Commerce Properly Found Window Wall System Kits Qualify for Exclusion to AD/CVD Orders, CIT Rules

The Commerce Department properly found that window wall system kits imported by Reflection Window + Wall are excluded from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the Court of International Trade ruled in a Jan. 18 order. Judge Stephen Vaden held that Commerce appropriately held that the window wall systems qualified for the "finished goods kit" exclusion to the orders and were properly distinguished from curtain wall units. The judge added that the scope ruling does not cut against past scope decisions.

"We’re pleased that the CIT upheld Commerce’s scope ruling and provided a thorough and thoughtful analysis supporting its opinion," said Robert Stang, counsel for Reflection.

Reflection imports parts of exterior facades of high-rise buildings. These goods are custom-made and include the importer's RWW-8000, RWW-9000, RWW-9500 and RWW-12000 window wall system kits, which are the subject of the scope ruling. All parties agree that the goods are covered by the general scope language, but the dispute is whether the window wall systems should be excluded from the orders as finished goods kits.

Administratively, Commerce said the products did conform to this exception and that the goods are distinct from curtain wall units, which were found to not be finished merchandise at the time of import. The agency made this distinction by finding that Reflections' goods are inserted into the opening between the top of one floor slab and the underside of the higher one and that the window wall systems do not make up the entire facade. The Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee then took to the trade court to contest these findings, arguing that Reflection's products are more akin to curtain wall units.

Vaden, though, sided with the government's read on the situation. The judge said that since Reflection's products "have individual, consumptive uses and cannot cover a building's entire façade," Commerce's position is correct. During the consideration of whether curtain wall units are finished merchandise, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said that a curtain wall cannot be a finished good since it has no consumptive use as a single unit. The appellate court, in a later ruling, then held that an entire curtain wall imported in different shipments but connected via one contract does not qualify for the finished goods kit exclusion since the exclusion requires all the units to be imported at the same time.

The court said the window system kits are unlike curtain wall units given their individual, consumptive value. "If a company shipped a dog cage in two shipments of three metal panels each, those would add up to one finished good: the entire dog cage," the judge said. "There is no individual, consumptive use for each metal panel; and three of them are no more useful than one. The metal panels are entirely dependent on one another for their function. ... [C]urtain wall units are the same. Until there are enough of them for an entire curtain wall, they are useless. Window wall systems are individually useful and work independently from each other. That is sufficient for Commerce to find each to be a final finished good."

Vaden further declared that evidence supports Commerce's finding that the products are finished goods kits. The committee said that Reflection's kits do not qualify for the exception since the goods do not have all the necessary parts for assembly, the agency's decision conflicts with its past decisions over the finished goods kit exclusion, Commerce ignored evidence that detracts from the conclusion and the agency relied on entry summary forms the importer submitted for products that are not excluded by the ruling.

Going through each of these points, the judge sided with Commerce. For instance, Vaden held that the scope ruling is in line with past scope rulings over the finished goods kit exclusion. "Across a decade of scope rulings, Commerce has consistently excluded window wall systems as finished goods kits but refused to exclude curtain wall units," the opinion said. "Commerce’s basis for doing so is simple. Window walls do not cover a building’s entire façade. Curtain walls do. ... Although the Committee is correct that the record of this proceeding is more developed than that of prior window wall kit scope rulings, that fact counsels in favor of the lawfulness of Commerce’s scope ruling."

(Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, Slip Op. 23-5, CIT #21-00253, dated 01/18/23, Judge Stephen Vaden. Attorneys: Robert DeFrancesco of Wiley Rein for plaintiff Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee; Augustus Golden for defendant U.S. government; Robert Stang of Husch Blackwell for defendant-intervenor Reflection Window + Wall)