Meridian Products, LLC v. United States , 890 F.3d 1272 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •   United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,
    Plaintiff
    v.
    UNITED STATES,
    Defendant
    ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS FAIR TRADE
    COMMITTEE,
    Defendant-Appellant
    ______________________
    2016-2657
    ______________________
    Appeal from the United States Court of International
    Trade in No. 1:13-cv-00246-TCS, Chief Judge Timothy C.
    Stanceu.
    ______________________
    Decided: May 22, 2018
    ______________________
    FRANCES PIERSON HADFIELD, Crowell & Moring,
    LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Al-
    so represented by ALEXANDER SCHAEFER, Washington,
    DC.
    2                  MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES
    ROBERT E. DEFRANCESCO, III, Wiley Rein, LLP,
    Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Al-
    so represented by ALAN H. PRICE, TESSA V. CAPELOTO,
    DERICK HOLT.
    ______________________
    Before NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
    REYNA, Circuit Judge.
    Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee appeals
    the decision of the United States Court of International
    Trade affirming a remand determination of the United
    States Department of Commerce. Commerce originally
    determined that imports of certain extruded aluminum
    door handles for kitchen appliances that are packaged for
    importation with two plastic end caps and two screws are
    within the scope of relevant antidumping and countervail-
    ing duty orders. On appeal, the Court of International
    Trade concluded that Commerce’s original scope ruling
    was unreasonable and unsupported by substantial evi-
    dence and remanded to Commerce for reconsideration.
    On remand, Commerce determined, under protest, that
    the subject products are not included in the scope of the
    relevant orders. The Court of International Trade af-
    firmed Commerce’s redetermination. We reverse and
    remand.
    BACKGROUND
    I. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders
    On March 31, 2010, the Aluminum Extrusions Fair
    Trade Committee (“AEFTC”) and the United Steel, Paper,
    and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied
    Industrial and Service Workers International Union filed
    petitions with Commerce requesting initiation of anti-
    dumping and countervailing duty investigations on im-
    ports of certain aluminum extrusions from the People’s
    MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES                3
    Republic of China. On April 27, 2010, Commerce initiated
    antidumping and countervailing duty investigations
    based on those petitions. On May 26, 2011, Commerce
    issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders on
    aluminum extrusions from China. See Aluminum Extru-
    sions from the People’s Republic of China (“Antidumping
    Duty Order”), 76 Fed. Reg. 30,650 (Dep’t of Commerce
    May 26, 2011); Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s
    Republic of China (“Countervailing Duty Order”), 76 Fed.
    Reg. 30,653 (Dep’t of Commerce May 26, 2011). 1 The
    antidumping duty order describes the scope of the duty
    order as covering imports from China of aluminum extru-
    sions that are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion
    process, made from specified aluminum alloys. Anti-
    dumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,650. The extru-
    sions possess “a wide variety of shapes and forms” in “a
    variety of finishes.” 
    Id. The following
    is a relevant ex-
    cerpt of the scope language:
    Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at
    the time of importation as parts for final finished
    products that are assembled after importation, in-
    cluding, but not limited to, window frames, door
    frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or furniture.
    Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of
    aluminum extrusions are included in the scope.
    The scope includes the aluminum extrusion com-
    ponents that are attached (e.g., by welding or fas-
    teners) to form subassemblies, i.e., partially
    1    The antidumping and countervailing duty orders
    recite the same scope. Compare Antidumping Duty
    Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,650–51, with Countervailing
    Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,653–54. For ease of refer-
    ence, only the scope of the Antidumping Duty Order is
    cited.
    4                   MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES
    assembled merchandise unless imported as part of
    the finished goods ‘kit’ defined further below. The
    scope does not include the non-aluminum extru-
    sion components of subassemblies or subject kits.
    
    Id. at 30,650–51.
