AD Duties on Wooden Bedroom Furniture From China Aren't Confined to Bedrooms, Says CIT
The term “bedroom” in the scope of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China does not automatically exclude products intended for use outside of bedrooms from AD duties, said the Court of International Trade on Jan. 29 as it affirmed a Commerce Department scope ruling. Although Medline Industries argued its wooden headboards and footboards were intended for use in hospitals and shouldn’t be subject to AD duties, the court said the term “bedroom” doesn’t limit the order’s scope to a particular end use. Instead, the order lists products that could be considered “wooden bedroom furniture,” and wooden headboards and footboards are on that list, said CIT.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Medline’s challenge focused on a 2012 scope ruling that found its wooden headboards and footboards for metal hospital beds were subject to AD duties. The company argued that, as hospital bed components, its products weren’t wooden “bedroom” furniture. Commerce didn’t consider the intended use of the headboard and footboard when it found them subject to AD duties, said Medline.
But CIT found no language in the scope that specifically defines bedroom furniture and excludes other types. The scope and title of the AD duty order merely says that it covers “wooden bedroom furniture,” without further explanation, it said. Instead, the scope defines itself through a list of included products and a list of excluded products. One of the product types in the list of covered products is “wooden headboards for beds, … wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds,” said CIT. Given that the scope specifically lists the products covered by the orders, Commerce is not required to consider the use of a given product, said the court.
(Medline Industries, Inc. v. U.S., Slip Op. 14-09, dated 01/29/14, Judge Tsoucalas)