Remand Definition of Wood Mouldings, Millwork Products Wouldn’t Expand Orders, US Says
The U.S. disagreed May 30 with an importer’s claim that the Commerce Department’s post-remand scope ruling on wood mouldings and millwork products expanded relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders to cover “an infinite universe of products.” The orders are simply intentionally broad, it said (Hardware Resources v. United States, CIT # 23-00150).
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 department’s original scope ruling was remanded by Court of International Trade Judge Joseph Laroski -- in his first opinion for the trade court -- for failing to determine whether Hardware Resources’ products actually were wood mouldings or millwork products (see 2412170026). Commerce again found Hardware Resources’ products to be in scope on remand (see 2503180061). In an April 30 filing, the importer opposed the remand results, arguing that the department had created a new definition of “wood mouldings and millwork products” that unlawfully expanded the scope of the orders on the products.
The government disagreed in its May 30 response brief. Commerce “simply” looked to (k)(1) sources to interpret the phrase “wood mouldings and millwork products,” something the department has the authority to do, it said.
Although Hardware Resources claimed that Commerce’s interpretation applied to “any product made of wood that is processed after importation,” it failed to consider that the (k)(1) sources use “mouldings” and “millwork” as “broad and general terms,” the government said.
For example, the International Trade Commission’s injury report said “the universe of millwork products is extensive and diverse,” defining “millwork” as “a general term referring to woodwork that is produced in a mill,” it said.
In fact, Hardware Resources’ preferred interpretation, which would limit the phrase to cover only “wood for use in functional and decorative applications in residential and non-residential construction and blanks that were later machined or moulded into a final profile,” would actually render the orders’ exclusion for wooden cabinets and vanities superfluous, it said.
The importer also claimed that Commerce’s interpretation added back into the orders language that had been removed during the department’s initial investigation, but this wasn’t persuasive, either, the government claimed.
Initially, the petition for the investigations defined subject merchandise as “woodwork or building materials that are produced in a mill or otherwise undergo remanufacturing,” but the petitioner removed that part prior to the investigations’ start. However, that could have happened for any number of reasons, DOJ said.
“The salient point is that the scope continued to include the phrase ‘wood mouldings and millwork products,’ and that the (k)(1) sources clearly described this phrase,” it said.
This case is distinguishable from another recent one, Fedmet Res. Corp (see 2412130061), because Hardware Resources can’t point to anything said by the petitioner that would run contrary to Commerce’s interpretation of the orders’ language, it argued.
And it denied that primary source evidence supported applying an end-use restriction to the orders. Hardware Resources argued for one based on the “illustrative uses of subject merchandise mentioned in the petition,” such as a description of the covered products as a floor or wall covering, but the government said that all petitioners must provide these “exemplary uses” when seeking an investigation because it’s required by Commerce.
Hardware Resources’ citations to the ITC injury report likewise target only “discussions” and “testimony by industry witnesses” in regard to these illustrative uses of wood mouldings and millwork products, it said. None of them provide any evidence for an end-use restriction, it claimed.
Further, it's Commerce, not the ITC, that defines the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders, the government said. It added that the ITC released its report after Commerce published a preliminary scope decision memorandum that “clearly” defined the products, and in it, the commission supported the department’s definition.
DOJ also argued that Hardware Resources’ products would still be covered by the orders even if Commerce did adopt the importer’s preferred definition of “wood mouldings and millwork products.” The department found that Hardware Resources’ boards “could be used for a variety of functional applications -- including as cabinet parts and ‘other applications.’” The importer didn’t challenge this “alternative factual finding” in its remand comments, DOJ said.