Trade Court Excludes All But 5 Models of Exporter's Mattresses From AD Order
The Commerce Department properly excluded various mattress models made by exporter PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia from the antidumping duty order on mattresses from Indonesia for being either "multifunctional furniture" or "mattress toppers," the Court of International Trade held on March 7. However, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said five models of PT Ecos' mattresses didn't clearly qualify for the mattress topper exclusion, since the evidence didn't sufficiently establish that they were used on top of mattresses.
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.
Choe-Groves ultimately remanded parts of the 2020-22 administrative review of the AD order in light of the government's request for a voluntary remand to reconsider the calculation of constructed value profit, selling expenses and constructed export price ratios.
During the review, PT Ecos was consolidated with PT Grantec Jaya Indonesia to serve as one mandatory respondent, and the combined entity sought exclusions for its merchandise under the AD order. First, Ecos/Grantec claimed that two variations of its floor sofas qualify for the multifunctional furniture exclusion. Commerce looked to Ecos/Grantec's product brochure as evidence and agreed, excluding the products.
The trade court first reviewed the scope language itself and found it to be unambiguous. The exclusion covers multifunctional furniture "that is convertible from seating to sleeping, regardless of filler material or components, where that filler material or components are upholstered, integrated into the design and construction of, and inseparable from, the furniture framing, and the outermost layer of the multifunctional furniture converts into the sleeping surface.”
Choe-Groves provided dictionary definitions of each key term in the exclusion and found each clause of the exclusion to be unambiguous. Focusing on the second clause of the exclusion, which concerned how the filler material is integrated into the furniture framing, Choe-Groves held that the provision clearly means the filler "must be incorporated into or connected to the 'furniture framing.'"
Petitioner Brooklyn Bedding said the decision to exclude the floor sofas at issue wasn't properly supported by evidence, since Ecos/Grantec's products don't have any "furniture framing," adding that the products' frame must be made of non-foam materials. Choe-Groves rejected this claim, finding that the exclusion's "plain language" doesn't require the framing to be made of "any particular material."
As for whether the floor sofas are integrated into the furniture framing, the court said record evidence supports Commerce's position. The respondent's "product brochure showed that the floor mattress was convertible from seating to sleeping," the foam parts were "integrated and inseparable from the furniture framing" and the product "provided an underlying constructional system or structure that gave shape and strength to the sofa," the court said.
The petitioner also challenged Commerce's decision to exclude 10 models of Ecos/Grantec's tri-folding mattresses under the mattress topper exclusion. Choe-Groves again began the discussion of the exclusions by saying the scope language at play here is unambiguous. The exclusion removes from the order products with a height of less than four inches with a "removable bedding accessory that supplements a mattress by providing an additional layer that is placed on top of a mattress."
For five of Ecos/Grantec's tri-folding mattresses, Choe-Groves said the exclusion is clearly met. Brooklyn Bedding argued that the respondent's product brochure shows that its products were marketed as traditional mattresses rather than as mattress supplements and weren't designed or made in sizes that "correspond to traditional mattress sizes." Choe-Groves rejected both claims, first finding that the scope language doesn't prohibit a product from having dual uses as a mattress and topper or require that the products fit the traditional mattress sizes. The brochure said the tri-fold mattresses could be used on dorm room beds, making Commerce's reliance on this evidence valid, the court said.
The judge then held that the evidence doesn't support the exclusion of the remaining five tri-fold mattress models. In the marketing materials for one of these five models, there was no indication that the products "could be used on top of a dorm room bed." Instead, the materials say the product can be used as "an option for ... dorm room bed."
Choe-Groves indicated that, while "subtle," the distinction in the marketing materials between being used on a dorm bed and being used as an option for a dorm bed is significant. "Without a clear indication from the evidence" that the product could be used as a supplement to a mattress, the court said the evidence doesn't support excluding this model. As for the other four, the materials make no mention of them and their label as a "topper" in the respondent's product specification sheets isn't enough to make them qualify as toppers, the court said.
(PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia v. United States, Slip Op. 25-23, CIT Consol. # 24-00001, dated 03/07/25; Judge: Jennifer Choe-Groves; Attorneys: Jarrod Goldfeder of Trade Pacific for plaintiffs PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia/PT Grantec Jaya Indonesia; Yohai Baisburd of Cassidy Levy for consolidated plaintiffs and defendant-intervenors led by Brooklyn Bedding; L. Misha Preheim for defendant U.S. government)