Tile Importer Satisfied by Commerce's New Explanation of Ex Parte Meeting With Competitor
Importer Elysium said in remand comments Dec. 2 that the new report of an ex parte meeting the Commerce Department held with Elysium’s competitor, a domestic tile producer, while making a decision on an Elysium scope ruling is “adequate” and “satisfies the legal requirements” (Elysium Tiles v. United States, CIT # 23-00041).
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 also held an ex parte meeting with the importer in October, as Elysium had been requesting during litigation, it said.
However, the importer disagreed with Commerce’s continued finding on remand that Elysium's composite tile is covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China (see 2410290042), saying that its product was not “simply decorated tile.”
The tiles Elysium imports are topped with marble -- something that the department has been calling a mere decorative element. But Elysium argued that the marble removes its tiles from the scope of AD/CVD orders because “the product is chief value marble” and "such marble is permanently bonded with the ceramic component to produce a new and different article of commerce.”
It alleged the department was “rewrit[ing]” the orders by ignoring their definition of ceramic tile as a finished product that is created by firing raw materials, fusing them together. It said that, in ithe case of Elysium’s products, the firing that fuses raw materials doesn’t result in a finished product. Instead, the importer’s tile must undergo “significant” further processing.
“[T]he Department continues to ignore the critical fact that while the product in question may incorporate ceramic tile, but is not ceramic tile,” wrote Elysium’s attorney, David Craven, in the brief.
In turn, defendant-intervenor Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile supported Commerce’s finding. After firing, Elysium’s tiles only undergo “minor” further processing, something that is accounted for by the orders’ specific inclusion of ceramic tiles with decorative elements, it said.
“The Coalition cannot help but point out that the surface of virtually all ceramic tile products differs from the back side of the tile, so as to impart a look and feel that is appealing to the consumer,” it said.
It noted that the orders specify that tiles with decorative elements that exceed 3.2 centimeters of height “in spots” are still covered, and “it would make no logical sense” to include this “while excluding tile with decorative features that do not result in portions of the surface exceeding the scope’s thickness specification,” such as Elysium’s marble layers.