Whirlpool Corp. v. United States
182 F. Supp. 3d 1307
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2016Background
- Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty Orders on Chinese aluminum extrusions in 2011 covering “shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process,” and excluding certain finished merchandise assembled at importation.
- Whirlpool imported two types of appliance door handles: (1) one-piece handles fabricated from an aluminum extrusion; and (2) assembled handles consisting of an extruded aluminum component plus plastic end caps attached by screws.
- Commerce’s 2014 Final Scope Ruling treated both types as within the Orders; Whirlpool challenged that ruling for the assembled handles.
- The Court in Whirlpool I affirmed inclusion of the one-piece handles but remanded the assembled-handle determination, finding Commerce’s analysis flawed and that the general scope language does not clearly encompass assembled goods.
- On remand Commerce (under protest) concluded the assembled handles are outside the Orders’ general scope; AEFTC (domestic producers) objected and the Court reviewed Commerce’s Remand Redetermination.
Issues
| Issue | Whirlpool's Argument | United States / Commerce's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assembled handles fall within the Orders’ general scope language (i.e., are they “aluminum extrusions”?) | Assembled handles are subject merchandise because their principal component is an extruded aluminum piece and end caps are mere fasteners. | The general scope describes "shapes and forms produced by an extrusion process" and does not reasonably include fully assembled goods. | Held: Assembled handles are not within the general scope; an assembly containing an extrusion is not itself an "extrusion." |
| Whether plastic end caps qualify as “fasteners” such that the assembled handle would still be an extrusion plus fasteners | End caps functionally attach the handle and thus should be treated as fasteners, leaving the product as extrusion + fasteners. | Even if called fasteners, treating end caps that way would not cure the fundamental mismatch between assembled goods and the scope language. | Held: Court rejects reliance on treating end caps as fasteners to include assembled handles in scope; record does not support Commerce’s earlier finding. |
| Whether Commerce should have applied scope exclusions (finished merchandise / finished goods kit) on remand | Whirlpool: exclusions apply, and Commerce should find assembled handles excluded if within general scope. | Commerce contended remand focus was whether general scope applied; having concluded it did not, exclusions need not be addressed. | Held: Court affirms Commerce’s decision not to reach exclusions because assembled handles are outside the general scope. |
| Whether the subassemblies provision could bring assembled handles into scope | Whirlpool: N/A (argued assembled handles are not extrusions). | AEFTC: subassemblies/parts provisions could cover assemblies that include extruded components. | Held: Court treats discussion of subassemblies as dicta; the Remand Redetermination reasonably rests on the same reasoning as Whirlpool I that the general scope does not cover the assembled handles. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whirlpool Corp. v. United States, 144 F. Supp. 3d 1296 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2016) (court opinion remanding Commerce’s scope ruling as to assembled handles)
- Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (scope language must be reasonably interpreted according to the order issued)