       The scope also contains several
    exclusions:
    The scope also excludes finished merchandise con-
    taining aluminum extrusions as parts that are ful-
    ly and permanently assembled and completed at
    the time of entry, such as finished windows with
    glass, doors with glass or vinyl, picture frames
    with glass pane and backing material, and solar
    panels. The scope also excludes finished goods
    containing aluminum extrusions that are entered
    unassembled in a “finished goods kit.” A finished
    goods kit is understood to mean a packaged com-
    bination of parts that contains, at the time of im-
    portation, all of the necessary parts to fully
    assemble a final finished good and requires no
    further finishing or fabrication, such as cutting or
    punching, and is assembled “as is” into a finished
    product. An imported product will not be consid-
    ered a “finished goods kit” and therefore excluded
    from the scope of the [Orders] merely by including
    fasteners such as screws, bolts, etc. in the packag-
    ing with an aluminum extrusion product.
    
    Id. at 30,651.
                        II. Scope Ruling Request
    The scope of an antidumping duty order may be chal-
    lenged upon a request for a ruling on the scope of the
    order, i.e., whether particular merchandise is covered by
    the scope of the order. 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(c)(1). On
    January 11, 2013, Meridian requested that Commerce
    review the scope of the antidumping duty order to confirm
    whether three types of imported aluminum extruded
    MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES                 5
    kitchen appliance door handles are within the scope of the
    antidumping duty order. Meridian described the three
    types of door handles as follows:
    (1) Type A handles are for attachment to oven
    doors. They are made of aluminum extrusions,
    which are brushed and anodized. Holes are
    drilled in the handles.
    (2) Type B handles are for attachment to oven
    doors. The handles are made of aluminum extru-
    sions, plus two plastic injection molded end caps
    at each end. The end caps are used to fasten the
    handle to the door. Holes are drilled in the han-
    dles. 2
    (3) Type C handles are for attachment to freezer
    doors. They are made of aluminum extrusions
    and include an allen wrench and installation in-
    structions. Holes are drilled in the handles.
    J.A. 540.
    Meridian argued that the door handles meet the “fin-
    ished goods kit” exclusion and are therefore not within the
    scope of the order. J.A. 112, 131. Commerce initiated a
    formal scope inquiry on February 25, 2013, and solicited
    additional information from interested parties.
    III. Procedural History
    On June 21, 2013, Commerce issued its final scope
    ruling based on its consideration of submissions by the
    parties, the “description of the products in the Scope
    2    In addition to the end caps that “are used to fas-
    ten the handle to the door,” imports of the Type B handles
    included two screws. The same is true with respect to the
    Type A and C handles.
    6                  MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES
    Request, the scope language, and the Department’s previ-
    ous scope rulings concerning the Orders.” J.A. 550.
    Commerce found that all of Meridian’s handles are cov-
    ered by the scope of the antidumping duty order. J.A.
    550–53.
    With respect to the Type B handles, the only handle
    subject to this appeal, Commerce determined that Merid-
    ian’s products, with the exception of the fasteners, consist
    entirely of aluminum extrusions covered by the scope of
    the antidumping duty order. Commerce found that the
    Type B handles were not “finished goods kits” because the
    “scope of the Orders indicates that the inclusion of fasten-
    ers in the packaging will not transform an aluminum
    extrusion product into a finished goods kit.” J.A. 550. In
    addition, Commerce found that the “scope expressly
    includes aluminum extrusions which are identified by
    reference to their end use.” 
    Id. Commerce concluded
    that
    Meridian’s Type B handles were identified by their end
    use (handles for kitchen oven doors), and that they other-
    wise met the general scope definitions. Based on these
    findings, Commerce determined that the Type B handles
    were within the scope of the Orders. Commerce concluded
    that the 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1) factors, specifically the
    “scope of the Orders and prior scope rulings” were disposi-
    tive, and that it was unnecessary to consider the 19
    C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2) factors. J.A. 550.
    A. Meridian I
    Meridian appealed Commerce’s final scope ruling to
    the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”).
    The CIT affirmed Commerce’s scope ruling that Type A
    and Type C door handles consisting of a single extruded
    handle (and fasteners etc.) are within the scope of the
    orders. Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States, 125 F.
    Supp. 3d 1306, 1310–12 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (“Meridian
    I”). Meridian does not challenge or appeal before the
    court the Type A and Type C rulings.
    MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES                   7
    The CIT, however, determined the Type B handles are
    “assemblies” not within the scope because the extruded
    aluminum handles are packaged with two plastic injec-
    tion molded end caps, and two screws. The CIT explained
    that the plastic end caps are not fasteners but “specialized
    parts, molded to a shape necessary to their function as
    components of a complete handle assembly, in which they
    are fitted to the ends of the extruded aluminum compo-
    nent.” 
    Id. at 1314.
    Based on these conclusions, the CIT
    held that the Type B handles are not within the general
    scope of the antidumping duty order.
    The CIT further concluded that even if the Type B
    handles are within the scope, they would be excluded
    under the “finished merchandise” exclusion because the
    Type B handles are ready for use “as is” at the time of
    importation. 
    Id. at 1315–16.
    Because the CIT identified
    record evidence that the Type B handles were assembled
    at the time of entry, it faulted Commerce for “not ana-
    lyz[ing] the Type B handles separately with respect to the
    finished merchandise exclusion,” but rather “address[ing]
    all three handle types simultaneously.” 
    Id. The CIT
    remanded to Commerce instructing Com-
    merce to provide clarification on its scope ruling in view of
    the CIT’s decision that “Type B handles are not included
    within the general scope of the antidumping duty order.”
    
    Id. at 1312–16.
                             B. Meridian II
    On remand, Commerce affirmed that its original
    scope ruling was correct. In its Final Result of Redeter-
    mination, Commerce determined that “the Type B door
    handles are covered by the general scope language and
    are not excluded under either the ‘finished merchandise’
    or ‘finished goods kit’ exclusions.” J.A. 34 (Commerce’s
    Remand Redetermination dated March 23, 2016). Com-
    merce specifically found that both the scope language and
    record evidence supported its finding that the plastic end
    8                  MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES
    caps of the Type B handles should be treated as fasteners.
    J.A. 31. But, given the CIT’s remand order, Commerce
    determined, under protest, that the Type B door handles
    are not included in the scope of the order. J.A. 29–30, 36. 3
    The CIT affirmed Commerce’s remand determination,
    finding that substantial record evidence supports Com-
    merce’s finding that the Type B handles are not covered
    by the scope of the order. Meridian Prods., LLC v. United
    States, 
    180 F. Supp. 3d 1283
    , 1292 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2016)
    (“Meridian II”). The AEFTC timely appealed. We have
    jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    This court reviews de novo CIT decisions concerning
    antidumping and countervailing duties. Atlantic Sugar,
    Ltd. v. United States, 
    744 F.2d 1556
    , 1559 n.10 (Fed. Cir.
    1984). When reviewing antidumping duty scope rulings,
    we apply the same substantial evidence standard of
    review as does the CIT. See Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum
    Indus. Eng’g Co. v. United States, 
    776 F.3d 1351
    , 1354
    (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we will uphold a scope
    determination if it is supported by substantial evidence
    and is otherwise in accordance with law. 19 U.S.C.
    § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).   Substantial evidence is relevant
    evidence that a reasonable mind may accept as adequate
    3   In general, Commerce will reach a remand deter-
    mination under protest under circumstances where the
    CIT remands with instructions that dictate a certain
    outcome that is contrary to how Commerce would other-
    wise find. See Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 
    343 F.3d 1371
    , 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that Commerce
    preserves its right to appeal in instances where Com-
    merce makes a determination under protest and the CIT
    sustains its decision after remand).
    MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES                9
    to support a conclusion. Eckstrom Indus., Inc. v. United
    States, 
    254 F.3d 1068
    , 1071 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    We afford significant deference to Commerce’s own in-
    terpretation of its orders, mindful that scope determina-
    tions are “highly fact-intensive and case-specific.” King
    Supply Co. v. United States, 
    674 F.3d 1343
    , 1345, 1348
    (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Meridian Prods. LLC v. United
    States, 
    851 F.3d 1375
    , 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
    DISCUSSION
    I
    Under United States trade law, Commerce is author-
    ized to impose antidumping duties on imports that have
    been deemed as sold in the United States at less than fair
    value, and countervailing duties on imports that benefit
    from certain government subsidies in their country of
    manufacture. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673, 1671. At the conclu-
    sion of an antidumping or countervailing duty investiga-
    tion, assuming the requisite affirmative findings are
    made, Commerce issues orders imposing antidumping or
    countervailing duties on imports of the goods that were
    investigated in the respective underlying investigations.
