SlipȱOp.ȱNo.ȱ25Ȭ81ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ
COLUMBIAȱALUMINUMȱPRODUCTS,ȱ LLC,ȱ
Plaintiff,ȱ
v.ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ ȱȱBefore:ȱȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ
Defendant,ȱ ȱȱCourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱ
andȱ
ALUMINUMȱEXTRUSIONSȱFAIRȱ TRADEȱCOMMITTEEȱANDȱENDURAȱ PRODUCTS,ȱINC.,ȱ
DefendantȬIntervenors.ȱ
OPINIONȱ
[EffectuatingȱtheȱmandateȱofȱtheȱU.S.ȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱforȱtheȱFederalȱCircuitȱbyȱ reinstatingȱaȱportionȱofȱaȱpreviousȱagencyȱdetermination]ȱ
Dated:ȱJuneȱ25,ȱ2025ȱȱ
PeterȱKoenigȱandȱJeremyȱW.ȱDutra,ȱSquireȱPattonȱBoggsȱ(US),ȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱ D.C.,ȱforȱplaintiffȱColumbiaȱAluminumȱProducts,ȱLLC.
AimeeȱLee,ȱAssistantȱDirector,ȱCommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱCivilȱDivision,ȱU.S.ȱ DepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱNewȱYork,ȱN.Y.,ȱandȱPatriciaȱM.ȱMcCarthy,ȱDirector,ȱandȱTaraȱ K. Hogan,ȱAssistantȱDirector,ȱforȱdefendant.ȱȱOfȱcounselȱareȱNikkiȱKalbing,ȱAssistant ChiefȱCounsel,ȱandȱJonZacharyȱForbes,ȱAttorney,ȱOfficeȱofȱtheȱChiefȱCounselȱforȱTrade Enforcementȱ&ȱCompliance,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱCommerce,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C. CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ2ȱ ȱ RobertȱE.ȱDeFrancesco,ȱIII,ȱAlanȱH.ȱPrice,ȱDerickȱG.ȱHolt,ȱElizabethȱS.ȱLee,ȱEnbarȱ Toledano,ȱandȱAdamȱM.ȱTeslik,ȱWileyȱReinȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendantȬ intervenorsȱAluminumȱExtrusionsȱFairȱTradeȱCommitteeȱandȱEnduraȱProducts,ȱInc.ȱ
Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱThisȱlitigationȱconcernsȱcertainȱ“doorȱthresholds”ȱthatȱplaintiffȱ
ColumbiaȱAluminumȱProducts,ȱLLCȱ(“Columbia”)ȱimportedȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱ
RepublicȱofȱChinaȱ(“China,”ȱorȱtheȱ“PRC”),ȱeachȱofȱwhichȱcontainedȱanȱ“aluminumȱ
extrusion”ȱasȱaȱcomponentȱpart.ȱȱTheȱissueȱinȱthisȱlitigationȱwasȱwhetherȱthatȱ
componentȱpartȱisȱsubjectȱtoȱantidumpingȱ(“AD”)ȱandȱcountervailingȱdutyȱ(“CVD”)ȱ
ordersȱonȱcertainȱaluminumȱextrusionsȱfromȱChinaȱ(theȱ“Orders”).ȱ
BeforeȱtheȱCourtȱisȱtheȱmandateȱissuedȱbyȱtheȱU.S.ȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱforȱtheȱ
FederalȱCircuitȱ(“CourtȱofȱAppeals”)ȱinȱWorldwideȱDoorȱComponents,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ
119ȱF.4thȱ959ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ98ȱ(“WorldwideȱV”).ȱȱMandateȱinȱAppealȱ
Nos.ȱ2023Ȭ1532,ȱ2023Ȭ1534ȱ(Nov.ȱ14,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ100ȱ(“CAFCȱMandate”).ȱȱ
WorldwideȱVȱvacatedȱthisȱCourt’sȱjudgmentȱinȱColumbiaȱAluminumȱProds.,ȱLLC.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱ
States,ȱ46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1275ȱ(2022)ȱ(“ColumbiaȱIV”),ȱunderȱwhichȱtheȱ
aluminumȱextrusionȱcomponentȱinȱeachȱdoorȱthresholdȱwasȱheldȱtoȱbeȱoutsideȱtheȱ
scopeȱofȱtheȱOrders,ȱid.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1283.ȱȱWorldwideȱV,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱ
atȱ972.ȱȱWorldwideȱVȱreversedȱthisȱCourt’sȱremandȱorderȱinȱColumbiaȱAluminumȱProds.,ȱ
LLC.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ45ȱCITȱ__,ȱ536ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1346,ȱ1348,ȱ1357ȱ(2021)ȱ(“ColumbiaȱII”),ȱ
andȱvacatedȱthisȱCourt’sȱsubsequentȱopinionsȱinȱColumbiaȱAluminumȱProds.,ȱLLC.ȱv.ȱ
UnitedȱStates,ȱ46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ587ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1375ȱ(2022)ȱ(“ColumbiaȱIII”)ȱandȱColumbiaȱIV.ȱȱId.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ3ȱ ȱ InȱWorldwideȱV,ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱdirectedȱthisȱCourtȱtoȱ“reinstateȱtheȱnonȬ
