CIT Remands AD/CVD Scope Rulings on Door Thresholds

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 14 struck down two Commerce Department scope rulings that found door thresholds are not finished products and therefore within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. Judge Timothy Stanceu said that Commerce's contention that the door thresholds from Worldwide Door Components and Columbia Aluminum Products were not finished products is contradicted by record evidence, remanding the rulings to the agency for reconsideration.

Both scope rulings concerned door thresholds made from aluminum extrusions and non-aluminum components. Commerce originally said that it was unnecessary to find out if the finished merchandise exclusion for the AD/CVD orders applied to the company's thresholds. In the first opinion in both cases, Stanceu said that this was a clear misreading of the scope language. The judge also said that mentions of door thresholds in the scope as subject merchandise only refer to whole aluminum extrusions used as thresholds, and not assemblies containing extruded aluminum (see 2008270039).

On remand, Commerce then said that Worldwide's and Columbia's door thresholds are "partially assembled merchandise" and "intermediate products" since they are meant for installation within a door frame. The agency based this finding on evidence from the antidumping duty investigation petitioner and Endura Products -- a domestic manufacturer of door thresholds. But this evidence runs counter to other evidence on the record describing Worldwide's and Columbia's doors as "fully assembled at the time of entry, complete with all of the necessary components to be ready for installation within a door frame," Stanceu said.

"Because Commerce relied, at least in part, on [the petitioner and Endura's] evidence to conclude that the finished merchandise exclusion was not applicable to Worldwide’s door thresholds, the court must remand the agency’s decision once again," the opinion said.

"We are optimistic that Commerce in this second remand finally will acknowledge what is plain from the record: Columbia assembled thresholds at issue in the scope proceeding are finished merchandise and thus outside the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from China," said Jeremy Dutra of Squire Patton, who represents Columbia.

One of the differences between Worldwide's and Columbia's cases came from the fact that the court didn't even accept Worldwide's arguments. The issue arose when Worldwide failed to submit comments on Commerce's draft remand results. The company claims the issue occurred when it swapped counsel -- favoring Kelley Drye over Baker McKenzie. This transition caused Worldwide to miss the filing of the draft remand results, the company said. Stanceu then denied a motion from Worldwide to narrowly remand the issue so that the company could file comments on the draft remand results and allow Commerce to consider them. Nevertheless, Worldwide got the remand it desired.

In the opinions, Stanceu also held that Commerce must reconsider the applicability of the finished merchandise exclusion based on the examples laid out in the orders' scope language. Commerce said these examples do not include subassemblies but are instead examples of "“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." Commerce's remand fails to consider the similarities between assembled door thresholds and the examples in the finished merchandise exclusion, the court said.

"This reasoning is based on a serious misinterpretation of the scope language setting forth the finished merchandise exclusion," the Columbia opinion said. "Contrary to the express terms of that exclusion, Commerce interprets the exemplars therein as separate, individual exclusions rather than as what they plainly are. They are exemplars, as shown by the use of the words 'such as.'"

(Worldwide Door Components, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 21-115, CIT # 19-00012, dated 09/14/21, Judge Timothy Stanceu. Attorneys: John Foote of Kelley Drye for plaintiff Worldwide; Brian Boynton for defendant U.S. government)

(Columbia Aluminum Products, LLC v. United States, Slip Op. 21-116, CIT # 19-00013, dated 09/14/21, Judge Timothy Stanceu. Attorneys: Jeremy Dutra of Squire Patton Boggs for plaintiff Columbia; Tara Hogan for defendant U.S. government)