Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Comm. v. United States , 2023 CIT 05 ( 2023 )

Slip Op. No. 23-5
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS FAIR
TRADE COMMITTEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Before: Stephen Alexander Vaden,
UNITED STATES,
Judge
Defendant,
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253
and
REFLECTION WINDOW + WALL,
LLC,
Defendant-Intervenor.
OPINION AND ORDER
[Affirming Commerce’s final scope ruling.]
Dated: January 18, 2023
Robert E. DeFrancesco, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff Aluminum
Extrusions Fair Trade Committee. With him on the brief were Alan H. Price,
Elizabeth S. Lee, and Claire M. Webster.
Augustus Golden, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for Defendant United States. With him
on the brief were Ann C. Motto, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Brian
M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy,
Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director,
Commercial Litigation Branch, and Leslie M. Lewis, Of Counsel, Office of the Chief
Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Robert D. Stang, Husch Blackwell LLP, of Washington, DC, for Defendant-Intervenor
Reflection Window + Wall, LLC. With him on the brief was Jeffrey S. Neeley.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 2
Vaden, Judge: Plaintiff Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (the
Committee) challenges Defendant United States Department of Commerce’s
(Commerce) final scope ruling determining that Defendant-Intervenor Reflection
Window + Wall, LLC’s (Reflection) window wall system kits were outside the scope of
the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from
China. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 9; Final Scope Ruling on Reflection Window + Wall,
LLC’s Window Wall System Kits (Reflection Scope Ruling) at 1, 25, J.A. at 1,584,
1,608, ECF No. 35; see also Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China:
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,650 (Dep’t of Com. May 26, 2011);
Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Duty
Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,653 (Dep’t of Com. May 26, 2011) (together, the Orders).
Before the Court is the Committee’s Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record,
arguing that Commerce’s determination that certain Reflection products are excluded
from the Orders as finished goods kits is unsupported by substantial evidence and
conflicts with Commerce’s established practice in prior scope rulings. Pl.’s Mot. for J.
on the Agency R. (Pl.’s Mot.) at 1–2, ECF No. 23. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court AFFIRMS Commerce’s decision.
BACKGROUND
Reflection is a designer, importer, and distributor of “non-load bearing
fenestration system[s] provided in combination assemblies and composite units,
including transparent vision panels and/or opaque glass or metal panels, which span
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 3
from the top of a floor slab to the underside of the next higher floor slab.” Request for
Scope Ruling on Certain Window Wall System Kits (Initial Scope Request) at 2–3,
J.A. at 1,001–02, ECF No. 35. In layman’s terms, Reflection produces portions of the
exterior façades of high-rise buildings. Reflection’s products are custom-made to
individual projects; it does not inventory or warehouse its products for later use or
sell the products for generic commercial use as window wall systems. Id. at 2.
At issue here are Reflection’s imports of its series RWW-8000, RWW-9000,
RWW-9500, and RWW-12000 window wall system kits. Reflection Scope Ruling at
6–9, J.A. at 1,589–92, ECF No. 35. The parties agree that Reflection’s products are
covered within the general scope language of the Orders and are not finished
merchandise but disagree about whether Reflection’s products can be excluded as
finished goods kits. Id. at 20; see, e.g., Pl.’s Mot. at 10, ECF No. 23; Def.’s Resp. to
Pl.’s Mot. (Def.’s Resp.) at 19, ECF No. 29. See generally Def.-Int.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot.
(Def.-Int.’s Resp.), ECF No. 27. In its final scope ruling, Commerce found that
Reflection’s products “contain, at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts
to fully assemble a final finished good . . . [and] contain non-aluminum extruded parts
beyond mere fasteners” so that the products are finished goods kits excluded from the
Orders’ scope. Reflection Scope Ruling at 25, J.A. at 1,608, ECF No. 35. The
Committee appeals this decision, asking that the Court hold unlawful Commerce’s
determination as unsupported by substantial evidence. Pl.’s Mot. at 9, ECF No. 23;
see also 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 4
A. Relevant Scope Proceedings
Commerce issued the Orders on aluminum extrusions from China on May 26,
2011. 76 Fed. Reg. 30,650; 76 Fed. Reg. 30,653. The Orders read, in pertinent part:
Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time
of importation as parts for final finished products that are
assembled after importation, including, 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 components that are
attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form
subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled merchandise
unless imported as part of the finished goods ‘kit’ defined
further below. The scope does not include the non-
aluminum extrusion components of subassemblies or
subject kits.
76 Fed. Reg. at 30,650–51. The Orders also contain exclusions to the scope. The
exclusion language explains:
The scope also excludes finished merchandise containing
aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully 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 combination of parts
that contains, at the time of importation, 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 considered a
“finished goods kit” and therefore excluded from the scope
of the Orders merely by including fasteners such as screws,
bolts, etc. in the packaging with an aluminum extrusion
product.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 5
Id. at 30,651. Commerce has explained its interpretation of the Orders’ scope in
several rulings. It discussed seven prior scope rulings in its determination here.
Reflection Scope Ruling at 10–13, J.A. at 1,593–96, ECF No. 35.
Commerce’s prior scope rulings confirm that a product must contain more than
just extruded aluminum, fasteners, and extraneous materials like an instruction
booklet to qualify for the finished goods kit exclusion. In the Geodesic Domes Kits
Scope Ruling, Commerce found that a product that contained only “extruded
aluminum poles and fasteners” was not excludable as a finished goods kit because
the exclusion requires more than “merely . . . including fasteners.” Final Scope
Ruling on J.A. Hancock Co., Inc.’s Geodesic Structures at 7, J.A. at 1,646, ECF No.
35. In the Meridian Trim Kits Scope Ruling, Commerce denied an exclusion for a
product that included only extruded aluminum, fasteners, and an instruction
manual. Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator/Freezer Trim Kits at 11, J.A. at 1,664,
ECF No. 35; see also Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States, 851 F.3d 1375, 1385 (Fed.
Cir. 2017).
Commerce’s prior scope rulings also evince its interpretation that, although
products must enter the country together to qualify for the finished goods kit
exclusion, this does not mean they must enter in a single container. In the IAP
Enclosure Systems Window Kits Scope Ruling, Commerce excluded window kits from
the scope — even when they enter in multiple containers — as long as the containers
listed on a single 7501 Entry Summary Form contained “all the parts, including the
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 6
glass panels, necessary to assemble a finished window or windows.” Final Scope
Ruling on Window Kits at 4–6, J.A. at 1,651–53, ECF No. 35; see also Final Scope
Ruling on Hand-E-Shutter Kits at 12, J.A. at 1,735, ECF No. 35.
