MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
Court No. 13-00018
United States Court of International Trade
June 23, 2015
Slip Op. 15-67
Tara K. Hogan, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for the defendant. With her on the brief were Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Jessica M. Link, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.
MUSGRAVE, Senior Judge:
Pursuant to USCIT Rules 46 and 59(b), the plaintiff Meridian Products LLC (Meridian), a U.S. importer, moves for reconsideration of the court‘s decision in Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, 38 CIT —, 37 F.Supp.3d 1342 (2014) (Meridian III). See Pl‘s Mot. for Reconsideration of the Court‘s Order in Slip Opinion 14-158, PDoc 50 (Jan. 28, 2015) (Pl‘s Mot.). Familiarity with prior proceedings and Meridian III, which sustained the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-0018, PDoc 29 (June 17, 2014) (Second Remand), is presumed. See Meridian III; see also Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, 38 CIT —, 971 F.Supp.2d 1259 (2014) (Meridian II); Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, 37 CIT —, Slip Op. 13-75, 2013 WL 2996233 (June 17, 2013) (Meridian I).
Conducted by the International Trade Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce), the matter concerns a scope ruling under the antidumping and countervailing duty orders (Orders) on aluminum extrusions from the People‘s Republic of China (PRC),1 on the plaintiff‘s imported refrigerator/freezer trim kits (Trim Kits) from the PRC. The plaintiff‘s precise motion asks for reconsideration of the exhaustion question that decided Meridian III, arguing that it had no opportunity to raise before the agency the issue here, that exhaustion of administrative remedies was a useless formality, and that the issue is a pure question of law not requiring further factual development. Pl‘s Mot. at 6-11. The defendant United States asks the court to uphold Meridian III, countering that the plaintiff fails to identify any factual or legal error in the prior decision on the exhaustion question. See Def‘s Resp. to Pl‘s Mot. for Reconsideration, PDoc 51 (Mar. 4, 2015) (Def‘s Resp.).
After considering the plaintiff‘s motion, the court reconsiders its prior decision, vacates judgment, and remands the case back to Commerce again for application of the proper definition of the finished goods kit exclusion, in compliance with the language of those Orders, and for redetermination of whether the Trim Kits fall within the scope of those Orders.
I. Background
Brief background is here outlined for ease of understanding. After reviewing the findings of Commerce‘s First Remand,2 the court remanded to Commerce a second time, directing it to proceed from a clean slate on the question of whether the Trim Kits fall within the scope of the Orders, fully taking into account the prior relevant scope rulings. See Meridian II, supra, 971 F.Supp.2d at 1271.
Commerce‘s draft remand, issued Wednesday May 14, 2014, found that an exception to the finished goods kit exclusion exists, to wit that an imported product will not be considered a finished
Meridian‘s comments on the Draft Remand addressed Commerce‘s analysis of the applicability of the Drapery Rail Kits Remand and Solar Panel Mounting Systems Ruling to the Trim Kits, and noted that its comments were abbreviated in light of the limited time Commerce provided. Meridian did not, however, comment on the portion of Commerce‘s analysis in which Commerce determined that the finished goods kit exclusion language, see infra, meant that Meridian‘s Trim Kits, which Commerce found consisted entirely of aluminum extrusions, fasteners and extraneous materials, did not qualify for the exclusion. See generally Meridian‘s Cmts. on the Draft Remand, PDoc 40-2 (May 19, 2014). In the Second Remand, Commerce continued to find that kits [that] consist only of aluminum extrusions, fasteners, and extraneous materials do not meet the exclusion criteria for finished goods kits and that Meridian‘s Trim Kits do not qualify as finished goods kits, because they consist entirely of aluminum extrusions, fasteners and extraneous materials, further that in its comments on remand Meridian did not challenge or dispute this finding. Second Remand at 12-14 and 23-25. Meridian previously sought to challenge this part of Commerce‘s analysis before the court. Meridian‘s Motion for Remand, PDoc 35 (July 15, 2014), ECF No. 35. However, the court sustained the Second Remand results, finding that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by not raising or incorporating by reference those arguments before Commerce. See Meridian III, supra, 37 F.Supp.3d at 1342-54.