    A description of the goods that are subject to antidumping
    or countervailing duties is provided in the duty order.
    When questions arise as to whether a particular product
    is included within the scope of an antidumping or coun-
    tervailing duty order, an interested party may request
    that Commerce issue a “scope ruling” to clarify the scope
    with respect to the particular product. See 19 C.F.R.
    § 351.255(a); see 
    Shenyang, 776 F.3d at 1354
    (“There is no
    specific statutory provision governing the interpretation
    of the scope of antidumping or countervailing [duty]
    orders.”). This case involves such a scope ruling request
    made by Meridian.
    This Court recently clarified the legal framework re-
    quired of Commerce in making scope ruling determina-
    10                   MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES
    tions. See 
    Meridian, 851 F.3d at 1381
    –82. First, the
    plain language of an antidumping order is “paramount” in
    determining whether particular products are included
    within its scope. King 
    Supply, 674 F.3d at 1345
    . “If the
    scope is unambiguous, it governs.” 
    Meridian, 851 F.3d at 1381
    . In reviewing the plain language of a duty order,
    Commerce must consider “[t]he descriptions of the mer-
    chandise contained in the petition, the initial investiga-
    tion, and the determinations of the Secretary (including
    prior scope determinations) and the Commission.” 19
    C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1).
    Second, if the above sources do not dispositively an-
    swer the question, Commerce may consider the following
    so-called (k)(2) factors:
    (i)     The physical characteristics of the product;
    (ii)    The expectations of the ultimate purchas-
    ers;
    (iii)   The ultimate use of the product;
    (iv)    The channels of trade in which the product
    is sold; and
    (v)     The manner in which the product is adver-
    tised and displayed.
    19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2). As the question in this appeal
    is dispositively resolved under the criteria in 19 C.F.R.
    § 351.225(k)(1), we do not reach the (k)(2) factors.
    II
    AEFTC argues that Commerce’s original scope ruling
    is supported by substantial evidence, and that the CIT
    failed to give deference to Commerce’s interpretation and
    fact finding. AEFTC contends that the CIT impermissibly
    substituted its judgment for that of Commerce to conclude
    that the plastic end caps render the handles “assemblies”
    MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES                  11
    and thereby exclude the Type B handles from the general
    scope language. We agree.
    There is no dispute that the Type B handles alone
    consist of extruded aluminum products that meet the
    physical descriptions of merchandise subject to the order.
    In addition, the parties do not dispute Commerce’s ruling
    that the Type A and C handles are within the scope,
    despite that imports of those handles also include screws.
    The relevant difference between the three types of han-
    dles is that Type B handles include two plastic end caps
    while the other handles do not. Stated differently, but for
    the end caps, the Type B handle would also be covered by
    the scope of the order. This appeal, therefore, turns on
    whether the plastic end caps remove the Type B handles
    from the general scope and, if not, whether the Type B
    handles fall within one or more of the scope exclusions.
    A. Commerce’s Original Scope Ruling
    Applying our legal framework, we first turn to the
    plain language of the antidumping duty order. 
    Meridian, 851 F.3d at 1383
    . The general scope language describes
    the subject merchandise covered by the order as “alumi-
    num extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by
    an extrusion process, made from aluminum alloys.”
    Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,650. The
    scope also states in relevant part:
    Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at
    the time of importation as parts for final finished
    products that are assembled after importation . . .
    The scope includes the aluminum extrusion com-
    ponents that are attached (e.g., by welding or fas-
    teners) to form subassemblies, i.e., partially
    assembled merchandise unless imported as part of
    the finished goods ‘kit’ . . . Subject extrusions may
    be identified with reference to their end use . . .
    Such goods are subject merchandise if they other-
    wise meet the scope definition . . .
    12                  MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES
    
    Id. at 30,650–51.
