Importer of Enriched Ammonium Sulfate Says Scope Ruling Should Have Looked to K(1) Factors
Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, an importer of enriched isotope compounds, supported Jan. 23 its October motion for judgment (see 2410250044) over the government’s opposition (see 2412260034). It again said its products aren’t covered by the relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders -- or, alternatively, if the orders are ambiguous, the Commerce Department must conduct an analysis of k(1) factors (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).
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.
The importer again pushed back against the Commerce Department’s scope ruling that its “specially processed” enriched ammonium sulfate, which has 15 nitrogen molecules, is covered by AD and CVD on ammonium sulfate from China. Normally, ammonium sulfate only has 14 nitrogen molecules, it said.
“To equate the two is scientifically illogical and negates the purposes of the Orders,” it said.
If the AD/CVD orders are ambiguous as to whether 15N ammonium sulfate is covered under them, Commerce should have looked to k(1) factors in its scope ruling, it claimed.
First arguing that the orders’ language itself was dispositive, it said that “[b]oth the chemical description and the CAS registry number (though not dispositive)” would have demonstrated that 15N ammonium sulfate was never the intended target of the AD/CVD orders. It argued Commerce, when drafting the orders, specifically chose to include the chemical description and CAS registry number for 14N ammonium sulfate in the language, not just the merchandise’s name. This was important because both characteristics are different for Cambridge’s 15N ammonium sulfate, it said.
So, because “the court has held that subject merchandise may be included in-scope only if the scope language specifically includes the merchandise or may be reasonably interpreted to include it,” either Cambridge’s 15N ammonium sulfate isn’t covered by the orders or the orders are ambiguous, the importer said.
This was true even though the orders’ language doesn’t mention such characteristics as the number of neutrons possessed by each nitrogen atom of the ammonium sulfate, it said.
Further, it said, a binding letter ruling by CBP’s Office of Regulations and Rulings made after Cambridge’s scope ruling application was submitted classified the importer’s product under a different Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading than the one covered by the orders.
Otherwise, if the orders were ambiguous, Commerce should have looked to k(1) factors, Cambridge said. It said the International Trade Commission’s investigation, for example, described the end use of the products covered by the orders to be “primarily as a fertilizer.” This isn’t the end use of Cambridge’s products, it said.
It disagreed that it had waived the argument, saying it had cited the ITC investigation in its scope ruling application.