II. Discussion
A. Request for Reconsideration: Pure Issue of Law Exception to Exhaustion
The major grounds justifying a grant of a motion to reconsider a judgment are an intervening change in the control-
While [t]he exhaustion doctrine requires a party to present its claims to the relevant administrative agency for the agency‘s consideration before raising these claims to the Court, Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. v. United States, 30 CIT 1269, 1305, 435 F.Supp.2d 1261, 1292 (2006) (internal citations omitted), and the court tends to take a strict stance on exhaustion, the requirement that a party exhaust its administrative remedies has been excused in trade cases where exhaustion would be a useless formality, intervening legal authority might have materially affected the agency‘s actions, the issue involves a pure question of law not requiring further factual development, where clearly applicable precedent should have bound the agency, or where the party had no opportunity to raise the issue before the agency. See SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, 35 CIT —, —, 764 F.Supp.2d 1322, 1325-26 (2011), referencing Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co., Ltd. v. United States, 34 CIT 1455, 1466, 751 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1355-56 (2010) (internal citations omitted).
Meridian claims, fundamentally, that it should be excused from exhausting its administrative remedies because (1) it had no opportunity to raise the issue before the agency, (2) re-iterating points it had already made to Commerce would have been a useless formality in Commerce‘s informal redetermination procedures, and (3) the issue was a pure question of law. See Pl‘s Mot. at 2-11. In its response, the defendant maintains that Meridian not only failed to exhaust administrative remedy concerning Commerce‘s aluminum content analysis for the finished goods kit exclusion but also effectively failed to exhaust its arguments that those exceptions to exhaustion apply. The defendant avers that instead of seeking leave from the court to respond to Commerce‘s exhaustion argument, which was initially raised in Commerce‘s response to the plaintiff‘s comments on remand, Meridian has here first responded to the arguments after judgment was entered, and that as a result the court should dismiss Meridian‘s motion for reconsideration.6
[P]arties cannot use a motion for reconsideration to raise new legal arguments that could have been raised before a judgment was issued. Bank of Ann Arbor v. Everest Nat. Ins. Co., 563 Fed.Appx. 473, 476 (6th Cir.2014); referencing Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ‘g, LLC, 477 F.3d 383, 395 (6th Cir.2007). Howev-
In this matter, the need to prevent manifest injustice favors ruling for the plaintiff. The fundamental question here, of whether a good consisting entirely of aluminum extrusions, fasteners, and extraneous materials does not qualify for the finished goods kit exclusion, depends entirely upon the proper reading of the scope language, which is a question of law. Although Commerce is entitled to substantial deference with regard to its interpretation of its own antidumping duty orders, King Supply Co., LLC v. United States, 674 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2012) (King Supply) (citation omitted), Commerce may not interpret an antidumping order so as to change the scope of that order, nor can Commerce interpret an order in a manner contrary to its terms. Eckstrom Indus., Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1068, 1072 (Fed.Cir.2001) (citation omitted). Parties are generally required to exhaust administrative remedies to aid Commerce in interpretation, but just as determining the proper reading of a statute presents a pure legal question that can be addressed despite a party‘s failure to raise such an argument in the proceedings before Commerce,7 the language of the scope itself can present a pure question of law to the extent the language is not susceptible to interpretation. See
When determining the scope of an antidumping and/or countervailing duty order, Commerce applies a three-step approach established by the appellate court in Duferco.10 The first step of this approach is to determine if the governing language is ambiguous. If the language is ambiguous, an analysis of the
Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, window frames, doorframes, solar panels, curtain walls or furniture. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions are included in the scope. The scope includes the aluminum extrusion components that are attached (e.g. by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled merchandised unless imported as part of the finished goods ‘kit’ defined further below. The scope does not include the non-aluminum extrusion components of subassemblies or subject kits.