        Commerce concluded that the Type B handles are
    within the scope of the plain language of the duty order
    because they are aluminum extrusions made of 6000
    series aluminum alloy, which match the physical descrip-
    tion of the subject merchandise. J.A. 550. That is, the
    handles are “aluminum extrusions which are shapes and
    forms,” made of an aluminum alloy that is covered by the
    general scope of the antidumping duty order.
    Commerce further found that the plastic end caps on
    the Type B handle did not change this characterization,
    because the end caps are fasteners. Although a descrip-
    tion of fasteners only appears in the “finished goods kit”
    scope exclusion, the “finished goods kit” language informs
    what may constitute a fastener in the context of the scope
    of the antidumping duty order as a whole. The “finished
    goods kit” language states that “[a]n imported product
    will not be considered a ‘finished goods kit’ and therefore,
    excluded from the scope of the investigation merely by
    including fasteners such as screws, bolts, etc. in the
    packaging with an aluminum extrusion product.” Anti-
    dumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651 (emphasis
    added).
    Commerce determined that both the scope language
    and the record evidence support a finding that the plastic
    end caps in question are fasteners. Commerce, therefore,
    concluded that “Meridian’s products consist entirely of
    aluminum extrusions, with the exception of fasteners,
    which, by the language of the scope, do not remove the
    aluminum extrusion product from the scope.” J.A. 551.
    Meridian does not fully dispute that the end caps are
    fasteners. Meridian also describes the plastic end caps as
    fasteners in its scope request: “the end caps are attached
    at each end of the handle to serve as . . . the mechanism
    for attaching to the oven door.” J.A. 111. Commerce
    found from Meridian’s description for the Type B handles
    MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES               13
    that “[t]he end caps are used to fasten the handle to the
    door.” J.A. 540 (emphasis added). Hence, Meridian’s own
    descriptions support Commerce’s interpretation that the
    end caps are fasteners.
    Upon finding that the Type B handles are covered by
    the general scope of the antidumping duty order, Com-
    merce next considered whether the Type B handles meet
    one or more of the scope exclusions. The two scope exclu-
    sion provisions are the “finished goods kit” exclusion and
    the “finished merchandise” exclusion.
    Commerce found that the Type B handles do not meet
    the “finished goods kit” because the order provides that
    “the inclusion of fasteners in the packaging will not
    transform an aluminum extrusion product into a ‘finished
    goods kit.’” J.A. 550. Given Commerce’s finding that the
    end caps are fasteners, the Type B handles are not ex-
    cluded under the “finished goods kit” provision.
    Commerce next considered whether the “finished
    merchandise” exclusion applied, and decided it did not. 4
    Commerce concluded that the issue was not whether
    Meridian’s products were finished merchandise, “because
    the record is undisputed that the aluminum extrusion
    parts are not fully and permanently assembled with non-
    aluminum extrusion parts at the time of entry.” J.A. 551;
    but see infra note 8. Rather, Commerce concluded, the
    issue is whether Meridian’s products are finished goods
    kits, as discussed above.
    4    Finished merchandise is defined as containing
    aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and perma-
    nently completed at the time of entry, such as finished
    windows. Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at
    30,651.
    14                  MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES
    In addition, Commerce noted that Meridian’s products
    are identified by reference to their end use: door handles
    for kitchen appliances. J.A. 550. The scope language
    recites:
    Subject extrusions may be identified with refer-
    ence to their end use, such as fence posts, electri-
    cal conduits, door thresholds, carpet trim, or heat
    sinks (that do not meet the finished heat sink ex-
    clusionary language below). Such goods are sub-
    ject merchandise if they otherwise meet the scope
    definition, regardless of whether they are ready
    for use at the time of importation.
    Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651.
    Commerce explained that because the Type B handles
    are aluminum extrusions that are identified by reference
    to their end use, and the handles otherwise meet the
    scope definition, the handles are included with the scope
    regardless of whether or not they are ready for use “as is”
    before importation. J.A. 551. Commerce analogized the
    Type B handles to door thresholds and carpet trim, which
    are both examples of subject extrusions that are referred
    to by their end use. J.A. 550. Conversely, Commerce
    distinguished Meridian’s handles from windows with
    glass, or picture frames with glass and backing material,
    which are expressly excluded as “finished merchandise.”
