In so doing, the Court of Appeals sides with the Department of Commerce, the Court of International Trade, and the Curtain Wall Coalition.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued its decision affirming the determination by the Court of International Trade (CIT) that curtain wall units and parts fall within the scope of the tariffs on aluminum extrusions imported from China. In affirming the CIT’s decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) found that (1) the Curtain Wall Coalition (CWC) companies had standing to file the underlying scope request, and (2) the Department of Commerce’s (DOC) original determination that the curtain wall units and components at issue were included as in-scope merchandise was proper.
Several Chinese curtain wall producers, including Yuanda USA, Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co. Ltd., and Jangho Curtain Wall Americas Co. Ltd, appealed the CIT’s decision made last year. At that time, the CIT heard the Chinese curtain wall producers’ appeal of the original Department of Commerce (DOC) decision on this matter going back to November 2013. The CIT upheld Commerce’s decision.
In upholding the CIT’s validation of the DOC’s finding that curtain wall units and parts were not excluded from the scope of the Orders as finished merchandise, the CAFC echoed the CIT in finding that it was “nonsensical” to construe “parts for curtain walls” to mean finished merchandise. Finally, the CAFC validated the DOC’s having declined to consider the additional factors in its scope determination, as the DOC had already properly found that the language of the scope and information in the petition and from the investigations were dispositive in resolving the issue.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued its decision affirming the determination by the Court of International Trade (CIT) that curtain wall units and parts fall within the scope of the tariffs on aluminum extrusions imported from China. In affirming the CIT’s decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) found that (1) the Curtain Wall Coalition (CWC) companies had standing to file the underlying scope request, and (2) the Department of Commerce’s (DOC) original determination that the curtain wall units and components at issue were included as in-scope merchandise was proper.
Several Chinese curtain wall producers, including Yuanda USA, Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co. Ltd., and Jangho Curtain Wall Americas Co. Ltd, appealed the CIT’s decision made last year. At that time, the CIT heard the Chinese curtain wall producers’ appeal of the original Department of Commerce (DOC) decision on this matter going back to November 2013. The CIT upheld Commerce’s decision.
In upholding the CIT’s validation of the DOC’s finding that curtain wall units and parts were not excluded from the scope of the Orders as finished merchandise, the CAFC echoed the CIT in finding that it was “nonsensical” to construe “parts for curtain walls” to mean finished merchandise. Finally, the CAFC validated the DOC’s having declined to consider the additional factors in its scope determination, as the DOC had already properly found that the language of the scope and information in the petition and from the investigations were dispositive in resolving the issue.
Comments
Post a Comment