Whirlpool Corp. v. United States
144 F. Supp. 3d 1296
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2016Background
- Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty Orders in May 2011 covering "aluminum extrusions" from China and listing covered post‑extrusion processes and specific exclusions for (1) "finished merchandise" that is fully and permanently assembled at entry and (2) "finished goods kits" (with an explicit exception that including fasteners in a kit does not render it excluded).
- Whirlpool requested two scope rulings in late 2013/early 2014 for: (a) 38 assembled kitchen appliance door handles (aluminum extrusion component + plastic end caps + screws; imported fully assembled), and (b) 78 one‑piece handles (single extruded aluminum part, machined/treated, imported ready for attachment).
- Commerce issued a Final Scope Ruling (Aug. 4, 2014) finding both assembled and one‑piece handles within the Orders. Whirlpool challenged that ruling in the Court of International Trade.
- The central legal questions were (1) whether the general scope language reasonably covers assembled goods that merely contain an extruded aluminum component and (2) whether either exclusion (finished merchandise or finished goods kit) applies.
- The court reviewed Commerce’s interpretation under the substantial evidence/administrative‑law standard and found Commerce’s reasoning regarding the assembled handles legally deficient, while upholding the one‑piece handle determination.
Issues
| Issue | Whirlpool's Argument | United States/AEFTC's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assembled appliance handles (aluminum extrusion + plastic end caps + screws; imported fully assembled) fall within the Orders' general scope | Assembled handles are not themselves "extrusions" or "produced by an extrusion process" and so fall outside the Orders | Commerce: the extrusion component and post‑extrusion processing bring the assembly within scope; precedent and prior rulings support inclusion | Court: Commerce unreasonably interpreted the general scope language; assembly is not covered merely because it contains an extruded part — remand required |
| Whether the assembled handles qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion (fully and permanently assembled at entry) | Assembled handles fit the plain exclusion language and should be excluded | Commerce/AEFTC: variously argued inclusion or relied on Commerce precedent (e.g., Geodesic Domes) to treat end caps/fasteners as within scope | Court: Commerce misapplied scope language and relied on inapposite rulings; end caps are not shown to be "fasteners" in the exclusion’s sense; exclusion likely applies — Commerce must reconsider on remand |
| Whether one‑piece extruded handles (single extruded, machined/finished part) fall within the Orders | Whirlpool argued common‑meaning "finished merchandise" could exclude them, citing dictionaries and other authorities | Commerce/AEFTC: one‑piece handles are plainly extrusions subjected to allowed post‑extrusion processes and thus covered; exclusions inapplicable because these are not assemblies or kits | Court: Affirmed Commerce — one‑piece handles are within the Orders; exclusions do not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Duferco Steel, 296 F.3d 1087 (2002) (scope orders only include merchandise that the order language specifically or reasonably includes)
- Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 725 F.3d 1295 (2013) (merchandise facially covered may not be excluded unless the order can reasonably be interpreted to exclude it)
- Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1351 (2015) (scope analysis of extruded aluminum curtain wall units; distinguished by the court)
- Plasticoid Mfg. Inc. v. United States, 28 F. Supp. 3d 1352 (2014) (scope remand regarding certain aluminum extrusion straight edges)