US, Domestic Producer Defend CIT Artist Canvas Scope Decision Before CAFC
The U.S. and domestic producer Ecker Textiles this week defended the Court of International Trade’s ruling that an importer’s canvas banner matisse was covered by an antidumping duty order on artist canvas. They disagreed that the order was void for vagueness, saying at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the importer was trying to argue the order only covers the exact products made by domestic industries (Printing Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 25-1213).
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 order covers artist canvases “that have been primed/coated.” It goes on to explain that “[p]riming/coating includes the application of a solution, designed to promote the adherence of artist materials, such as paint or ink, to the fabric.” In his October decision, CIT Judge Timothy Stanceu said he found the latter sentence to be ambiguous; the order wasn’t clear whether the priming or coating undergone by subject merchandise must be meant to “promote the adherence of artist materials” (see 2410090022). But he found Commerce’s interpretation reasonable.
The importer, Printing Textiles (doing business as Berger Textiles), argued in its opening CAFC brief that the order was unconstitutionally vague (see 2501290063).
It also said the Commerce Department’s (k)(1) analysis of an ambiguous sentence in the order was faulty, saying the department was expanding the scope of the orders to include Berger’s products. It claims its canvas banner matisse don’t meet the scope requirements because their coatings are meant for fireproofing or waterproofing. The coats are “ink-receptive,” but don’t “promote the adherence” of ink, it said in earlier filings (see 2402270079).
The U.S. and Ecker disagreed on both counts. First, the order was "neither vague nor open-ended," the U.S. said.
"Berger does not substantiate its vagueness claim but instead simply concludes that, because Berger sought clarification as to whether CBM is covered by the Order, the language of the Order must, then, be vague," it said.
Second, Commerce looked at all of the (k)(1) sources to find that Berger’s canvasses were “primed/coated to promote the adherence of artist materials," it said. Other importers had proven their products were excluded by the scope when those products, for example, required artist materials to be “applied directly to the fibers of the canvas’ fabric, not to the canvas’ surface coating,” it noted.
And it said Commerce hadn’t misinterpreted petitioner Tara’s intent in seeking the order. Tara’s particular products contained a “gesso formula,” which the department found was “synonymous with priming/coating a canvas.” But that didn’t mean that the specific gesso formula “is the exclusive priming/coating solution required of subject artist canvas,” as the department held in a prior scope ruling, it said.
“Tara even acknowledged uncertainty as to what ‘processes and materials’ foreign producers use to produce print canvas,” it said.
Ecker -- which purchased Tara -- agreed. It said the importer wanted CAFC to “adopt a requirement” that the order’s subject merchandise be “made of identical materials, and with the identical processes” as Tara’s. But that didn’t appear anywhere in the language of the order, it said.
Ecker also argued that the scope language wasn’t actually ambiguous. It said that the trial court apparently believed that canvas banner matisse doesn’t have coatings “to promote adherence of ink.” But even Berger’s own patent described the canvas as being coated with a “receiving layer” that was “excellent in ink receptivity,” Ecker said.
In fact, it said, Berger “simply ignores its own descriptions of [canvas banner mattise’s] uses as ‘art reproduction,’ stretched canvas,’ ‘Important for Latex-print: glossy print with high color brilliance, water- & scratch-resistance,” and of the product as “[a]n ink jet receiving medium having an ink receptive coating on a substrate,” the producer said.