Petitioner Says Commerce Rightly Excluded Door Thresholds as Ineligible for Finished Merch Exclusion

The Court of International Trade should not have found that importer Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds were excluded from the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, petitioner Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its opening brief. The committee said that both the Commerce Department and the Federal Circuit have repeatedly said that the scope's descriptions of "extrusions" covers aluminum extrusions incorporated into assemblies (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1532).

"Judge [Timothy] Stanceu’s unwavering stance that only products made entirely of aluminum extrusions are subject to the Orders, and continued imposition of that reading over Commerce’s reasonable and lawful interpretation of its own scope, are thus improper," the brief said.

The petitioner added that, regardless, Commerce's determination that the importers' thresholds are subassemblies and thus ineligible for the finished merchandise exclusion was correct. The subassembly provision in the orders "has been the subject of considerable litigation," and "beyond question" says that only one part of a finished downstream product is a subassembly, and "that subassemblies cannot qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion, the brief said. Since Commerce reasonably said the door thresholds at issue are subassemblies, the trade court's remand instructions to "consider the finished merchandise exclusion were contrary to law."

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 therefore can’t qualify for the “finished merchandise” exemption from aluminum extrusions duties. Stanceu 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.

Now at the appellate court, the petitioner said that Commerce had it right by saying the thresholds are covered by the scope's general description, arguing that there "is no real dispute" that a door threshold is a part for a final door frame nor that the thresholds are "expressly identified as in-scope merchandise by name." The question then becomes whether these provisions in the scope refer only to goods made entirely of aluminum extrusions or also to assemblies. The issue has already been settled by the Federal Circuit, the petitioner said, citing Meridian Products v. U.S. and Whirlpool Corporation v. U.S.

"Judge Stanceu’s contrary interpretation of the scope, as applying only to products made entirely of aluminum, has been rejected by this Court and is thus foreclosed," the brief said. "But even if that were not the case, Judge Stanceu’s failure to defer at all to Commerce’s reasonable interpretation of its own Orders, and continued imposition of his own interpretation, would require reversal."