Certain Quartz Surfaces Qualify for Exception to AD/CVD Orders, Importer Tells Trade Court

Products from importer SMA Surfaces meet all four of the criteria for an exclusion from the antidumping and countervailing duties on quartz surface products from China, and the Commerce Department never addressed "unrefuted evidence" which shows that one of its products satisfies the key fourth criteria for this exclusion, the importer argued in a Feb. 16 brief at the Court of International Trade (SMA Surfaces v. United States, CIT #21-00399).

SMA sought exclusions via a scope ruling for its "Grey Concrete Leather," "Andes," and "Twilight" surface products. The company's scope request argued 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 a scope exclusion 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.

The importer launched its lawsuit in September 2021 (see 2109090056). SMA bolstered its initial complaint by arguing that there's nothing in the scope that says that a glass piece has to be larger than one centimeter. "If the 4th criteria were applicable to only the pieces that were ‘one cm or larger,’ then the scope language should have stated it as such," the brief said. Also, none of the examples laid out in the petitioner's scope clarification request give any evidence that the distances between the glass pieces larger than one and separate glass pieces do not exceed three inches, SMA said.

Commerce further erred by ignoring key evidence under the "(k)(1) factors," SMA argued. "The Department did not address any of SMA’s record evidence demonstrating that the products meet the narrowest reading of the exclusionary language," the brief said. Nor did it issue any supplemental questionnaires prior to the Final Scope Ruling if it doubted this unrefuted record evidence. Furthermore, the Department also did not address any of the arguments concerning the construction and interpretation of the plain language of the scope."