspension back to Customs’ April 2015 action.
The Court of International Trade upheld Commerce’s scope ruling but held Commerce’s instruction to continue suspending liquidation for entries before the Dec. 30, 2015 scope‑inquiry initiation was unlawful; the en banc Federal Circuit affirmed the scope ruling and reversed the CIT on the continued‑suspension issue, reinstating Commerce’s instructions in full.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce’s scope ruling that Sunpreme’s modules are covered by the Orders is supported by substantial evidence	Sunpreme: modules are not CSPV cells, are <20 µm, lack a p/n junction, and qualify for the thin‑film exclusion	U.S./SolarWorld: record evidence supports that crystalline wafer is active, cells meet thickness, p/i/n is a p/n, and thin‑film exclusion excludes products that use crystalline silicon in photovoltaic function	Held: Affirmed — substantial evidence supports Commerce on all four points (modules are CSPV, ≥20 µm, p/n includes p/i/n, not thin‑film excluded)
Whether Customs may suspend liquidation based on its interpretation of an ambiguous order and Commerce may order continuation of such suspensions for entries predating the scope inquiry	Sunpreme/CIT: Customs lacks authority to interpret ambiguous scope language; suspensions before Commerce’s scope inquiry initiation are ultra vires and cannot be "continued"	U.S./SolarWorld: Customs has statutory duty to fix duties and may determine applicability even if the order is ambiguous; Commerce may direct continuation of an existing suspension	Held: Reversed CIT — Customs may suspend liquidation when it determines an ambiguous order applies; Commerce lawfully instructed continuation of suspensions for entries dating from Customs’ initial April 20, 2015 determination (overruling contrary readings of prior cases)

AMS Associates, Inc. v. United States, 737 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (addressed retroactive suspensions where Customs initially found goods not subject to order; court distinguishes facts and limits AMS’s reach)
Xerox Corp. v. United States, 289 F.3d 792 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (discussed Customs’ role in applying orders and jurisdictional options; court explains Xerox did not bar Customs from making product‑by‑product determinations)
Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 725 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (describes Commerce’s (k)(1)/(k)(2) scope‑inquiry framework and limits on changing order language)
Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (held Commerce cannot adopt an interpretation untethered to order language; contrasted with this case)
Mukand Int’l, Ltd. v. United States, 502 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (recognizes Customs’ responsibility to apply and enforce antidumping orders)
Sandvik Steel Co. v. United States, 164 F.3d 596 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (explains Commerce should decide scope in the first instance; does not forbid Customs suspensions under ambiguous orders)