Commerce Further Explains Excluding Door Thresholds From Aluminum Extrusions AD/CVD Orders

The Commerce Department in a pair of remand results submitted to the Court of International Trade stuck by its position to exclude importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. After the trade court remanded the case for a second time, finding that the previous remand results were not submitted in a form the trade court could sustain, Commerce offered a further explanation for its decision to find that the thresholds fit under the finished merchandise exclusion to the orders (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., CIT #19-00013).

Commerce initially found the door thresholds subject to AD/CVD for a number of reasons, including that door thresholds are specifically mentioned in the scope and that they are subassemblies of larger doors and can’t qualify for the “finished merchandise” exemption from aluminum extrusions duties. The trade court ruled that Commerce based its analysis on inferences that were contradicted by other information on the record. The agency went back to the drawing board, and in its second remand results, excluded the thresholds under the finished merchandise exclusion.

While CIT had questioned Commerce’s reasoning in its prior decisions on the scope rulings, CIT said the second remand redetermination also misunderstands CIT’s qualms. The court said that Commerce failed to present any reasoning for ruling that the door thresholds are outside of the scope of the orders, and that the remand is not a final agency decision that can be sustained by the court (see 2208110044).

Filing its third remand in the case, Commerce stuck by its position for Worldwide and Columbia, though it offered further explanation for its position. The agency said that the scope of the order excludes “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.” To qualify as finished merchandise, the good in question must have extrusions as parts plus an additional non-extruded aluminum component, the remand results said.

"Thus, to give effect to this 'as parts' language, we find that to qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion, the product must contain aluminum extrusions as parts, and must include some non-extruded aluminum component," the brief said. "Worldwide’s door thresholds contain aluminum extrusions 'as parts,' plus additional non-extruded aluminum components."

Further, the exclusion requires that the good be fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry. Worldwide and Columbia describe their thresholds as fully assembled at the time of entry, replete with all the needed components to be ready for installation within a door frame without any further finishing. "In light of the Court’s findings, we have reassessed that evidence and determine that the record does not support the conclusion that Worldwide’s specific door thresholds require cutting or fabrication after importation into the United States," the brief said.

Addressing the court's concern that the remand was not final agency action, Commerce said that it doesn't intend to issue a scope ruling after the court's review. As a result, a Federal Register notice will be released that will state that consistent with the court's holdings, Worldwide's and Columbia's thresholds are excluded from the scope of the orders.