Two CIT Cases Challenge AD/CVD Scope Rulings on Quartz Surface Products, Light-Truck Spare Tires

SMA Surfaces, Inc., formerly known as Polarstone US, and Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. each filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade challenging two different scope rulings on antidumping and countervailing duty orders. SMA challenged the Commerce Department's decision to not exclude three specific surface products from the AD/CVD orders on quartz surface products from China, while Cheng Shin appealed Commerce's decision to not exclude the company's light-truck spare tire models from the less-than-fair-value investigation into passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan (SMA Surfaces, Inc. (F/K/A Polarstone US) v. U.S., CIT #21-00399) (Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co. Ltd. v. U.S., CIT #21-00398).

SMA sought exclusions via a scope ruling for "Grey Concrete Leather," "Andes," and "Twilight" surface products based on the fact that they purportedly satisfied four crushed glass surface products exclusion criteria. The company's scope request attempted to show that the distance between the "glass pieces larger than one cm" and the closest separate "glass pieces larger than one cm" did not exceed three inches for any of the three products -- as laid out in the fourth criteria of the scope exclusions included in the orders. Ultimately, Commerce said that the three products met the first three criteria of the glass scope exclusion, but failed on this fourth criterion.

Cheng Shin, on a different product category, requested an exclusion for the light-truck spare tire models it made for a U.S. customer from the less-than-fair-value investigation into passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Taiwan. The company wanted a separate category for light-truck spare tires since the category currently available, "tire service type," did not separately identify light-truck spare tires. The petitioner agreed that these spare tires should be excluded from the investigation's scope, similar to how passenger-vehicle spare tires were. But, the petitioner took issue with Cheng Shin's scope language, arguing that it would have been overbroad and excluded other types of tires.

So, Cheng Shin gave Commerce revised scope exclusion language for the light-truck spare tires, which the agency adopted without modification. But, Commerce's final version of the product-characteristic reporting requirements did not include a separate "tire service type" category for the light-truck spare tires. This led to the spare tires being included in the investigation.

"The scope exclusion language for light-truck spare tires was drafted specifically to exclude the light-truck spare tire models produced by Cheng Shin and sold to its U.S. customer," the complaint said. "... Record evidence demonstrates that the light-truck spare tires designed by Cheng Shin and sold to its U.S. customer met the explicit requirements adopted by Commerce for exclusion."