Commerce Flips Scope Finding on Remand, Excludes Door Thresholds From Extrusions Orders

The Commerce Department found that two companies' door thresholds qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, in a pair of remand results at the Court of International Trade, reversing its position on the issue under protest. The remand results came after a court opinion that did not agree with Commerce's original holding that the door thresholds from Worldwide Door Components and Columbia Aluminum Products were subassemblies that required further incorporation into a larger downstream product (Worldwide Door Components, Inc. v. United States, CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products, LLC v. United States, CIT # 19-00013).

Both Worldwide's and Columbia's cases contest scope rulings over their door thresholds made from aluminum extrusions and non-aluminum components. In these scope decisions, 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, Judge Timothy 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).

In its first remand, Commerce then said that Worldwide's and Columbia's door thresholds are subassemblies since they are meant for installation within a door frame, thus not eligible for the finished merchandise exclusion. The agency based this finding on evidence from the AD investigation petitioner along with Endura Products -- a domestic manufacturer of door thresholds. But Stanceu then ruled that 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."

When ruling on Commerce's first remand results, the court then said that Commerce must reconsider its determination that the thresholds do not constitute finished merchandise (see 2109150046). This ruling was based, in part, on the examples of finished merchandise 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.

"The Court stated that Worldwide’s door thresholds are similar to the exemplars provided in the finished merchandise exclusion -- e.g., doors with glass or vinyl -- in that the exemplars are also not incorporated into a larger downstream product such as a door unit or other structure," the remand results said, now excluding the thresholds from the AD/CV duties. "Accordingly, consistent with the Court’s reasoning, we are finding, under respectful protest, that Worldwide’s door thresholds are finished merchandise excluded from the Orders."

This position met pushback from the petitioner and Endura, who argued that CIT subbed in its own judgment for Commerce's and that the decision to define the thresholds as subassemblies was the right one. In particular, the pair alleged that the court's decisions improperly expanded the finished merchandise exclusion to cut the subassembly language out of the scope. In response, Commerce reiterated its position that, while it still feels as though the subassemblies definition is more apt for the thresholds, it has changed its position to comply with the court's orders.

For instance, on the question of finished merchandise examples, Commerce said that it pointed out that thresholds were listed as one of the examples of in-scope goods, while goods such as doors with glass or vinyl are listed as finished merchandise exclusions. "Therefore, Commerce distinguished the door thresholds from the listed exemplars in the finished merchandise exclusion by determining that the door thresholds are an intermediary product (part) to be later incorporated into a finished downstream product, here a door unit," the remand said. "Thus, Commerce has previously identified key distinctions between these products."