MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
Court No. 13-00018
United States Court of International Trade
Decided: January 20, 2016
Slip Op. 16-5 | 1329
Musgrave, Senior Judge
Daniel Cannistra and Richard P. Massony, Crowell & Moring LLP, of Washington DC, for the plaintiff.
Aimee Lee, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington DC, for the defendant. On the joint status report were Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney Gеneral, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel was Jessica M. Link, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington DC.
OPINION
Musgrave, Senior Judge:
This opinion addresses the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-0018 (Oct. 29, 2015) (“Third Remand” or “RR“) of the International Trade Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce“), pursuant to Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, 77 F.Supp.3d 1307 (2015) (”Meridian IV“), familiarity with which is presumed. The Third Remand results readdress whether the plaintiff‘s “Trim Kits” are within the scope of the unfair trade Orders on subject merchandise.1 On remand, Commerce determined
Following Meridian IV, the analysis of the Third Remand begins by quoting the scope language of the Orders,2 then quoting the finished goods kit exclusionary language,3 and then quoting the “fasteners exception” language to the finished goоds kit exclusion.4 Commerce‘s respectful disagreement with Meridian IV is that its interpretation of the fasteners exception “renders this language nearly null“, RR at 13, in that (1) it goes without saying that an aluminum extrusion product that does not otherwise meet the scope-exclusion requirements cannot be considered a finished goods kit, regardless of whether the product includes fasteners, and (2) in order “[t]o give meaning to the fasteners exception[,] there must be some importance [attached] to whether or not the product merely includes fasteners along with an aluminum extrusiоn product as it relates to the finished goods kit exclusion“, RR at 13, which is indeed the import of Meridian IV. Commerce intеrprets this “to mean that the inclusion of fasteners alone cannot convert an aluminum extrusion product that is not already a ‘combination of parts’ into a ‘combination of parts’ that qualifies for thе finished good kits exception.” Id. That is true. However, from that proposition Commerce then makes thе curious case that
[u]nder this interpretation, an “aluminum extrusion product” within the meaning of the fasteners еxception would mean an aluminum extrusion product that is not a “combination of parts,” i.e., possibly is a singlе part. Such an interpretation renders the fasteners exception nearly null given such limited application.
RR at 13-14.
The court fails to understand why that would be the case, i.e., why it would be reasonable to argue that a single part shipped with mere fastener(s) is a “kit“?
Commerce also voices concern that merchandise in assembled form that is covered under the scope of the Orders should, all else being equal, also be subject to the Orders upon entry in kit form, and it argues that Meridian IV “reads out of the scope language that subject extrusions in-
Commerce issued draft remand results to the parties and incorporated their comments in the final results. At this point, thе parties’ joint status report indicates that no party wishes to file comments on the Third Remand and that thе parties agree that the appropriate action to conclude this matter is to sustain Cоmmerce‘s final results of redetermination. Judgment to that effect will therefore be entered.