    J.A. 552.
    Commerce also examined prior scope rulings inter-
    preting the same antidumping duty order and found them
    consistent with its interpretation in this case. Commerce
    looked to prior rulings that considered whether products
    that consist solely of aluminum extrusions and fasteners
    meet the exclusion for “finished merchandise” or “finished
    goods kit.” J.A. 551–52. For example, in both the Geodes-
    MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES                 15
    ic Domes Scope Ruling 5 and Refrigerator/Freezer Trim
    Kits Scope Ruling, 6 Commerce found that the kits that
    consist only of subject aluminum extrusions, fasteners,
    and installation accessories, did not meet the exclusion for
    “finished goods kits.” 
    Id. In the
    Cutting & Marking
    Edges Scope Ruling, 7 Commerce found the products at
    issue are aluminum extrusions matching the physical
    description of subject merchandise, and did not constitute
    “finished merchandise.” 
    Id. Commerce noted
    that the
    “kitchen appliance door handles at issue, with the excep-
    tion of fasteners, consist entirely of aluminum extrusions
    and, thus, are similar to the products examined in the
    Geodesic Dome Scope Ruling, Cutting & Edging Scope
    Ruling and Refrigerator/Freezer Trim Kits Scope Ruling.”
    J.A. 553.
    We conclude that the scope of the antidumping duty
    order as a whole supports Commerce’s treatment of the
    end caps as fasteners. The scope language does not limit
    fasteners to non-plastic components, but rather provides
    examples of common fasteners. We see no requirement
    that fasteners are limited to metal screws or bolts. And
    the record evidence supports the conclusion that the
    5   Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assis-
    tant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
    Operations, “Final Scope Ruling on J.A. Hancock, Inc.’s
    Geodesic Structures” (July 17, 2012).
    6  Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assis-
    tant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
    Operations, “Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator/Freezer
    Trim Kits” (Dec. 18, 2012).
    7  Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assis-
    tant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
    Operations, “Final Scope Ruling on Cutting and Marking
    Straight Edges” (Nov. 13, 2012).
    16                 MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES
    plastic end caps serve to fasten, or attach, the handles to
    the appliance doors.
    B. The CIT’s Interpretation
    The CIT improperly narrowed the scope of the anti-
    dumping duty order by finding that the Type B handles
    are “assemblies” that are not covered by the general scope
    description. The CIT’s interpretation rests on its view
    that the plastic end caps are not fasteners, specifically
    “plastic end caps do not resemble a product described by
    the term ‘fastener’ as that term is commonly and commer-
    cially used.” Meridian 
    I, 125 F. Supp. 3d at 1316
    . The
    CIT devotes significant discussion—that it later describes
    as dictum—about the applicability of the scope’s subas-
    sembly provision to the Type B handles. 
    Id. at 1313,
    1317. In the end, instead of a subassembly, the CIT found
    the Type B handle was excluded under the “finished
    merchandise” scope exclusion provision. 
    Id. at 1314–16.
        As explained above, Commerce relied upon the “de-
    scription of the products in the Scope Request, the scope
    language, and the Department’s previous scope rulings
    concerning the Orders” to determine that the Type B
    handles are within the scope. J.A. 550. That the CIT
    arrived at conclusions different from Commerce’s factual
    findings is immaterial to the extent that Commerce’s
    original scope ruling is reasonable and supported by
    substantial evidence. See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United
    States, 
    458 F.3d 1345
    , 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“So long as
    there is adequate basis in support of the Commission’s
    choice of evidentiary weight, the Court of International
    Trade, and this court, reviewing under the substantial
    evidence standard, must defer to the Commission.”).
