United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 21-163

Before the Court in China Custom Mfg., Inc., et. al., v. United States, et. al., Court No. 20-00121, Slip Op. 21-163 (December 6, 2021) was Plaintiffs’ challenge against Commerce’s scope determination for antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, in which Commerce determined that Plaintiffs’ solar mounts fall within the scope of the Orders. Id. at 2. In Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the agency record, Plaintiffs argued that the final scope ruling was contrary to law. Id.

Plaintiffs claimed that “the solar mounts at issue should be excluded from the Orders under the finished merchandise exclusion.” Id. at 14. “Commerce found the solar mounts to be covered by the Orders’ plain language” and argued that “the solar mounts do not qualify as finished merchandise and therefore should not be excluded from the Orders.” Id. Although Plaintiffs acknowledged that “the solar mounts do not meet Commerce’s present interpretation of what constitutes finished merchandise,” Plaintiffs argued that Commerce impermissibly modified its interpretation of the finished merchandise exclusion.” Id. at 15.

For the following reasons, the court affirmed Commerce’s final scope determination. Id. at 3. Scope rulings are “highly fact-intensive and case-specific determination[s].” Global Commodity Grp., LLC v. United States, 709 F.3d 1134, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2013)(quoting King Supply Co., LLC v. United States, 674 F.3d 1343, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Id. at 14. As such, the Court “grant[s] significant deference to Commerce’s interpretation of a scope order.” Id. The Court must uphold a scope ruling unless it finds it to be “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” Sango Int’l, L.P. v. United States, 484 F.3d 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007)(quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i)). Id. In this case, the Court reviewed the scope language, the Plaintiffs’ Scope Request, the Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Questionnaire responses, and Commerce’s prior scope rulings, and in doing so, the Court agreed that “the solar mounts are subassemblies — not excludable as finished merchandise.” Id. at 16. Here, in order to apply the product description from the Scope Request to the relevant finished merchandise exclusion language, “Commerce evaluated the scope language while considering the series of scope rulings that followed the Orders.” Id. at 17. The Court explained that “[b]ecause Commerce correctly applied the litany of Federal Circuit precedents interpreting the Orders to the solar mounts presented to it for review, substantial evidence supports Commerce’s determination.” Id. at 26. As such, the Court affirmed Commerce’s scope ruling determination that the solar mounts were included within the scope of the Orders and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record. Id.