CIT Again Finds Fully Assembled Products Not Subject to Aluminum Extrusions Duties, Even if Parts

Screen printing frames imported by Rheetech are not covered by antidumping duties and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China because they are imported fully assembled, regardless of whether they are parts for larger screen printing machines, said the Court of International Trade in a March 31 decision (here). Again applying the logic he set forth in a February court ruling that found the scope of extruded aluminum duties does not cover assembled merchandise (see 1602020072), CIT Chief Judge Timothy Stanceu found Rheetech’s frames are not subject to duties because they are assemblies, not “shapes and forms,” and are not “subassemblies” because they are not “partially assembled.”

The decision comes in response to a challenge from the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee, which represents domestic manufacturers in the trade case, of an August 2014 scope ruling where the Commerce Department found Rheetech’s extruded aluminum frames with polyester screens attached are “finished merchandise” exempt from duties (see 14081101). While Commerce reached the same final conclusion, the CIT departed from Commerce’s logic and found the frames aren’t covered by duties in the first place, eliminating the need to decide whether they’re eligible for an exemption.

Like in his February decision, Stanceu held that the scope covers single extruded aluminum “shapes and forms,” as well as extrusions that have been subjected to drawing, fabricating and fishing processes. As written, however, it does not cover extruded aluminum assemblies. “The scope of the Orders was not intended to include, as a general matter, any assembled good that contains an aluminum extrusion as a part,” said Stanceu in the opinion.

The domestic coalition argued that the screen printing frames are “subassemblies” that are covered by AD/CV duties. As parts of larger screen printing machines, they are not final finished products and therefore cannot meet the “finished merchandise” exemption. However, the scope defines “subassemblies” as “partially finished merchandise,” and Rheetech’s frames, though parts of a larger machine, are fully assembled.

The coalition also argued that, as parts of a larger machine, the screen printing frames are “not independent finished goods," and should be covered by duties. However, being a part does not automatically include a product in the scope of duties, said CIT. “This argument presumes that to fall outside the scope of the Orders an assembled good such as the screen printing frame must be “independent,” i.e., not used as a component or accessory with any other good,” he said. “The scope language does not so provide. Instead, while stating that ‘[s]ubject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation,’ the scope language qualifies this statement by providing that ‘[s]uch parts that otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions are included in the scope.’”

(Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Comm. v. U.S., Slip Op. 16-31, CIT # 14-00206, dated 03/31/16, Judge Stanceu)