protestedȱportions”ȱofȱanȱearlierȱagencyȱdecision,ȱtheȱ“FirstȱRemandȱRedetermination”ȱ
ofȱtheȱInternationalȱTradeȱAdministration,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱCommerceȱ(“Commerce”ȱ
orȱtheȱ“Department”).ȱȱId.;ȱseeȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCt.ȱRemand:ȱ
AluminumȱExtrusionsȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱDec.ȱ23,ȱ
2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ48Ȭ1ȱ(“FirstȱRemandȱRedetermination”).1ȱȱWorldwideȱV,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ972.ȱȱInȱ
theȱnonȬprotestedȱportionȱofȱtheȱFirstȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱ
thatȱtheȱaluminumȱextrusionȱcomponentȱinȱeachȱofȱtheȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱbutȱnotȱtheȱ
otherȱcomponents,ȱwereȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrders.ȱȱFirstȱRemandȱ
Redeterminationȱ1–2,ȱ10,ȱ49.ȱ
I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ
Columbiaȱcommencedȱthisȱactionȱinȱ2019.ȱȱSummonsȱ(Jan.ȱ18,ȱ2019),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ1,ȱ
Compl.ȱ(Jan.ȱ18,ȱ2019),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ3.ȱȱTheȱAluminumȱExtrusionsȱFairȱTradeȱCommitteeȱ
(theȱ“petitioner”)ȱandȱEnduraȱProducts,ȱInc.ȱ(“Endura”)ȱwereȱdefendantȬintervenors.2ȱ
ȱ 1 ȱTheȱappealȱbeforeȱtheȱU.S.ȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱforȱtheȱFederalȱCircuitȱ(“Courtȱofȱ Appeals”)ȱwasȱconsolidatedȱwithȱanȱappealȱbroughtȱbyȱdefendantȬintervenorȱ AluminumȱExtrusionsȱFairȱTradeȱCommitteeȱinvolvingȱcertainȱdoorȱthresholdsȱ importedȱbyȱWorldwideȱDoorȱComponents,ȱInc.ȱ(“Worldwide”).ȱȱWorldwideȱDoorȱ Components,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱ959,ȱ961ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2024).ȱȱInȱitsȱopinion,ȱtheȱ CourtȱofȱAppealsȱnotedȱthatȱ“[f]orȱsimplicity,ȱweȱciteȱonlyȱtheȱagencyȱscopeȱordersȱandȱ trialȱcourtȱdecisionsȱwhereȱWorldwideȱappearsȱasȱtheȱcaptionedȱparty.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ964ȱn.3.ȱȱȱ ȱ 2ȱEnduraȱProducts,ȱInc.ȱwithdrewȱitsȱpositionȱasȱdefendantȬintervenorȱonȱ
Marchȱ23,ȱ2023.ȱȱOrderȱ(Mar.ȱ23,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ97.ȱ ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ4ȱ ȱ BackgroundȱofȱthisȱlitigationȱisȱdescribedȱinȱtheȱpriorȱopinionsȱofȱthisȱCourtȱandȱ
theȱopinionȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱandȱisȱsummarizedȱbrieflyȱherein.ȱȱSeeȱColumbiaȱ
AluminumȱProds.,ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ44ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ470ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1353,ȱ1354–56ȱ(2020)ȱ
(“ColumbiaȱI”);ȱColumbiaȱII,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ536ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1348–49;ȱColumbiaȱIII,ȱ46ȱCITȱ
atȱ__,ȱ587ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1377;ȱColumbiaȱIV,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1277;ȱ
WorldwideȱV,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ962–68.ȱ
A.ȱȱIssuanceȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱ
CommerceȱissuedȱtheȱOrdersȱinȱ2011.ȱȱAluminumȱExtrusionsȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱ
RepublicȱofȱChina:ȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ30,650ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱ
Mayȱ26,ȱ2011)ȱ(“ADȱOrder”);ȱAluminumȱExtrusionsȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱ
CountervailingȱDutyȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ30,653ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱMayȱ26,ȱ2011)ȱ(“CVDȱ
Order”).ȱ
B.ȱȱColumbia’sȱImportedȱDoorȱThresholdsȱ
Atȱissueȱinȱthisȱlitigationȱareȱtenȱmodelsȱofȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱeachȱofȱwhichȱ“isȱanȱ