Commerce examined a “window wall kit” in the NR Windows Wall Kit Scope
Ruling. Final Scope Ruling on Finished Window Kits at 1, J.A. at 1,666, ECF No. 35.
There, Commerce decided that window walls were distinct from curtain walls — parts
for which are explicitly included in the Orders’ scope — because window walls “do not
completely cover the façades of buildings.” Id. at 10. NR’s window wall kits entered
the country in “multiple containers and cartons that enter under a single [7501 Entry
Summary Form].” Id. at 9. Thus, Commerce found them to be finished goods kits
excluded from the Orders’ scope. Id. at 9–10. Similarly, in the Ventana Window Wall
Kits Scope Ruling, Commerce excluded from the Orders’ scope certain window wall
kits under the theory that (1) they could be inserted as standalone units unattached
to other window walls and (2) they are distinct from curtain walls because they “leave
significant areas of the building uncovered.” Final Scope Ruling on Ventana’s
Window Wall Kits at 10, J.A. at 1,723, ECF No. 35.
Commerce has considered curtain wall products — a kind of exterior cladding
distinct from window walls — twice before and included them in the Orders’ scope on
both occasions. The first was the Northern California Glass Management Association
curtain wall ruling, where Commerce found that the plain language of the Orders
covered the products at issue as “parts for . . . curtain walls.” Final Scope Ruling on
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 7
Curtain Wall Units and Other Parts of a Curtain Wall System at 9, J.A. at 1,684, ECF
No. 35. The second was when Commerce considered Shenyang Yuanda’s curtain wall
units. Final Scope Ruling on Curtain Wall Units That Are Produced and Imported
Pursuant to a Contract to Supply a Curtain Wall, J.A. at 1,686–713, ECF No. 35; see
Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng’g Co., Ltd. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1351(Fed. Cir. 2015) (Shenyang Yuanda I); Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng’g
Co., Ltd. v. United States, 918 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Shenyang Yuanda II).
There, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Commerce’s
determination finding the curtain wall units at issue within the Orders’ scope.
Shenyang Yuanda II, 918 F.3d at 1358.
B. The Scope Ruling in Question
On August 7, 2019, Commerce received a scope ruling request from Reflection,
asking that it find Reflection’s window wall system kits outside the Orders’ scope.
Initial Scope Request at 1, J.A. at 1,000, ECF No. 35. On April 26, 2021, after a long
back-and-forth of supplemental questionnaires, comments from Reflection and the
Committee, and an ex parte videoconference, Commerce issued its final scope ruling
finding certain Reflection products excluded from the Orders under the finished goods
kit exclusion. Reflection Scope Ruling at 1–2, J.A. at 1,584–85, ECF No. 35
(documenting Reflection’s four requests for scope rulings, three responses to
supplemental questionnaires, and the Committee’s two sets of comments on the
second and third responses).
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 8
As part of its ruling that Reflection’s products were excluded, Commerce made
several findings. Id. at 20–24. First, Commerce found Reflection’s products to be
aluminum extrusions within the Orders’ general scope. Id. at 20. Next, Commerce
found Reflection’s products were not finished merchandise — a distinct category from
finished goods kits — and declined to consider whether Reflection’s products were
“subassemblies,” finding such a determination was “unnecessary to this ruling.” Id.
Commerce then determined that, although Reflection’s products enter the United
States in separate containers, they appear on a single 7501 Entry Summary Form
and contain “non-aluminum extrusion components beyond mere fasteners.” Id. at
22–23. Finally, Commerce distinguished Reflection’s window wall system kits from
curtain wall units on the bases that (1) the “window wall systems are inserted into
the opening between the top of one floor slab and the underside of the next higher
floor slab,” and (2) Reflection’s window wall systems “do not make up the entirety of
the building’s façade.” Id. at 24. With these conclusions, Commerce found
Reflection’s products to be finished goods kits excluded from the Orders’ scope. Id. at
20–21. Commerce found as a fact that “each of Reflection’s window wall system kits
is a packaged combination of parts that contains, at the time of importation, all the
parts necessary to assemble window wall systems by the end-users in the United
States and requires no further finishing or fabrication.” Id. at 20.
Commerce narrowed the exclusion from that originally requested by
Reflection. Commerce decided to take “a cautious approach” in response to some of
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 9
the Committee’s criticisms and excluded only products that (1) are “designed to fit
into the aperture of a wall,” (2) are designed “not to vertically span a greater distance
than from the top of one floor slab to the underside of the next higher floor slab,” (3)
span no greater than fifteen feet vertically, and (4) contain slab covers. Id. at 21–24.
Commerce also included what amounted to a warning for Reflection before listing the
necessary characteristics of excluded products: “It is incumbent upon Reflection to
define its products with specificity. Hence, this ruling applies to the four products
specifically as they are defined here.” Id. at 21. Commerce then defined what it was
excluding, giving a list of major components, dimensions, and design elements for
each of the four excluded product series. Id. at 21–22. In other words, should future
products deviate in any way from the specification of this ruling, they will not benefit
from the exclusion. See id.
C. The Present Case
The Committee filed its Complaint with the Court on June 25, 2021. Compl. ¶
11, ECF No. 9. The Complaint alleges that Commerce’s determination that
Reflection’s products are finished goods kits outside the Orders’ scope is unsupported
by substantial evidence on the record and otherwise not in accordance with law. Id.
¶¶ 21–22. The Committee argues that Commerce’s determination is unsupported by
substantial evidence because: (1) There is insufficient evidence in the record to find
that Reflection’s window wall system kits are finished goods kits; (2) Commerce failed
to appropriately consider evidence the Committee presented that detracts from
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 10
Commerce’s conclusion; and (3) Commerce’s determination conflicts with its
established practice in previous scope rulings pertaining to the Orders by treating
window wall systems differently from curtain wall units. Id. ¶¶ 21–26. The
Committee filed a Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record on November 11, 2021;
Commerce and Reflection filed responses on March 1, 2022; and the Committee filed
its reply on April 19, 2022. Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 23; Def.’s Resp., ECF No. 29; Def.-
Int.’s Resp., ECF No. 27; Pl.’s Reply, ECF No. 32.
At oral argument, the Court confirmed with the parties that Reflection had not
submitted a 7501 Entry Summary Form for any of the products Commerce had
excluded. Tr. 6:3–7:2, ECF No. 45. Counsel for Reflection offered an explanation for
this seemingly strange state of affairs: Reflection had initially requested a broader
scope exclusion than Commerce granted; and when Commerce requested that
Reflection provide it with the last three entry forms, Reflection complied literally. Id.
64:22–67:18. This resulted in Reflection’s submitting 7501 Entry Summary Forms
that were for products that Commerce did not actually exclude.
