from the United States Court of International Trade in No.
1:13-cv-00246-TCS, Chief Judge Timothy C. Stanceu.
Frances Pierson Hadfield, Crowell & Moring, LLP, New
York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by
Alexander Schaefer, Washington, DC.
E. DeFrancesco, III, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, argued
for defendant-appellant. Also represented by Alan H. Price,
Tessa V. Capeloto, Derick Holt.
Newman, O'Malley, and Reyna, Circuit Judges.
Extrusions Fair Trade Committee appeals the decision of the
United States Court of International Trade affirming a remand
determination of the United States Department of Commerce.
Commerce originally determined that imports of certain
extruded aluminum door handles for kitchen appliances that
are packaged for importation with two plastic end caps and
two screws are within the scope of relevant antidumping and
countervailing duty orders. On appeal, the Court of
International Trade concluded that Commerce's original
scope ruling was unreasonable and unsupported by substantial
evidence and remanded to Commerce for reconsideration. On
remand, Commerce determined, under protest, that the subject
products are not included in the scope of the relevant
orders. The Court of International Trade affirmed
Commerce's redetermination. We reverse and
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders
March 31, 2010, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee
("AEFTC") and the United Steel, Paper, and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union filed petitions with
Commerce requesting initiation of antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations on imports of certain
aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China.
On April 27, 2010, Commerce initiated antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations based on those petitions.
On May 26, 2011, Commerce issued antidumping and
countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China.
See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of
China ("Antidumping Duty Order"), 76
Fed. Reg. 30, 650 (Dep't of Commerce May 26, 2011);
Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of
China ("Countervailing Duty Order"),
76 Fed. Reg. 30, 653 (Dep't of Commerce May 26,
2011). The antidumping duty order describes the
scope of the duty order as covering imports from China of
aluminum extrusions that are shapes and forms, produced by an
extrusion process, made from specified aluminum alloys.
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30, 650. The
extrusions possess "a wide variety of shapes and
forms" in "a variety of finishes."
Id. The following is a relevant excerpt of the scope
Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of
importation as parts for final finished products that are
assembled after importation, including, but not limited to,
window frames, door frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or
furniture. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of
aluminum extrusions are included in the scope. The scope
includes the aluminum extrusion components that are attached
(e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies, i.e.,
partially assembled merchandise unless imported as part of
the finished goods 'kit' defined further below. The
scope does not include the non-aluminum extrusion components
of subassemblies or subject kits.
Id. at 30, 650-51. The scope also contains several
The scope also 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. The scope also excludes finished goods
containing aluminum extrusions that are entered unassembled
in a "finished goods kit." A finished goods kit is
understood to mean a packaged combination of parts that
contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary
parts to fully assemble a final finished good and requires no
further finishing or fabrication, such as cutting or
punching, and is assembled "as is" into a finished
product. An imported product will not be considered a
"finished goods kit" and therefore excluded from
the scope of the [Orders] merely by including fasteners such
as screws, bolts, etc. in the packaging with an aluminum
Id. at 30, 651.
Scope Ruling Request
scope of an antidumping duty order may be challenged upon a
request for a ruling on the scope of the order, i.e., whether
particular merchandise is covered by the scope of the order.
19 C.F.R. § 351.225(c)(1). On January 11, 2013, Meridian
requested that Commerce review the scope of the antidumping
duty order to confirm whether three types of imported
aluminum extruded kitchen appliance door handles are within
the scope of the antidumping duty order. Meridian described
the three types of door handles as follows:
(1) Type A handles are for attachment to oven doors. They are
made of aluminum extrusions, which are brushed and anodized.
Holes are drilled in the handles.
(2) Type B handles are for attachment to oven doors. The
handles are made of aluminum extrusions, plus two plastic
injection molded end caps at each end. The end caps are used
to fasten the handle to the door. Holes are drilled in the
(3) Type C handles are for attachment to freezer doors. They
are made of aluminum extrusions and include an allen wrench
and installation instructions. Holes are drilled in the
argued that the door handles meet the "finished goods
kit" exclusion and are therefore not within the scope of
the order. J.A. 112, 131. Commerce initiated a formal scope
inquiry on February 25, 2013, and solicited additional
information from interested parties.
21, 2013, Commerce issued its final scope ruling based on its
consideration of submissions by the parties, the
"description of the products in the Scope Request, the
scope language, and the Department's previous scope
rulings concerning the Orders." J.A. 550. Commerce found
that all of Meridian's handles are covered by the scope
of the antidumping duty order. J.A. 550-53.
respect to the Type B handles, the only handle subject to
this appeal, Commerce determined that Meridian's
products, with the exception of the fasteners, consist
entirely of aluminum extrusions covered by the scope of the
antidumping duty order. Commerce found that the Type B
handles were not "finished goods kits" because the
"scope of the Orders indicates that the inclusion of
fasteners in the packaging will not transform an aluminum
extrusion product into a finished goods kit." J.A. 550.
In addition, Commerce found that the "scope expressly
includes aluminum extrusions which are identified by
reference to their end use." Id. Commerce
concluded that Meridian's Type B handles were identified
by their end use (handles for kitchen oven doors), and that
they otherwise met the general scope definitions. Based on
these findings, Commerce determined that the Type B handles
were within the scope of the Orders. Commerce concluded that
the 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1) factors, specifically the
"scope of the Orders and prior scope rulings" were
dispositive, and that it was unnecessary to consider the 19
C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2) factors. J.A. 550.
appealed Commerce's final scope ruling to the United
States Court of International Trade ("CIT"). The
CIT affirmed Commerce's scope ruling that Type A and Type
C door handles consisting of a single extruded handle (and
fasteners etc.) are within the scope of the orders.
Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States, 125 F.Supp.3d
1306, 1310-12 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015) ("Meridian