Subject extrusions may be identified with reference to their end use, such as fence posts, electrical conduits, door thresholds, carpet trim, or heat sinks.... Such goods are subject merchandise if they otherwise meet the scope definition, regardless of whether they are ready for use at the time of importation.
76 Fed.Reg. at 30650-51 and 30654 (court‘s italics). The scope language provides for two exclusions:
The scope ... excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry, such as finished windows with glass, doors with glass or vinyl, picture frames with glass pane and backing material, and solar panels.
The scope also excludes finished goods containing aluminum extrusions that are entered unassembled in a finished goods kit. A finished goods kit is understood to mean a packaged combination of parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good and requires no further finishing or fabrication, such as cutting or punching, and is assembled as is into a finished product.
Id. (court‘s italics). The scope language also clarifies the finished goods kit exclusion stating,
An imported product will not be considered a finished goods kit and therefore excluded from the scope of the [Orders ] merely by including fasteners such as screws, bolts, etc. in the packaging with an aluminum extrusion product.
Id. (court‘s italics and bracketing).
As mentioned, although Commerce enjoys substantial freedom to interpret and clarify its ... orders by way of its scope rulings,13 and its interpretations are entitled to significant deference if reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, antidumping and countervailing duty orders may be interpreted as including subject merchandise only if they contain language that specifically includes the subject merchandise or may be reasonably interpreted to include it. Duferco, supra, 296 F.3d at 1089. As explained in Allegheny Bradford, Commerce must only meet a low threshold to show that it justifiably found an ambiguity in scope language ... but it is not justifiable to identify an ambiguity where none exists .... Commerce cannot make a scope determination that conflicts with an order‘s terms, nor can it interpret an order in a way that changes the order‘s scope.
In the Second Remand, Commerce found that the brackets, screws, and hinge covers in Meridian‘s Trim Kits were fasteners, that the wrench and installation kit were extraneous materials, and that these parts did not qualify the Trim Kits (the rest of which were made up of unassembled aluminum extrusions, i.e., finished parts)14 as a finished goods kit because while the Trim Kits might otherwise meet the definition, under the scope language kits which consist only of aluminum extrusions, fasteners and extraneous materials do not meet the exclusion criteria for finished goods kits. Second Remand at 13-14, 23-24, referencing Geodesic Domes Scope Ruling at 6-7. To support interpreting the exclusionary language, Commerce relied on the clarification in the scope language of the exclusion that provides as follows: [a]n imported product will not be considered a finished goods kit and therefore excluded from the scope of the investigation merely by including fasteners such as screws, bolts, etc. in the packaging with an aluminum extrusion product (court‘s italics). See id. at 12-14, 23-25; see also Orders.
Context renders unreasonable Commerce‘s reading of the exclusionary language of the scope, and its application of the scope language to the Trim Kits is in conflict with the Orders’ terms. The reason for that holding is as follows. The specific governing language15 of the Orders unambiguously lists the requirements a kit must meet in order to be excluded from the scope as a finished goods kit. The kit must be (1) an unassembled combination of parts that (2) includes at the time of importation all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good, with no further finishing or fabrication (such as cutting or punching), and (3) be capable of assembly as is into a finished product. See Orders. The inclusion of fasteners or extraneous materials is not determinative when qualifying a kit consisting of multiple parts which otherwise meets the exclusionary requirements, as a finished goods kit. Likewise, there is nothing in the language that indicates that the parts in an otherwise qualifying kit cannot consist entirely of aluminum extrusions. For example, an imported disassembled model Eiffel Tower kit made up entirely of aluminum extrusions with snap-fit joints, which when fully assembled forms that iconic shape, does not need fasteners in the sense contemplated by the finished goods kit exclusion clarification, and would apparently qualify for the finished goods kit exclusion if it otherwise met the scope-exclusion requirements. Alternatively, if the Eiffel Tower kit did require fasteners to connect the entirely aluminum extrusion parts, but otherwise met the scope-exclu-
This reasoning is supported by the scope language itself, in particular at the point where the exclusionary language defining a finished goods kit (which requires that all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good be present at importation) is read in conjunction with the inclusionary scope language (which states that [s]ubject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation ). By this language, it is clear that in order to qualify as a finished goods kit, a kit must contain every part required to assemble the final finished good, and it logically follows that if a kit is imported with all of the parts necessary to fully assemble the kit into its final finished form, then obviously (and necessarily) some of those parts may be fasteners.