Having clarified these facts, the Court ordered the parties to file supplemental
briefs on whether the determination could be sustained without a 7501 Entry
Summary Form for the products at issue. Id. 103:13–105:12. Reflection filed its letter
brief on August 25, 2022, arguing that there is substantial evidence in the record
without considering the 7501 Entry Summary Forms. Def.-Int.’s Letter Br., ECF No.
41. Commerce filed its letter brief on September 8, 2022, arguing that it can and does
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 11
exclude products without 7501 Entry Summary Forms. Def.’s Letter Br. at 10, ECF
No. 42. The Committee filed its letter brief on September 22, 2022, contending that
the lack of 7501 Entry Summary Forms for the excluded products prevents the
decision from being supported by substantial evidence. Pl.’s Letter Br. at 1, ECF No.
44. With supplemental briefing completed, the questions before the Court are ripe
for resolution.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s challenge to the Scope Ruling under
19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grant the Court
authority to review actions contesting scope determinations described in an
antidumping order. The Court must sustain Commerce’s “determinations, findings,
or conclusions” unless they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record,
or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). If they are
unsupported by substantial evidence or not in accordance with the law, the Court
must “hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion found.” Id. “[T]he
question is not whether the Court would have reached the same decision on the same
record[;] rather, it is whether the administrative record as a whole permits
Commerce’s conclusion.” See New American Keg v. United States, No. 20-00008, 2021
WL 1206153, at *6 (CIT Mar. 23, 2021).
Reviewing agency determinations, findings, or conclusions for substantial
evidence, the Court assesses whether the agency action is reasonable given the record
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 12
as a whole. Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir.
2006); see also Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951) (“The
substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly
detracts from its weight.”). The Federal Circuit has described “substantial evidence”
as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion.” DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).
DISCUSSION
I. Summary
A “finished goods kit” is something like IKEA furniture: It ships unassembled
but with all the necessary parts to assemble the finished product without the end
user doing more than putting it together with the included fasteners and adhesives.
The Committee challenges Commerce’s conclusion that Reflection’s submitted
window wall system kits are “finished good kits” entitled to exclusion from the scope
of the Orders. The Committee’s central argument is that Reflection’s products must
be treated like the curtain wall units in prior scope rulings. The Committee asserts
that, had Commerce fairly considered the record, it could not reasonably have found
that each window wall system is a finished good. According to the Committee,
Commerce must find that the only possible finished good is a completed window wall
for an entire building, as is the case with curtain walls. The Committee argues that,
to reach its conclusion, Commerce misunderstood how Reflection’s products are used,
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 13
failed to critically probe how Reflection’s products are packaged, and improperly
ignored record evidence that detracted from its ruling. Finally, the Committee claims
the lack of a 7501 Entry Summary Form for the excluded products precludes
Commerce’s decision from being supported by substantial evidence.
Commerce responds with three primary arguments. First, it properly
considered and weighed the evidence in the record and responded to the Committee’s
arguments in detail. It found that Reflection’s window wall systems are each final
finished goods unlike curtain wall units, and it is inappropriate for the Court to re-
weigh the evidence. Second, Commerce’s decision is consistent with its prior scope
rulings because it found Reflection’s products are distinct from the curtain wall units
at issue in those prior decisions. Third, a 7501 Entry Summary Form is not required
for a scope ruling.
Reflection joins Commerce and supports its argument in three ways. First,
Commerce granted a narrower exclusion than Reflection requested, demonstrating
Commerce listened to and incorporated the Committee’s contentions. Second,
Commerce distinguished Reflection’s products from prior decisions about curtain
walls through detailed use of the record evidence Reflection submitted. Third,
Commerce used the submitted 7501 Entry Summary Forms for other similar products
to show that Reflection’s pattern and practice of business is to ship its products with
all necessary parts as a “packaged combination” to be assembled as-is with no further
finishing or fabrication required.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 14
The Court begins by analyzing the challenged “finished goods kit” exclusion.
Then the Court discusses each of the Committee’s arguments. The Court finds
Commerce responded to the arguments the Committee made, and the choices
Commerce made are reasonable and supported by the record as a whole. Commerce
distinguished Reflection’s window wall systems from curtain wall units. Thus,
Commerce’s decision is not in conflict with prior scope rulings; and because its
decision aligns with the text of the Orders, it does not modify or contradict them.
Commerce’s use of the 7501 Entry Summary Forms in the record is appropriate, and
a completed 7501 Entry Summary Form for the product at issue is not required for a
scope ruling. Therefore, the Court concludes that Commerce’s determination is
supported by substantial evidence. The Committee’s Motion for Judgment on the
Agency Record will be DENIED, and Commerce’s scope ruling is AFFIRMED.
II. The “Finished Goods Kit” Exclusion
All parties agree that Reflection’s products are within the general language of
the Orders. The heart of this case is instead a disagreement over the “finished goods
kit” exclusion. The Orders define a “finished goods kit” as “a packaged combination
of parts that contains, at the time of importation, 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.” 76 Fed. Reg.
at 30,651.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 15
“[W]hether the unambiguous terms of a scope control the inquiry . . . is a
question of law that [the Court] reviews de novo.” Meridian Prods., 851 F.3d at 1382.
“[W]hether a product meets the unambiguous scope terms presents a question of fact
reviewed for substantial evidence.” Id. The Federal Circuit has held that “in light of
its terms and Commerce’s prior scope rulings, the [finished goods kit] exclusion’s
terms are unambiguous and, therefore, control the inquiry.” Id. at 1384. By the
unambiguous terms of the scope, an excluded kit must (1) be a final finished good
once assembled; (2) be assembled “as is,” without any further finishing, fabrication,
or additional parts; and (3) enter as an unassembled, packaged combination of parts.
These unambiguous terms of the scope — combined with prior scope rulings
interpreting the Orders — control the inquiry and dispute here. 1 See id. The Court
turns next to the question of fact, which is reviewed under the substantial evidence
standard: Whether Reflection’s products meet the unambiguous scope terms.
