[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31451-31452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11205]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-967; C-570-968]
Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice
of Second Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 22, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(the CAFC) reversed and remanded the Court of International Trade's
(CIT) earlier decision regarding the Department of Commerce's
(Commerce) scope ruling under the antidumping duty (AD) and
countervailing duty (CVD) orders on aluminum extrusions from the
People's Republic of China (China) involving Meridian Products, LLC's
(Meridian's) Type B door handles. The CAFC instructed the CIT to vacate
Commerce's initial remand redetermination that the CIT had previously
sustained, reinstate Commerce's original scope ruling, and remand for
further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In the original scope
ruling, Commerce found that Meridian's Type B door handles were covered
by the scope of the AD and CVD orders. In Commerce's redetermination
upon remand from the CAFC, Commerce found that the extruded aluminum
component of each Type B handle is within the scope of the AD and CVD
orders while the other components (plastic end caps and screws) are
not. On April 6, 2020, the CIT sustained Commerce's remand
redetermination. Accordingly, Commerce is issuing a second amended
final scope ruling.
DATES: Applicable May 26, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations,
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6071.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 21, 2013, Commerce issued a final scope ruling in which it
determined that three types of kitchen appliance door handles (Types A,
B, and C) imported by Meridian are within the scope of the Orders \1\
and do not meet the scope exclusions for ``finished merchandise'' and
``finished goods kits.'' \2\ Meridian challenged Commerce's final scope
ruling at the CIT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China:
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011); Aluminum
Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty
Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011) (collectively, Orders).
\2\ See Memorandum, ``Final Scope Ruling on Meridian Kitchen
Appliance Door Handles,'' dated June 21, 2013 (Kitchen Appliance
Door Handles Scope Ruling) at 12-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 7, 2015, the CIT affirmed, in part, Commerce's Kitchen
Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling finding that Meridian's Type A
handles (consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion) and Type C
handles (consisting of a single piece of aluminum extrusion packed as a
``kit'' with a tool and an instruction manual) are within the scope of
the Orders based on a plain reading of the scope language.\3\ The CIT,
however, remanded Commerce's determination that Meridian's Type B
handles are also within the scope of the Orders. The CIT also
instructed Commerce to provide clarification on its scope ruling in
view of the CIT's decision that Type B handles are ``assemblies'' not
within the scope of orders, because the extruded aluminum handles are
packaged with two plastic injection molded end caps and two screws.\4\
The CIT further found that, assuming arguendo that Meridian's Type B
handles were covered by the scope language, Commerce erred in finding
that the products did not satisfy the scope's ``finished merchandise''
exclusion.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Meridian Products LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-
00246, Slip Op. 15-135 at 6-9.
\4\ Id. at 10-13.
\5\ Id. at 13-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 23, 2016, Commerce issued its Final Results of
Redetermination, in which it found, under respectful protest, that
Meridian's Type B handles are not covered by the scope of the Orders,
[[Page 31452]]
because the general scope language did not cover such products. As a
result, Commerce did not consider whether Meridian's Type B handles
were subject to the exclusion for ``finished merchandise.'' \6\ On July
18, 2016, the CIT sustained Commerce's findings in the Final Results of
Redetermination that Meridian's Type B handles are not covered by the
scope of the Orders.\7\ Commerce subsequently published notice of the
CIT's decision not in harmony with Commerce's final scope ruling and
notice of amended final scope ruling pursuant to the CIT's decision.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-00246,
Slip Op. 15-135 (CIT December 7, 2015) (Final Results of
Redetermination).
\7\ See Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-
00246, Slip Op. 16-71 at 11.
\8\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Scope Ruling and
Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 81
FR 52402 (August 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC), the petitioner
in the underlying investigations, appealed. On May 22, 2018, the CAFC
reversed and remanded the CIT's final judgement, instructed the CIT to
vacate Commerce's remand redetermination, and ordered the CIT to
reinstate Commerce's original scope ruling and remand for further
proceedings consistent with the opinion.\9\ The CAFC held that
Commerce's original scope ruling determination (i.e., that Type B
handles are included within the general scope of the Orders) was
reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.\10\ The CAFC remanded
for Commerce to clarify whether Type B handles are fully and
permanently assembled at the time of entry.\11\ The CAFC reasoned if
Commerce determined that the Type B handles are imported unassembled,
the original scope ruling controls, but if Commerce determined that the
Type B handles were imported fully and permanently assembled, then
Commerce must address whether the Type B handles are excluded from the
scope as ``finished merchandise.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, 890 F.3d 1272,
1282 (CAFC 2018).
\10\ Id., 890 F.3d at 1281.
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 15, 2019, Commerce issued its Second Remand Redetermination
in response to the CAFC's remand order.\13\ In the Second Remand
Redetermination, Commerce determined that the finished merchandise
exclusion does not apply to the Type B handles and that the extruded
aluminum component of each Type B handle is within the scope of the
Orders, while the other components (plastic end caps and screws) are
not.\14\ On April 6, 2020, the CIT sustained Commerce's ruling in the
Second Remand Redetermination.\15\ No party contested Commerce's Second
Remand Redetermination.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Final Results of Second Remand Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, 890 F. 3d
1272 (CAFC 2018) (Second Remand Redetermination).
\14\ Id.
\15\ See Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, Court No. 13-
00246, Slip Op. 20-43 (CIT April 6, 2020).
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Scope Ruling
There is now a final court decision with respect to Commerce's
Kitchen Appliance Door Handles Scope Ruling. Therefore, Commerce issues
this second amended final scope ruling and finds that the extruded
aluminum component of each Type B handle is within the scope of the
Orders, while the other components (plastic end caps and screws) are
not.
Accordingly, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to continue to suspend liquidation of Meridian's Type B
handles until appropriate liquidation instructions are sent. As of the
date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, the cash
deposit rate for entries of the extruded aluminum component of
Meridian's Type B handles will be the applicable cash deposit rate of
the exporters of the merchandise from China to the United States.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section
516A(c)(1) and (e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Dated: May 18, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-11205 Filed 5-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P