CIT Accepts Commerce Remand Results in Aluminum Extrusion Exemption Case
The Court of International Trade sustained a revised Commerce Department definition of 'finished merchandise" that came in response to a challenge to a scope ruling from Rubbermaid, the court said in a ruling (here). "Commerce has determined on remand that all Rubbermaid merchandise at issue is excluded from the scope of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, because Rubbermaid’s mop frames and handles fall within the 'finished merchandise' exclusion and its mopping kits are covered by the exclusion for 'finished goods kits.' The remand results "are supported by both parties," it said.
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.
The case stemmed from a 2011 scope ruling on mop frames and handles imported by Rubbermaid that allow the user to attach interchangeable damp or dry mops and cleaning cloths. Some of the frames and handles subject to the ruling were imported separately, while others were imported, still without the mop itself, together in a kit. Rubbermaid requested that Commerce find the mop handles and frames are not subject to duties on aluminum extrusions, arguing they are exempt “finished merchandise.” The company also said the handles and frames imported together should be exempt as “finished goods kits.
The Rubbermaid case was one of two that industry lawyers expected to offer clarity on Commerce definitions (see 1505070018). The CIT had in late 2014 ordered Commerce to reconsider two scope rulings on the “finished merchandise” exemption. In the Rubbermaid case and another involving straightedges imported by Plasticoid (see 1411280009), the court took issue with the agency’s position that importers of goods consisting of 100% aluminum extrusions cannot use the exemption, even if they are imported in final finished form. According to CIT, Commerce improperly used language from a separate exemption for “finished goods kits,” which requires non-extruded aluminum parts, to read the same requirement into finished goods.
(Rubbermaid Commercial Prods. LLC v. U.S., Slip Op. 14-113, CIT No. 11-00463, dated 07/22/15, Judge Ridgway)