III. Reflection’s Window Wall Systems Are Finished Goods Unlike
Shenyang Yuanda’s Curtain Wall Units
To qualify as finished goods kits, Reflection’s window wall system kits must be
assembled into a final finished good. The Committee asserts that they are not
because Reflection’s products are principally used in tandem with each other to
provide most of a building’s exterior façade. Pl.’s Mot. at 16, ECF No. 23. The
1 Although this language is sufficient here, other language in the Orders could be relevant in other
disputes over the finished goods kit exclusion. See Meridian Prods., 851 F.3d at 1383 (contemplating
language concerning the inclusion of fasteners not at issue here). Plaintiff does not challenge
Commerce’s interpretation that a “packaged combination” means that all necessary parts enter on a
single 7501 Entry Form — rather than in a single package.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 16
Committee argues that this makes Reflection’s products akin to curtain walls, for
which the Federal Circuit has held that the only final finished good is the entire
curtain wall. Id.; see Shenyang Yuanda II, 918 F.3d at 1367. Commerce disagrees
and asserts it found that Reflection’s products are distinct from curtain wall products
because a single window wall system has a consumptive use, works independently
from other systems, and a series of window walls cannot cover a building’s entire
façade like a curtain wall does. Def.’s Resp. at 16, ECF No. 29; Def.-Int.’s Resp. at
21, ECF No. 27. Because Reflection’s window wall systems have individual,
consumptive uses and cannot cover a building’s entire façade, Commerce’s
determination that each is a final finished good is supported by substantial evidence.
A. Shenyang Yuanda’s Curtain Wall Units
A final finished good must be useful for something on its own. See Shenyang
Yuanda I, 776 F.3d at 1358; see also Shenyang Yuanda II, 918 F.3d at 1367. In
Shenyang Yuanda I, the Federal Circuit considered whether curtain wall units were
appropriately classed as finished merchandise. 776 F.3d at 1358. Shenyang Yuanda
imported curtain wall units that had to be attached together in order to assemble the
entire exterior curtain wall of a building. Id. Shenyang Yuanda conceded during
litigation that “absolutely no one purchases for consumption a single curtain wall
piece or unit.” Id. The Federal Circuit held that concession meant an individual
curtain wall unit could not be a final finished good, agreeing with the CIT’s finding
that “an individual curtain wall unit ‘has no consumptive or practical use because
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 17
multiple units are required to form the wall of a building.’” Id. (quoting Shenyang
Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng’g Co., Ltd. v. United States, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1291,
1298–99 (CIT 2014)). “A single unit does not a curtain wall make, nor is it a finished
product.” Id. For curtain wall units, the only finished good is the entire curtain wall.
Shenyang Yuanda II, 918 F.3d at 1367.
Shenyang Yuanda returned to the Federal Circuit four years later, presenting
a different argument. Id. It now argued that it was importing an entire curtain wall
— albeit in several shipments linked together by a contract — and that this meant it
was importing a finished goods kit. Id. Commerce determined that the finished goods
kit exclusion required that “all of the necessary curtain wall units are imported at
the same time.” Id. The Federal Circuit agreed that the finished goods kit exclusion
“focuses only on the physical contents of the ‘packaged combination’ at a particular
time, not on contractual obligations that might link one ‘packaged combination’ to
another, later-entering one.” Id. The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed Commerce’s
determination that Shenyang Yuanda’s products were still not finished goods kits
within the Orders’ meaning.
B. Reflection’s Window Wall Systems
The Committee argues that Reflection’s window walls are just like Shenyang
Yuanda’s curtain walls. The Committee claims (1) Reflection’s products, like the
curtain wall units in Shenyang Yuanda I, are useless individually and must be
installed in an interlocking sequence and that (2) as in Shenyang Yuanda II,
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 18
Reflection had multiple shipments destined for the same building project. Thus, the
Committee argues that the same result is required here: Commerce must find that
the only final finished good is the entire window wall. But the Committee is
mistaken. Commerce effectively distinguished Reflection’s products from Shenyang
Yuanda’s curtain wall units. Reflection’s window wall systems have an individual,
consumptive use; they can be installed in no particular order; they cannot cover a
building’s entire façade; and they serve different functions from a curtain wall. As
they do not cover the building’s entire façade, there is no set minimum number of
units to purchase: One unit could theoretically suffice. Because each window wall
system is a finished good, each shipment of window wall systems contains multiple
finished goods.
The Committee argues that one window wall system, like one curtain wall unit,
cannot be a finished good. However, it is possible to purchase just one window wall
system and install it. See Tr. 49:5–8, 19–23, ECF No. 45 (Court: “[I]s it possible to
buy just one, what you term, window system?” Government: “Oh, it certainly is.”);
Reflection Scope Ruling at 24, J.A. at 1,607, ECF No. 35 (noting that the exclusion
was designed to ensure that the window wall systems “cannot connect with other
window wall systems”); Declaration of James White of Reflection, J.A. at 80,414, ECF
No. 34 (“Each window wall system installed in a building is a modular stand-alone
unit.”) Unlike curtain wall units, Reflection’s window wall systems have an
individual, consumptive use. Cf. Shenyang Yuanda I, 776 F.3d at 1358. The Orders
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 19
confirm that “finished merchandise . . . such as finished windows with glass,” are
excluded from the scope if entered “fully and permanently assembled.” 76 Fed. Reg.
at 30,651. A window wall system is a final finished good in the same sense as a
window with glass — they are both inserted into an aperture in a building to provide
insulation and a view. See Reflection Scope Ruling at 21–22, J.A. at 1,604–05, ECF
No. 35. Curtain wall units are attached to the outside of a building and to other
curtain wall units to form a complete curtain wall that envelops the building. One
window wall system — like one standard window — has a function alone; one curtain
wall unit does not.
The Committee argues that Reflection’s window wall systems are like
Shenyang Yuanda’s curtain wall units because they work together by interlocking
and are shipped with an intended installation sequence. Pl.’s Mot. at 16–17, ECF No.
23; see also Shenyang Yuanda I, 776 F.3d at 1358. Commerce found just the opposite,
i.e., that Reflection’s window wall systems do not depend on each other to function.
See Reflection Scope Ruling at 16–24, J.A. at 1,599–607, ECF No. 35. Commerce went
a step further and limited the exclusion to systems spanning less than fifteen vertical
feet, ensuring that Reflection’s products do not interlock to create a building’s entire
façade. Id. at 24. Commerce also found that an intended installation sequence is just
a sensible business practice, not a requirement for the product’s use. Id.; see also Tr.
8:17–20, ECF No. 45 (The Court: “Although it might be inefficient and not make
logical sense to do so, would it be possible to install the window wall systems in any
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 20
order that you wish?” Counsel for Reflection: “The answer is yes, Your Honor.”).
That degree of independence — rather than interdependence, as with Shenyang
Yuanda’s curtain wall units — makes Reflection’s products finished goods.
Commerce further accentuated this distinction by adding requirements to the
exclusion it granted Reflection. Commerce required that excluded products include
slab covers, span no more than fifteen vertical feet, and fit into the space between the
top of one floor slab and the bottom of the next. Commerce added these requirements
to ensure Reflection’s products “cannot connect with other window wall systems to
cover the entirety of a building’s façade and compose a type of curtain wall.”
