Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co. v. United States, 983 F.3d 487

Commerce issued AD/CVD Orders on Chinese aluminum extrusions in 2011; the Orders excluded certain 5xxx (5050) alloys by specification.
On March 21, 2016 Commerce initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry naming Zhongwang and published an Initiation Notice; the notice said Commerce "intend[ed] to consider" applying the inquiry to all 5050 heat‑treated imports but explicitly identified Zhongwang.
Commerce sent questionnaires only to Zhongwang; subsequent submissions from AEFTC and Endura led Commerce to expand the inquiry to all PRC 5050 heat‑treated imports.
On November 14, 2016 Commerce issued a Preliminary Determination applying the inquiry country‑wide and instructed Customs to suspend liquidation of affected entries effective March 21, 2016.
The Trade Court held the March 21 Initiation Notice did not give adequate notice to Tai‑Ao and Regal that their products were covered and remanded; Commerce reformulated its liquidation instructions to exclude Tai‑Ao entries between 03/21/2016 and 11/13/2016; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce's March 21, 2016 Initiation Notice gave adequate notice that Tai‑Ao and Regal's 5050 heat‑treated imports were subject to the anti‑circumvention inquiry (so liquidation could be suspended from that initiation date).	Initiation named only Zhongwang and earlier scope rulings and Commerce conduct (questionnaire to Zhongwang) created reliance that Tai‑Ao/Regal were outside the inquiry.	The Initiation Notice's language that Commerce would "consider" applying the inquiry broadly and regulatory reference to suspension sufficed to notify parties of consequences.	The Initiation Notice did not provide adequate notice to Tai‑Ao and Regal; adequate notice occurred with the Nov. 14, 2016 Preliminary Determination, so suspension of liquidation for those respondents could not lawfully be applied retroactively to Mar. 21, 2016.

Tai‑Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co. v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 3d 1301 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2019) (trial court holding initiation notice insufficient; remand)
Tai‑Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co. v. United States, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1391 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2019) (trial court sustaining Commerce's reformulated liquidation instructions on remand)
Deacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 817 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (anti‑circumvention inquiries can bring merchandise within an order beyond the order’s literal scope)
Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 946 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (suspension when no prior suspension must begin on initiation date of scope inquiry)
Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 725 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (agency enforcement requires fair warning; due‑process notice principle)
Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) (discussing fair‑warning principle in administrative enforcement)
Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 811 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Customs generally has one year to liquidate an entry)