Importers Back Commerce's Finding That Door Thresholds Qualify for Finished Merchandise Exclusion
The Commerce Department properly found that importers Worldwide Door Components' and Columbia Aluminum Products' door thresholds qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion for the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, the importers said in a pair of comments on Commerce's remand results. Submitting their arguments to the Court of International Trade, Worldwide and Columbia said that the trade court should uphold the agency's remand results excluding the thresholds from the orders (Worldwide Door Components v. U.S., CIT #19-00012) (Columbia Aluminum Products v. U.S., CIT #19-00013).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Commerce initially found the door thresholds subject to AD/CVD for a number of reasons, including that door thresholds are specifically mentioned in the scope and that they are subassemblies of larger doors and can’t qualify for the “finished merchandise” exemption. The trade court ruled that Commerce based its analysis on inferences that were contradicted by other information on the record. The agency went back to the drawing board, and in its second remand results, excluded the thresholds under the finished merchandise exclusion.
While CIT had questioned Commerce’s reasoning in its prior decisions on the scope rulings, CIT said the second remand redetermination also misunderstood CIT’s qualms. The court said that Commerce failed to present any reasoning for ruling that the door thresholds are outside of the scope of the orders, and that the remand is not a final agency decision that can be sustained by the court (see 2208110044). Filing its third remand in the case, Commerce stuck by its position for Worldwide and Columbia, though it offered further explanation (see 2209090056). The agency also said it doesn't intend to issue a scope ruling after the court's review, making their determination reviewable by the court.
In response, both Worldwide and Columbia urged CIT to uphold the agency's finding. Worldwide, in its comments, said that Commerce cleared the two hurdles for finding that the thresholds are finished merchandise. The agency found that the thresholds are fully assembled at the time of entry and have both extruded aluminum and non-extruded aluminum parts. For the first criteria, Commerce held that the thresholds are fully assembled at the time of entry and are ready for installation within a door frame without any further finishing, and that no further information could be found to "contradict this characterization."
For the parts of the thresholds, Commerce found that the products have extruded aluminum parts such as the aluminum caps and covers, but that the goods also have non-extruded aluminum parts such as synthetic plastic polymers, wood and stainless steel. As such, the agency properly found that the thresholds qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion, the comments said. Columbia echoed these remarks in its comments.