Reflection Scope Ruling at 24, J.A. at 1,607, ECF No. 35. Because Reflection’s
products do not have to connect to each other, building features not possible with
curtain walls become options. Committee Comments on Reflection’s Scope Ruling
Request at Ex. 1 n.207 (July 13, 2020), J.A. at 1,510, ECF No. 35 (noting in remand
redetermination that “window walls frequently include doors, windows, and
balconies, and are used for store fronts, ‘whereas curtain walls are not’”); see Tr. 18:9–
19:16, ECF No. 45 (discussing the Court’s understanding that window wall systems
allow the creation of balconies or other access to the outside, which is not possible
with curtain walls, and hearing no dispute from the Committee). These added
requirements — requirements that Reflection neither suggested nor wanted and that
disqualified some of their products from the exclusion — emphasize and enhance the
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 21
distinction Commerce drew between curtain wall units and the excluded window wall
systems.
Reflection sent multiple shipments destined for the same building project, each
containing multiple window wall systems. See 7501 Entry Summary Forms, J.A. at
80,023–56, ECF No. 34. The Committee claims that this is further evidence that
Reflection’s products are not each final finished goods, like the curtain wall contract
in Shenyang Yuanda II. The Committee is correct that each shipment was not, alone,
the entire building project. Pl.’s Mot. at 18 n.3, ECF No. 22. But that does not prevent
its constituent parts — individual window wall systems — from each being a final
finished good. Finished windows with glass are specifically referenced by the Orders
as finished merchandise.2 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651 (“The scope also excludes finished
merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and
permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry, such as finished windows
with glass . . . .”) What Reflection does is akin to taking on a contract to provide one
hundred windows for a building and shipping them in two bundles of fifty windows.
2 Despite internal linguistic variation in the Orders between the words “products,” “goods,” and
“merchandise,” the Orders contemplate that a finished goods kit will be assembled into “merchandise.”
See, e.g., 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651 (“The scope includes the aluminum extrusion components that are
attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled merchandise
unless imported as part of the finished goods ‘kit’ defined further below.”) The Orders also appear to
treat the words “goods” and “merchandise” identically: “Subject extrusions may be identified with
reference to their end use, such as fence posts, electrical conduits, door thresholds, carpet trim, or heat
sinks (that do not meet the finished heat sink exclusionary language below). Such goods are subject
merchandise if they otherwise meet the scope definition, regardless of whether they are ready for use
at the time of importation.” Id.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 22
Each bundle is fifty finished goods. The two bundles together are not one single
finished good.
The situation in Shenyang Yuanda was different because — continuing the
analogy — fifty curtain wall units are not fifty final finished goods. That shipment
is just half a curtain wall. A curtain wall is like an outer cage that encircles a
building. If a company shipped a dog cage in two shipments of three metal panels
each, those would add up to one finished good: the entire dog cage. There is no
individual, consumptive use for each metal panel; and three of them are no more
useful than one. The metal panels are entirely dependent on one another for their
function. Shenyang Yuanda’s curtain wall units are the same. Until there are
enough of them for an entire curtain wall, they are useless. Window wall systems
are individually useful and work independently from each other. That is sufficient
for Commerce to find each to be a final finished good.
IV. Substantial Evidence Supports Commerce’s Determination That
Reflection’s Products Are Finished Goods Kits
Although each of Reflection’s products — once fully assembled — is a finished
good, to qualify for the exclusion it must also enter as “a packaged combination of
parts that contains, at the time of importation, 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.” 76 Fed. Reg.
at 30,651; see Meridian Prods., 851 F.3d at 1383. Commerce found that Reflection’s
products do and thus are finished goods kits excluded from the Orders.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 23
The Committee argues that Reflection’s products do not qualify as finished
goods kits because (1) Reflection’s products do not contain all the necessary parts to
assemble the window wall system; (2) Commerce’s decision conflicts with its prior
decisions construing the finished goods kit exclusion and contradicts the Orders; (3)
Commerce improperly ignored record evidence the Committee presented that
detracts from Commerce’s conclusion; and (4) Commerce improperly relied on 7501
Entry Summary Forms Reflection submitted for products that are not excluded by
the scope ruling. Pl.’s Mot. at 9–10, ECF No. 23; Pl.’s Letter Br., ECF No. 43.
Commerce responds that (1) it conducted a thorough analysis of the record data,
specifications, and declarations to ensure that Reflection’s products do contain all
necessary parts on entry; (2) its decision is consistent with prior scope rulings and
the Orders because Reflection’s products are not curtain walls or curtain wall units
but window wall systems; (3) it did respond to the Committee’s evidence and
arguments but disagreed; and (4) 7501 Entry Summary Forms are not required for a
scope ruling. Def.’s Resp. at 22–35, ECF No. 29, see Def.’s Letter Br., ECF No. 42.
Reflection responds that (1) it submitted voluminous record information about how
its products are packaged and assembled; (2) Commerce distinguished its products
from both curtain walls and curtain wall units such that this decision is consistent
with prior scope rulings and the Orders; (3) the Committee’s argument is a request
for the Court to impermissibly re-weigh the evidence; and (4) Commerce properly
considered the 7501 Entry Summary Forms in the record as showing Reflection’s
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 24
ordinary business practice of shipping its products with all necessary components.
Def.-Int’s Resp. at 18–28, ECF No. 27; see Def.-Int.’s Letter Br., ECF No. 41. Because
there is substantial evidence on the record that Reflection’s products enter as
unassembled, stand-alone finished goods that contain all necessary parts, the Court
upholds Commerce’s determination.
A. Commerce Found Reflection’s Products Contain All Necessary Parts
and Require No Further Finishing or Fabrication
Each kit “must contain[], at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts
. . . to be assembled ‘as is.’” 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651. The Committee argues that
Reflection failed to demonstrate that its products contain all necessary parts. Pl.’s
Mot. at 13–15, ECF No. 23. Commerce replies that it examined Reflection’s
submissions and found them credible, and it only exempted products that match the
granted exclusion. Def.’s Resp. at 22–35, ECF No. 29. Reflection reiterates the
information it submitted to Commerce, including a sworn statement, detailed
annotated images, and entry documents. Def.-Int.’s Resp. at 24–25, ECF No. 27.
Commerce found “that the evidence on the record shows that each of Reflection’s
window wall system kits is a packaged combination of parts that contains, at the time
of importation, all the parts necessary to assemble window wall systems by the end-
users in the United States and requires no further finishing or fabrication.”
