US, Petitioner Push Back on Importer's Canvas Coating Claims in Scope Ruling Case

The U.S. and a domestic petitioner April 25 opposed an importer’s motion for judgment in a scope case, arguing that, because the product at issue was coated with a substance that promotes the adherence of ink and other artist materials, the importer’s canvas banner matisse was subject to an antidumping duty order on certain artist canvas from China (Printing Textiles, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 23-00192).

Importer Printing Textiles filed its motion in the Court of International Trade on Feb. 26 (see 2402270079). It claimed that the Commerce Department has been illegally expanding the scope of the order in various scope rulings over the years by conflating canvas coatings that specifically promote “adherence of artistic materials” with those that are only “ink-receptive” and have other purposes, such as fireproofing or waterproofing. Its canvases’ coatings do the latter, Printing Textiles said.

In briefs, the government and defendant-intervenor Ecker Textiles said that Printing Textiles had misunderstood the AD order.

The U.S. argued in its rebuttal that Printing Textiles’ interpretation of the order’s scope was overly narrow. The department said, looking to the (k)(1) factors, it reasonably found that both it and the International Trade Commission had defined “promote the adherence of artistic materials” to mean “allow for acceptance of” and “improve the receptivity of canvas to," among other things.

It also claimed that Printing Textiles had not provided sufficient evidence indicating that its canvases’ coating was not intended to “promote the adherence of artistic materials.”

The importer cited expert evidence in its brief, but that expert had actually also said that “no chemical analysis can characterize ‘adherence’” and that there were no standardized tests to measure it, the government said.

It also pointed out that Printing Textiles’ patent for its canvas banner matisse (CBM) “described ‘a receiving medium comprising a substrate and an ink receiving layer,’” explaining that the product was made of an “ink receptive coating” that was “applied to a substrate such as … canvas.”

As for the importer’s argument that the order was too vague and couldn’t offer proper notice, the government said that Printing Textiles had had plenty of notice and that the department's many previous scope rulings regarding the same order showed that it wasn't too vague.

“By filing its scope ruling application, Berger properly availed itself of the opportunity to request that Commerce determine whether its product is subject to the Order, and to present arguments and evidence supporting its position,” the U.S. said. “Berger’s underlying scope ruling application demonstrates that it was on notice that its product could be subject to the Order. “ Printing Textiles does business as Berger Textiles.

Ecker, meanwhile, discussed some of the lead-up to the case in more detail.

“[Printing] Textiles’ brief glosses over the fact that Commerce sought additional information [for the scope ruling] regarding CBM's properties from the company but did not receive a straight answer,” it said.

Commerce’s analysis in the ruling also relied on record evidence that CBM is commonly marketed for art reproduction and that its “priming/coating layer” increases its “receptivity to artist materials,” it said.

“Berger Textiles seemingly invites the Court to reweigh Commerce's fact findings about CBM, an invitation which the Court is precluded from accepting,” the petitioner said.