United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 20-121

Before the Court in Fabuwood Cabinetry Corp., et. al., v. United States, et. al., Court No. 18-00208, Slip Op. 20-121 (August 19, 2020) was challenge by plaintiffs to Commerce’s scope ruling, made at the request of defendant-intervenors, regarding the scope of antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain hardwood plywood products from China. Plaintiffs alleged “procedural defects and wrongful interpretation of the scope of the original AD and CVD orders.” Id. at 3. “Plaintiffs argue that Commerce (1) impermissibly conducted the scope proceeding below because the scope request did not include a particular product … (2) acted arbitrarily by stopping at the first step of scope analysis, incorrectly concluding that the plain language of the Orders was dispositive; and (3) erred in including kitchen cabinets and furniture parts within the scope of the Orders.” Id. at 13. For the following reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and held that Commerce’s acceptance of Petitioner’s scope ruling request was unsupported by substantial evidence.

Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(a), when “issues arise as to whether a particular product is included within the scope of an antidumping or countervailing duty order,” Commerce may issue “scope rulings that clarify the scope of an order or suspected investigation with respect to particular products.” Id. at 4. “The plain language of an antidumping order is ‘paramount’ in determining whether particular products are included within its scope” and, “in reviewing the plain language of a duty order, Commerce must consider the § 351.225(k)(1) factors.” Id. at 5. In this case, the Court said that the scope ruling did not “explain its action with sufficient clarity to permit ‘effective judicial review.’” Id. at 15. The Court said Commerce failed to address the threshold issue of whether Petitioner met the regulatory criteria under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(c) for a request for a scope injury. However the Court did note, “concerns of circumvention did not render Commerce’s final scope ruling unlawful.” Id. at 17. The Court also found that Commerce failed to conduct the scope ruling pursuant to the regulatory requirement and failed to consider § 351.225(k)(1) factors. Id. at 18. As such, the Court remanded the final scope ruling to Commerce for further consideration.