Reflection Scope Ruling at 20, J.A. at 1,604, ECF No. 35. Deciding complex technical
questions about window wall systems is well within Commerce’s expertise so that the
Court provides it appropriate deference on the technical questions involved. See
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 25
Fujitsu Gen. Ltd. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1034, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that
the Court provides greater deference to Commerce’s technical expertise than to its
interpretation of ambiguous statutory language). Reflection submitted sufficient
information to provide substantial evidentiary support for Commerce’s finding. See
19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
Commerce lists several categories of record evidence it used in reaching its
determination. Reflection Scope Ruling at 20–21, J.A. at 1,604–05, ECF No. 35
(listing narrative statements, product instructions, packing lists, entry summaries,
photographs, schematics, questionnaire responses, and a short video). The narrative
statement Commerce references is a sworn statement by James White of Reflection,
stating that Reflection includes all necessary primary and secondary components in
its shipments. Declaration of James J. White, J.A. at 80,141–42, ECF No. 34.
Commerce cites this declaration in its scope ruling when it finds that “[e]very
component composing the kit, including accessory components (or ‘all primary and
secondary parts and components’), for each unit is shipped to the United States in
the same shipment.” Reflection Scope Ruling at 7, J.A. at 1,591, ECF No. 35. In
response to the Committee’s contentions that the secondary components were not
present on the packing lists, Reflection cited annotated images it submitted. See J.A.
at 1,134–39, ECF No. 35; J.A. at 80,130, 80,141, ECF No. 34. Those images show
that the secondary components are incorporated into Reflection’s products at the
factory before importation. Id.; see also Def.-Int’s Resp. at 25, ECF No. 26.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 26
The Committee submitted contrary record evidence in a separate declaration.
See Declaration, J.A. at 80,119–21, ECF No. 34. As Commerce summarized,
Reflection and its declarant claimed that the Committee’s declarant (1) improperly
conflated window walls and curtain walls; (2) conceded that Reflection’s window wall
systems could be installed out of order; (3) incorrectly claimed that window walls and
curtain walls could be used interchangeably for the same projects; (4) incorrectly
claimed that both curtain walls and window walls span floor-to-floor, when window
walls span floor-to-ceiling; and (5) made outlandish claims about how the declarant
would provide window walls instead of curtain walls to a buyer after winning a bid to
construct a building using a curtain wall. Reflection Scope Ruling at 16–19, J.A. at
1,600–02, ECF No. 35. Having laid out the conflicting declarations, Commerce sided
with Reflection on each of the issues discussed. See id. at 23–25; see also Fujitsu Gen.,
88 F.3d at 1039 (noting the deference Commerce receives when resolving technical
questions). The Committee presented other contrary arguments; for instance, that a
short video Reflection had submitted showed that Reflection’s products require
further finishing or fabrication. Id. at 21 n.127. Commerce “repeatedly reviewed the
video referenced by the parties and cannot find any support for the petitioner’s
contention that it demonstrates that there is further finishing, but conclude[s] that
it shows the opposite.” Id.The Committee also contends that Reflection’s submitted technical literature
does not “provide a complete list of the necessary parts and materials or a description
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 27
of the assembly or installation process for these products.” Pl.’s Mot. at 14, ECF No.
23. The Committee argues that Commerce should have asked for technical literature
specific to the custom projects Reflection is seeking to have excluded. Id. at 15. The
included literature is clearly labeled: RWW-8000, J.A. at 1,399–1,416, ECF No. 35;
RWW-9000, J.A. at 1,418–1,433, ECF No. 35; RWW-9500, J.A. at 1,435–1,454, ECF
No. 35; RWW-12000, J.A. at 1,456–1,471, ECF No. 35. The literature contains
detailed images of the listed product series. Those are the product series Commerce
excluded here. Consulting technical, graphical illustrations of the product series at
issue is a reasonable choice by Commerce.
The idea underlying the Committee’s contentions in these arguments is that
Commerce should have believed its evidence and testimony instead of Reflection’s
and that the Committee’s evidence and testimony are stronger and made a better
case. However, “it is not the province of the Court to reweigh the evidence before the
agency.” Comm. for Fair Beam Imports v. United States, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1326
(CIT 2007), aff’d without opinion, 260 F. App’x 302 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Commerce
examined the Committee’s evidence, noted its points of disagreement, and explained
why it chose to credit Reflection’s evidence instead. Substantial evidence supports
Commerce’s conclusion.
B. This Scope Ruling Is Consistent with Prior Rulings and Does Not
Contradict the Orders
Across a decade of scope rulings, Commerce has consistently excluded window
wall systems as finished goods kits but refused to exclude curtain wall units.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 28
Commerce’s basis for doing so is simple. Window walls do not cover a building’s entire
façade. Curtain walls do. The Committee argues that Commerce “reached a
determination that directly conflicts with its established practice in prior scope
rulings under these orders” and that, because this record contains “significantly more
analysis put forward than before and [is] more probing of the product at issue,”
Commerce could only reasonably find that Reflection’s products are akin to curtain
wall units. Pl.’s Mot. at 2, 27, ECF No. 23. Commerce replies, and Reflection agrees,
that the exclusion is consistent “with prior scope rulings related to similar window
wall products” and with the plain text of the Orders. Def.’s Resp. at 29, ECF No. 29;
Def.-Int.’s Resp. at 3, ECF No. 27. The Court agrees with Commerce that the scope
ruling does not contravene Commerce’s past scope rulings or the Orders.
Although the Orders have spawned much litigation, Commerce has been
consistent in its interpretation of them. Three separate times, Commerce has issued
scope rulings excluding windows and window wall products from the Orders. In the
IAP Enclosures Scope Ruling, Commerce excluded window kits containing a variable
number of panes placed in apertures in building façades. Final Scope Ruling on
Window Kits, J.A. at 1,648–53, ECF No. 35. In the NR Windows Scope Ruling,
Commerce excluded window wall kits and distinguished them from curtain wall units
because NR’s window wall kits did not envelop or enclose a building’s entire façade.
Final Scope Ruling on Finished Window Kits, J.A. at 1,666–75, ECF No. 35. In the
Ventana Scope Ruling, Commerce excluded window wall kits and distinguished them
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 29
from curtain wall units because Ventana’s window wall kits (1) could be inserted as
standalone units and (2) did not cover a building’s entire façade. Final Scope Ruling
on Ventana’s Window Wall Kits, J.A. at 1,714–23, ECF No. 35.