The clarification language does not support Commerce‘s reading of the language, but is instead simply an attempt to prevent the circumvention of the scope of the Orders by ensuring that the mere inclusion of fasteners in a packaged aluminum extrusion product, that does not otherwise meet the scope-exclusion requirements, will not qualify it as a combination of parts for the finished goods kit exclusion. The record shows that Commerce unreasonably ignored the scope definition of what constitutes a finished goods kit by expanding the clarification language to exclude the Trim Kits, when that language plainly does not disqualify the plaintiff‘s Trim Kits from the exclusion. Commerce accepted the plaintiff‘s description of the product as consisting of a package of multiple unassembled aluminum finished parts with fasteners, a hexagonal tool for fitting said fasteners, a plastic hinge cover, and a booklet instructing how to assemble the parts into a final finished customized frame,16 but unreasonably found that the presence of the fasteners, the assembly tool, the plastic hinge cover, and the assembly instruction booklet were extraneous in this kit and were, in and of themselves, sufficient to remove the plaintiff‘s product from the exclusion to the scope of the Orders.17 And although Commerce claims its exclusion of the Trim Kits was consistent with the scope of the Orders, which includes products such as window frames, door frames and picture frames, and only excludes products that contain additional, non-aluminum extrusion products (i.e., windows with glass, doors with
Commerce‘s reliance on the Geodesic Domes Scope Ruling to support its conclusion is also misplaced. While the petition, factual findings, legal conclusions and preliminary orders may aid in Commerce‘s analysis, they cannot substitute for the language of the order itself, Walgreen, supra, 620 F.3d at 1357, which in this instance is clear on its face. If Commerce is entitled to substantial deference with regard to its interpretations of its own antidumping duty orders, King Supply, supra, 674 F.3d at 1348 (citation omitted), that still presupposes language susceptible to interpretation. Here, like the irreconcilability of the Order‘s beveling sentence with the edging characteristics of [the] fittings considered in Allegheny Bradford, supra, 28 CIT at 845, 342 F.Supp.2d at 1185, [t]here is nothing more to interpret from the language of the Orders as to their applicability to the completeness of the Trim Kits, and no need to evaluate the Geodesic Domes Scope Ruling. Id. In any event, Commerce has simply grafted the same flawed reasoning it employed in the Geodesic Domes Scope Ruling into the Second Remand result.20
III. Conclusion
While Commerce‘s interpretation is to be sustained so long as it reasonably clarifies the scope, the court here concludes that Commerce‘s interpretation in the Second Remand has impermissibly expanded the scope language by placing a restriction on the finished goods kit exclusion that is not supported by the plain language of the scope of the Orders. See, e.g., Sandvik Steel Co. v. United States, supra, 164 F.3d 596, 600 (Fed.Cir.1998) (the order‘s meaning and scope are issues particularly within the expertise of [Commerce] ). As a result, Commerce‘s reliance on this interpretation to disqualify the plaintiff‘s Trim Kits, which might otherwise meet the definition for a ‘finished goods kit’ pursuant to the scope of the Orders , is not in accordance with law and not supported by substantial evidence. See Second Remand at 23-24. Based upon the foregoing, the prior judgment must be, and it hereby is, vacated, and the case must be, and it hereby is, remanded to Commerce a third time, with instructions to provide an interpretation of the finished goods kit exclusion to the Orders that complies with the scope language and to evaluate the plaintiff‘s Trim Kits under that interpretation.
Results of redetermination shall be due August 24, 2015. Within ten (10) days of the docketing of those results, the parties shall confer and submit a joint proposed scheduling order or separate proposed scheduling orders governing further proceedings on this matter.
It is so ordered.