890 F.3d 1302
Fed. Cir.2018Background
- Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty Orders in 2011 covering "aluminum extrusions," including extrusions described as parts for finished products and extrusion components attached to form subassemblies; the Orders also contain exclusions for "finished merchandise" and "finished goods kits."
- Whirlpool requested a scope ruling (Dec. 2013) that its kitchen appliance door handles with plastic end caps (assembled handles) were excluded as finished merchandise.
- Commerce’s Aug. 2014 Scope Ruling held the assembled handles were within the Orders’ general scope and rejected Whirlpool’s claim that the fasteners exception (to the finished goods kit exclusion) applied to the finished merchandise exclusion; Commerce treated the plastic end caps as "fasteners."
- The Court of International Trade (CIT) in Whirlpool I remanded, holding the general scope language did not reasonably include assembled handles and that Commerce erred by applying the fasteners exception to the finished merchandise exclusion.
- On remand Commerce (under protest) determined the handles were outside the scope based on the CIT’s interpretation; the CIT in Whirlpool II affirmed that redetermination and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Whirlpool) | Defendant-Appellant's Argument (AEFTC / Commerce) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Orders’ general scope language covers assembled handles containing extrusions | Handles are finished assemblies, not "extrusions," so not covered by general scope | General scope unambiguously includes extrusions whether or not assembled; includes extrusions as parts and subassemblies | Reversed CIT: general scope language covers Whirlpool’s assembled handles |
| Whether the finished goods kit exclusion applies to assembled handles imported assembled | Handles are not entered as kits; they are assembled at importation | Same: kits exclusion inapplicable because handles are imported assembled | Affirmed: finished goods kit exclusion inapplicable |
| Whether the fasteners exception (referring to screws, bolts in packaging) applies to the finished merchandise exclusion | Exception limited to finished goods kits and packaging; does not apply to finished merchandise | Commerce originally applied exception to finished merchandise, treating end caps as fasteners | Reversed Commerce on this point: fasteners exception unambiguously applies only to finished goods kits, not finished merchandise |
| Whether Commerce’s finding that end caps are "fasteners" is dispositive to exclusion analysis | Whirlpool argued end caps function as fasteners/washer-like; Commerce found them fasteners | AEFTC disputed Commerce’s characterization; but outcome depends on legal scope interpretation | Court held characterization of end caps as fasteners is irrelevant to finished merchandise exclusion because fasteners exception does not apply there; remanded for Commerce to determine if handles meet finished merchandise exclusion criteria |
Key Cases Cited
- Meridian Prod., LLC v. United States, 851 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.) (scope analysis framework and deference to Commerce on order interpretation)
- Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng’g Co. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir.) (Commerce’s two-step scope regulation under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225 explained)
- Ericsson GE Mobile Commc’ns, Inc. v. United States, 60 F.3d 778 (Fed. Cir.) (Commerce may clarify but not change duty orders)
- Smith Corona Corp. v. United States, 915 F.2d 683 (Fed. Cir.) (orders must be interpreted according to their terms)
- Eckstrom Indus., Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir.) (substantial evidence review of Commerce findings)
- King Supply Co., LLC v. United States, 674 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (deference to Commerce’s interpretation of its antidumping orders)
- Walgreen Co. v. United States, 620 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for CIT’s review of Commerce scope rulings)