By contrast, Commerce has issued scope rulings including curtain wall units
in the Orders’ scope on two separate occasions. The first time, Commerce included
curtain wall units in the scope because the plain language of the Orders included
“parts for . . . curtain walls,” and that is what Commerce found the curtain wall units
were. Final Scope Ruling on Curtain Wall Units and Other Parts of a Curtain Wall
System, J.A. at 1,676–85, ECF No. 35; accord Shenyang Yuanda I, 776 F.3d at 1356–
58 (affirming the same reasoning for including Shenyang Yuanda’s curtain wall units
in the scope). The second time, Commerce declined to find that Shenyang Yuanda’s
curtain wall units were finished goods kits because (1) they were individually useless
and (2) the finished goods kit exclusion could not be satisfied by contractually linking
one packaged combination to a later-entering one. Final Scope Ruling on Curtain
Wall Units That Are Produced and Imported Pursuant to a Contract to Supply a
Curtain Wall, J.A. at 1,686–713, ECF No. 35; see Shenyang Yuanda II, 918 F.3d at
1367 (affirming Commerce’s scope ruling).
Although the Committee is correct that the record of this proceeding is more
developed than that of prior window wall kit scope rulings, that fact counsels in favor
of the lawfulness of Commerce’s scope ruling. Commerce used the extensive record
to distinguish Reflection’s window wall system kits from the curtain wall units in
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 30
prior rulings, as discussed in Section III of this opinion. Because Commerce
reasonably found that Reflection’s window wall systems each constitute a final
finished good by distinguishing them from curtain wall units, this scope ruling is
consistent with Commerce’s prior scope rulings.
The Committee also argues that Commerce unlawfully modified the Orders.
Commerce has discretion in interpreting the Orders; but it may not change them, and
it did not do so here. See Global Commodity Group LLC v. United States, 709 F.3d
1134, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Shenyang Yuanda II, 918 F.3d at 1362–63
(demonstrating the deference the Court of International Trade owes to Commerce’s
interpretation of the Orders). The plain text of the Orders excludes finished goods
kits. Because Commerce demonstrated with substantial evidence that Reflection’s
window wall systems are finished goods that enter unassembled with all necessary
parts to be assembled “as-is” with no further finishing or fabrication required — the
exact definition of finished goods kits — Commerce has not modified the Orders. See
76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651; see also ante 24–27. Commerce’s scope ruling is consistent
with its prior scope rulings and with the Orders.
C. Commerce Responded Fully to the Committee’s Other Arguments
Commerce responded to the Committee’s detailed critiques of the scope ruling
and specifically limited the ruling to avoid providing an overly broad exclusion. The
Committee contends that Commerce “failed to consider evidence that fairly detracts
from its conclusion and also failed to grapple with all important aspects of the
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 31
problem.” Pl.’s Mot. at 11, ECF No. 23. Commerce replies that it did respond to all
arguments that fairly detracted from its conclusion. See Def.’s Resp. at 22–35, ECF
No. 29. Although Commerce must consider “whatever in the record fairly detracts”
from its conclusion and must grapple with all “important aspect[s] of the problem,” it
is “not required to address every piece of evidence submitted by participating parties
. . . .” CS Wind Vietnam Co. v. United States, 832 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(citing Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 720 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) (first
quote); Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43
(1983) (second quote); Dong-A Steel Co. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 3d 1317, 1343
(CIT 2020) (third quote). Commerce responded to all the evidence and arguments
that fairly detracted from its conclusion. As such, its determination is supported by
substantial evidence.
The simplest analysis available to the Court is to walk through the
Committee’s contentions and review how Commerce replied. To begin, the
Committee argues that Commerce failed to define the final finished good with
sufficient specificity. See Pl.’s Mot. at 12–13, ECF No. 23. Commerce answered this
critique in two steps in its final ruling. First, Commerce cited the American
Architectural Manufacturing Association’s definition of a window wall system: “[A]
non-load bearing fenestration system provided in combination assemblies and
composite units, including transparent vision panels and/or opaque glass or metal
panels, which span from the top of a floor slab to the underside of the next higher
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 32
floor slab.” Reflection Scope Ruling at 6, J.A. at 1,589, ECF No. 35. Then Commerce
wrote a detailed, bulleted list of exactly what products are excluded. Id. at 21–22.
For the sake of brevity, the Court excerpts the first one:
The Series RWW-8000 window wall system, consisting of
four major components: (1) the window system panels; (2)
the head receptors and sill receptors; (3) the window side
jamb receptors; and (4) the slab cover. It is a thermally
broken, butt glazed system manufactured with a 4 inch
(102 mm) deep structural mullion and a 4.5 inch (114 mm)
deep receptor system. It includes glass, integral louver, or
metal infill. It has a one-piece extrusion slab cover. It
incorporates glass thicknesses ranging from 0.94 inch (24
mm) to 1.77 inches (45mm). It is designed to fit into the
aperture of a wall and does not vertically span a greater
distance than from the top of one floor slab to the underside
of the next higher floor slab, and such distance is no greater
than 15 feet (4.57 m).
Id. at 21. The Committee asserts that this is insufficient to explain what Commerce
“was defining as the ‘window wall system.’” Pl.’s Mot. at 13, ECF No. 23. The Court
recognizes the Committee’s contention as stemming from the custom-designed nature
of Reflection’s product. A custom-designed product is hard to describe with exact
precision; Commerce could not describe the weight of one system, how many panes
come in one system, or whether one system would be used to create a balcony.
Instead, Commerce cited a commonly used industry definition of a window wall
system provided by Reflection in its scope ruling request. Reflection Scope Ruling at
6, J.A. at 1,589, ECF No. 35. Commerce then provided a list of necessary components,
dimensions, and design elements to define the excluded product series. Id. at 21.
These specified details are the kind of product contemplated by the definition of a
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 33
window wall system cited by Commerce in the product description. See id. at 6.
Commerce then added specifics to the definition that Reflection did not want added,
including a cap in the vertical span of fifteen feet and a requirement that the products
must contain slab covers. See Def.-Int’s Letter Br. at 2–6, ECF No. 41. These added
limitations narrowed the exclusion Commerce granted and demonstrate that
Commerce sought to define the excluded products so as not to read the finished goods
kit exclusion too broadly. Cf. Pl.’s Mot. at 10, ECF No. 23 (arguing that scope
exclusions should be construed narrowly). Indeed, the narrowed language prevented
several products Reflection submitted from being excluded from the Orders’ scope.
See 7501 Entry Summary Forms, J.A. at 80,023–56, ECF No. 34.
The Committee repeatedly says that Commerce should have requested further
information about the products Reflection imported. See, e.g., Pl.’s Mot. at 15, ECF
No. 23. But what Reflection sought — and Commerce granted — was an exclusion
that would cover custom-designed products as long as they met various
specifications.3 Reflection Scope Ruling at 21, J.A. at 1,604, ECF No. 35. Commerce
listed the specifications in detail and based its decision on the technical literature for
the different product series that Reflection submitted. Id. If Reflection imports
3Commerce may only exclude from the scope products that are already in commercial production. 19
C.F.R. § 351.225(c)(1). This requirement prevented one of the products Reflection originally requested
a scope ruling for, series RWW-7000, from being considered. Reflection Scope Ruling at 9, J.A. at
1,592, ECF No. 35. Reflection avers that the other excluded products are in commercial production or
have been produced at this time. Id.Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 34
products that deviate from the exclusion’s express terms, then those products are
simply not excluded.