    Here, the CIT gave insufficient deference to Commerce’s
    interpretation of the scope of the antidumping and coun-
    tervailing duty orders. “Commerce is entitled to substan-
    tial deference with regard to its interpretations of its own
    antidumping duty orders. This deference is appropriate
    MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES                17
    because the meaning and scope of antidumping orders are
    issues particularly within the expertise and special com-
    petence of Commerce.” King 
    Supply, 674 F.3d at 1348
    (internal citations and quotations omitted); see 
    Meridian, 851 F.3d at 1382
    –83.
    Based on the foregoing, we hold that Commerce’s orig-
    inal scope ruling determination that the Type B handles
    are included within the general scope of the antidumping
    and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions
    from China is reasonable and supported by substantial
    evidence. We also conclude that Commerce’s original
    scope ruling that the Type B handles are not excluded
    from the scope of the order under the “finished goods kit”
    exclusion provision is reasonable and supported by sub-
    stantial evidence. Because it is unclear from the record
    before Commerce and the statements made by Meridian’s
    counsel in its reply brief and at oral argument before this
    court whether the Type B handles are fully and perma-
    nently assembled at the time of entry, 8 we remand for
    8    See, e.g., J.A. 130 (Meridian describes the Type B
    handles as “an assembly of the middle handle bar extru-
    sion piece plus two plastic injection molded end caps at
    each end”); J.A. 131 (Meridian states that “the appliance
    door handles are a packaged combination of parts that
    contains, at time of importation, all the necessary compo-
    nents to assemble a complete handle . . . The package
    contains the components such as bottom mount fasteners
    and allen wrench necessary for installation by the cus-
    tomer.” (emphasis added)); J.A. 181 (“Meridian’s Type A
    Handles and Type B Handles are fully and permanently
    assembled and completed at the time of entry like fin-
    ished windows with glass or solar panels.”); Appellee Br. 4
    (“The Type B oven handle packages are imported assem-
    bled in a form ready to be sold to and directly used by the
    18                 MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES
    Commerce to clarify this point. If Commerce determines
    that the Type B handles are imported unassembled, then
    its original scope ruling controls and the inquiry ends. If
    Commerce determines the Type B handles are imported
    fully and permanently assembled, then we direct Com-
    merce to address the question of whether the Type B
    handles are excluded from the scope of the antidumping
    and countervailing duty order as “finished merchandise.”
    consumer/end user. They are not an unassembled kit.”
    (citations omitted)); Oral Arg. at 7:50–8:18, available at
    http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-
    recordings/2016-2657/all (Q: “Did Commerce ever say that
    these are assembled merchandise?” Appellant: “It didn’t
    say whether it was assembled or not. It does in fact
    say . . . in the petition—the request itself—from the
    respondents they call it assembled merchandise. It
    appears to be assembled from the schematic.”); 
    id. at 12:01–12:03
    (Meridian: “It is an assembly”); 
    id. at 15:29–
    15:34 (Meridian referring to the Type B product: “Yes,
    that is a finished assembly. It’s a finished product.”); 
    id. at 18:50–19:10
    (Meridian: “To the extent that the Appel-
    lant is claiming that somehow the assembly fails to satis-
    fy the finished merchandise exception, five pieces
    attached together included in a package with screws and
    instructions for a product to attach to an oven well that
    would be a final product and nothing needs to be done
    other than attach it.”); 
    id. at 20:49–20:55
    (Meridian:
    “We’re dealing with a finished good. But if it was unas-
    sembled then we have the finished goods kit exclusion.”);
    
    id. at 21:53–22:00
    (Meridian: “We have an assembly that’s
    finished—that’s imported as a finished assembly—it
    meets the scope of the exclusion.”).
    MERIDIAN PRODUCTS, LLC   v. UNITED STATES               19
    CONCLUSION
    For the reasons stated above, we (1) reverse the CIT’s
    decision in Meridian II affirming Commerce’s remand
    determination; (2) reverse the CIT’s decision in Meridian
    I with respect to the Type B handles; (3) instruct the CIT
    to vacate Commerce’s remand determination; and (4)
    order the CIT to reinstate Commerce’s original scope
    ruling and remand for further proceedings consistent with
    this opinion. Accordingly, the decision of the United
    States Court of International Trade is
    REVERSED AND REMANDED
    COSTS
    Each party shall bear its own costs.