United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 21-116

Before the Court in Columbia Aluminum Prods., LLC, v. United States, et. al., Consol. Court No. 19-00013, Slip Op. 21-116 (September 14, 2021) was Plaintiff Columbia’s action to contest a decision by Commerce that its imported products, “door thresholds” containing aluminum extrusions among other components, are within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China (the “Orders”). Id. at 2. “In the Remand Redetermination, Commerce disagreed that the finished merchandise exclusion was relevant to its analysis.” Id. at 11. “In the Remand Redetermination, Commerce reasoned that goods falling within the subassemblies provision of the Orders cannot also be considered goods qualifying for the finished merchandise exclusion, i.e., Commerce considers these two categories to be mutually exclusive.” Id. at 13. “Thus, Commerce employed an analysis under which any goods it deems to be described by the subassemblies provision are, per se, ineligible for the finished merchandise exclusion.” Id. For the following reasons, the court issued an order of remand. Id. at 2.

In reviewing the Scope Ruling, the court must set aside any determination, finding, or conclusion found “to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). Id. at 6. “[T]o be sustained upon judicial review, the determination must be supported by the record evidence considered on the whole.” Id. at 7. This necessarily requires consideration of the record information contained in the scope ruling request, which ordinarily will include, inter alia, “[a] detailed description of the product, including its technical characteristics and uses.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(c)(1)(i). Id. Here, the Court held that the Remand Redetermination reached a finding or inference that was contradicted by record evidence. Id. at 11. The Court explained that it need not decide whether Commerce’s analysis was a correct interpretation of the scope language, “for even if it is, the Department’s decision still must be remanded to Commerce because it relies upon an impermissible finding or inference.” Id. at 13. “Specifically, in rejecting the argument that the finished merchandise exclusion described Columbia’s door thresholds, Commerce impermissibly relied on certain other record evidence submitted by the petitioner and Endura.” Id. The court explained that it was not aware of any evidence on the administrative record supporting a finding or inference that the specific door thresholds at issue in this litigation were so designed and produced as to require cutting or machining prior to incorporation into a door frame or other structure. Id. at 17. Further, Commerce failed to reconcile its analysis with the exemplars the finished merchandise exclusion specifically identified. Id. at 20. The Court could not sustain the Remand Redetermination “which relies upon a factual finding or inference that is contradicted by the record evidence pertaining specifically to Columbia’s imported door thresholds.” Id. at 23. As such, the Court remanded the Remand Redetermination to Commerce for reconsideration. Id. at 23-24.