The Committee’s arguments are caught in a contradiction: It seeks to
simultaneously argue that Commerce’s definition is too vague while also
acknowledging that definition has prevented certain products Reflection submitted
from being excluded. Compare Pl.’s Reply at 6–8, ECF No. 33 (arguing that
Commerce’s definition, use of submitted technical literature, and use of 7501 Entry
Summary Forms is too imprecise), with Pl.’s Letter Br. at 6, ECF No. 44 (recognizing
that the Reflection products on the submitted 7501 Entry Summary Forms were
denied exclusion because they lacked slab covers). An argument divided against itself
cannot stand. Because Commerce considered the evidence submitted and responded
to the Committee’s contravening arguments by narrowing the scope of Reflection’s
requested exclusion, Commerce acted according to law; and substantial evidence
supports its determination.
D. Scope Rulings Do Not Require a 7501 Entry Summary Form
Although Reflection placed three 7501 Entry Summary Forms on the record
for its window wall products, none of those forms are for products actually excluded
in this ruling. The submitted forms all involve products that do not have slab covers
so that they do not benefit from Commerce’s scope ruling. Compare Reflection Scope
Ruling at 7–9, J.A. at 1,590–91, ECF No. 35 (limiting the exclusion to window wall
systems incorporating slab covers), with 7501 Entry Summary Forms, J.A. at 80,023–
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 35
56, ECF No. 34 (listing the components of three Reflection imports but noting no slab
covers). The Committee contends that, because there are no 7501 Entry Summary
Forms for the excluded products present in the record, the decision cannot be
supported by substantial evidence. Pl.’s Letter Br. at 1, ECF No. 44. Commerce notes
that (1) Commerce frequently excludes yet-to-be-imported products — for which there
can be no 7501 Entry Summary Forms — in scope rulings; (2) the 7501 Entry
Summary Forms present in the record provide evidence that Reflection’s standard
practice is to import its products with all necessary components; and (3) should
Reflection’s products not enter on a single form, its products will not be excluded.
Def.’s Letter Br. at 10, ECF No. 42; Def.’s Resp. at 35–43, ECF No. 29. Commerce
supported its decision by drawing reasonable conclusions from the submitted 7501
Entry Summary Forms about how Reflection’s products are normally packaged.
Further, Commerce is correct that companies seek scope rulings for products before
importation such that they would have no associated 7501 Entry Summary Forms.
The Committee’s arguments are without merit.
As noted above, Reflection’s initial scope ruling request was distinct from the
final exclusion in that it did not require slab covers. Commerce added that
requirement after it asked for 7501 Entry Summary Forms for “the last three entries
of Reflection’s window wall system kits.” Request for Information Regarding
Reflection Window + Wall, LLC’s Scope Inquiry on Window Wall System Kits (Sept.
23, 2019) at 3, J.A. at 1,098, ECF No. 35. Reflection responded to Commerce’s request
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 36
and submitted the three most recent 7501 Entry Summary Forms for products it was
then seeking to have excluded. Those forms — and supplementary documentation —
provided detailed lists of parts for window wall systems shipped by Reflection in the
ordinary course of business. Request for Scope Ruling on Certain Window Wall
System Kits Qualifying as a Finished Goods Kit (Jan. 9, 20204) (Second Scope
Request) at Exhibit A, J.A. at 80,023–63, ECF No. 34. Commerce reviewed the
information and determined that it was Reflection’s usual practice to ship all
necessary components for one window wall system together. See Reflection Scope
Ruling at 20–21, J.A. at 1,603–04, ECF No. 35; see also Second Scope Request at 14,
J.A. at 80,013, ECF No. 34.
A completed 7501 Entry Summary Form for the exact product excluded is not
required for a scope ruling. Commerce must issue scope rulings on products that
have not yet been imported and therefore have no 7501 Entry Summary Forms. See
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents, Submission
Procedures; APO Procedures: Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 3,634, 3,639 (Jan. 22, 2008)
(providing that Commerce may issue a scope ruling even when “[t]he product [has not
been] imported into the United States so long as the requestor can show evidence that
the product is in production”); see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(d) (requiring Commerce to
4This document appears to be misdated in the record as alternately January 9, 2019, and January 6,
2019. Second Scope Request at 1, 20, J.A. at 80,000, 80,019, ECF No. 34. The signature pages list the
date of January 9, 2020, and the exhibit materials are from December 2019. Id. at 21–23. Given that
the request is responsive to Commerce’s questionnaire of September 23, 2019, the Court presumes
January 6 is a typographical error and that the updated scope request was submitted January 9, 2020.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 37
issue an official scope ruling if it “can determine, based solely upon the application”
and the sources listed in subsection (k)(1) whether a product is within the scope); 19
C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1) (requiring Commerce to consult the petition, the initial
investigation, and prior determinations but not requiring a 7501 Entry Summary
Form). It is for this reason that Reflection still needs to demonstrate that its imported
products — past and future — meet the express terms of the exclusion. Commerce’s
decision here does not remove that burden. Should Reflection’s products not enter as
a “packaged combination,”5 they would not benefit from the exclusion. Because
Commerce’s use of the submitted 7501 Entry Summary Forms is reasonable, and
because the determination as a whole is supported by substantial evidence, the Court
upholds it.
CONCLUSION
Reflection submitted a broad scope ruling request for its window wall systems.
Commerce took evidence, developed an extensive record, narrowed the requested
exclusion, and responded to the Committee’s arguments to the contrary. The result
is a final scope ruling that is consistent with the record before the agency, with past
scope rulings interpreting the Orders, and with the Orders themselves. Keeping in
mind the deference the Court owes to Commerce when it examines all the evidence
5 Commerce has consistently interpreted this language to mean entrance on a single 7501 Entry
Summary Form. See Final Scope Ruling on Window Kits at 4–6, J.A. at 1,651–53, ECF No. 35; see
also Final Scope Ruling on Hand-E-Shutter Kits at 12, J.A. at 1,735, ECF No. 35. The Committee has
not challenged this longstanding interpretation but only Commerce’s application of it to the facts of
this case.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 38
before it, applies its expertise, and follows the procedural requirements of
administrative law, cf. Shenyang Yuanda II, 918 F.3d at 1362–63, the Court
AFFIRMS Commerce’s scope ruling and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment
on the Agency Record.
/s/ Stephen Alexander Vaden
Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge
Dated: January 18, 2023
New York, New York