CIT Orders Commerce to Reconsider Recent Scope Rulings on Aluminum Extrusions
The Court of International Trade on Jan. 14 issued a pair of decisions requiring Commerce to reconcile its “finished merchandise” exclusion from antidumping and countervailing duties on aluminum extrusions from China with recent court decisions that took issue with the agency’s long-standing interpretation that fasteners are invisible for the purposes of the exemption.
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.
In two cases involving appliance door handles from Whirlpool and Meridian -- each involving extruded aluminum handles with plastic end caps attached with screws -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had in mid-2018 overturned an earlier CIT ruling that the handles were not subject to AD/CV duties because “assemblies” aren’t covered by the aluminum extrusion orders (see 1805250031). But the appeals court also upheld CIT’s finding that Commerce misapplied the finished merchandise exemption with respect to the door handles.
“Commerce erred in construing the ‘fasteners exception,’ which the scope language specified for the finished goods kit exclusion, to apply also to the finished merchandise exclusion,” CIT said in its Jan. 14 decision on Whirlpool’s handles. “The Court of Appeals held, accordingly, that the scope language did not permit Commerce to conclude, as it did in the Final Scope Ruling, that the assembled handles failed to qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion on the ground that the parts in the assembly that were not aluminum extrusions were ‘fasteners,’” it said.
CIT directed Commerce to issue within 90 days an amended scope ruling that addresses the issue of whether Whirlpool’s door handles qualify for the finished merchandise exemption. The new ruling must comply with CIT’s now-upheld finding that the end caps and screws should be considered when deciding whether the door handles are exempt.
The trade court ordered Commerce to do the same for Meridian’s appliance door handles. However, in the original scope ruling for Meridian, Commerce was unclear as to whether Meridian’s door handles are imported in assembled form and potentially qualify for the finished merchandise exemption, or if they are imported unassembled and could only qualify for the finished goods kit exemption (and presumably would not because the fasteners would not be considered). CIT ordered Commerce to first address the condition in which the door handles were imported, and then apply the appropriate test for whether the door handles qualify for any exclusions, taking into account the recent court rulings on fasteners.
(Whirlpool Corp. v. U.S., Slip Op. 19-06, CIT # 14-00199, dated 01/14/18, Judge Stanceu)
(Meridian Prods. LLC v. U.S., Slip Op. 19-05, CIT # 13-00246, dated 01/14/18, Judge Stanceu)