CIT Again Faults Commerce Ruling on Finished Heat Sinks Exemption From Aluminum Extrusions Duties
The Court of International Trade again sent back a Commerce Department scope ruling finding mass spectrometer parts subject to antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China, finding in an Oct. 1 decision that the agency did not justify its determination that Agilent’s mass filter radiators are not finished heat sinks exempt from AD/CV duties.
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.
CIT had already remanded the scope ruling back to Commerce in September 2017 (see 1709060015), holding the agency did not consider evidence submitted by Agilent that the parts met the finished heat sink exemption. In the underlying scope ruling, issued in August 2016 (see 1608220063), Commerce had found the mass filter radiators did not meet the requirement that “finished heat sinks” be designed and produced to meet specified thermal performance requirements.
According to Commerce’s redetermination, issued in response to the 2017 court decision, meeting the finished heat sink exemption requires that the product must be (1) a heat sink made from aluminum extrusions, with (2) specified thermal performance requirements, (3) designed and (4) produced in a way that’s organized around meeting those specified thermal performance requirements, and (5) fully, though not necessarily individually, tested to meet those specified thermal performance requirements.
Agilent had submitted evidence that the dimensional tolerances to which its mass filter radiators are produced are designed to absorb heat from the mass filter spectrometer to meet a target temperature of 200 degrees Celsius. But Commerce, citing a 2014 scope ruling (see 1412040063), said meeting dimensional requirements is not enough to qualify for the exemption.
CIT found Commerce’s explanation lacking. First, the scope ruling cited by Commerce found fault with a lack of target performance criteria. Here, Agilent provided information that the dimensional requirements are intended to meet a specific performance target. The trade court ordered Commerce to again open up the scope ruling, and either provide more evidence to support its original conclusion or expand its analysis to consider other factors like end use, expectations of purchasers, industry definitions and the meaning of “specified thermal performance requirements.”
(Agilent Techs. v. U.S., Slip Op. 18-131, CIT # 16-00183, dated 10/01/18, Judge Choe-Groves)