assemblyȱconsistingȱofȱvariousȱcomponents,ȱincludingȱaȱcomponentȱfabricatedȱfromȱanȱ
aluminumȱextrusionȱandȱvariousȱcomponentsȱthatȱareȱnotȱmadeȱofȱaluminum.”ȱȱ
ColumbiaȱI,ȱ44ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ470ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1355ȱ(citationȱomitted).ȱȱTheȱnonȬaluminumȱ
componentsȱareȱmadeȱofȱsuchȱmaterialsȱasȱpolyvinylȱchlorideȱ(“PVC”)ȱandȱwoodȬfilledȱ
plasticȱsubstrateȱorȱanȱextrudedȱPVCȱsubstrate.ȱȱId.ȱ(citationȱomitted).ȱȱ“Itȱisȱuncontestedȱ
thatȱtheȱsingleȱcomponentȱinȱeachȱdoorȱthresholdȱthatȱisȱfabricatedȱfromȱanȱaluminumȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ5ȱ ȱ extrusionȱisȱmadeȱofȱanȱaluminumȱalloyȱidentifiedȱinȱtheȱscopeȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱOrders.”ȱȱ
Id.ȱ(citationȱomitted).ȱ
C.ȱȱTheȱContestedȱScopeȱRulingȱ
ColumbiaȱbroughtȱthisȱactionȱtoȱcontestȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱonȱitsȱ
importedȱdoorȱthresholdsȱ(theȱ“ScopeȱRuling”),ȱwhichȱCommerceȱissuedȱinȱ2018.ȱȱ
AntidumpingȱandȱCountervailingȱDutyȱOrdersȱonȱAluminumȱExtrusionsȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱ
RepublicȱofȱChina:ȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingsȱonȱWorldwideȱDoorȱComponents,ȱInc.,ȱMJBȱWoodȱ
GroupȱInc.,ȱandȱColumbiaȱAluminumȱProductsȱDoorȱThresholdsȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱDec.ȱ19,ȱ
2018),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ39,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ39ȱ(“ScopeȱRuling”)3.ȱȱTheȱScopeȱRulingȱconstruedȱtheȱscopeȱ
ofȱtheȱOrdersȱtoȱincludeȱtheȱaluminumȱextrusionȱcomponentȱofȱeachȱdoorȱthreshold,ȱbutȱ
notȱtheȱotherȱcomponents.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ37–38.ȱȱCommerceȱissuedȱtheȱScopeȱRulingȱinȱresponseȱ
toȱaȱrequestȱColumbiaȱsubmittedȱonȱMarchȱ14,ȱ2018.ȱȱColumbiaȱI,ȱ44ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ470ȱ
F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1355ȱ(citationȱomitted).ȱȱ
TheȱcourtȱorderedȱCommerceȱtoȱreconsiderȱitsȱScopeȱRulingȱthreeȱtimes.ȱȱ
ColumbiaȱI,ȱ44ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ470ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1354,ȱ1361–63;ȱColumbiaȱII,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ536ȱ
F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1348,ȱ1354–57;ȱColumbiaȱIII,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ587ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1385.ȱȱ
Respondingȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱColumbiaȱIII,ȱCommerceȱdecidedȱinȱtheȱ
ȱ 3ȱDocumentsȱinȱtheȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Dec.ȱ4,ȱ2019),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ39ȱ(public),ȱ42ȱ(conf.),ȱ
areȱcitedȱhereinȱasȱ“P.R.ȱDoc.ȱ__.”ȱȱCitationsȱtoȱJointȱAppendixȱdocumentsȱareȱtoȱtheȱ publicȱversions.ȱ ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ6ȱ ȱ “ThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination,”ȱunderȱprotest,ȱthatȱtheȱimportedȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱinȱ
theȱentirety,ȱareȱexcludedȱfromȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrders.ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱ
RedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCourtȱRemandȱ3,ȱ19ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱSept.ȱ9,ȱ2022),ȱ
ECFȱNo.ȱ85Ȭ1ȱ(“ThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination”).ȱȱTheȱcourtȱsustainedȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱ
Redetermination.ȱȱColumbiaȱIV,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1277,ȱ1283.ȱ
II.ȱȱDISCUSSIONȱ
A.ȱȱJurisdictionȱ
Theȱcourtȱexercisesȱsubjectȱmatterȱjurisdictionȱunderȱsectionȱ201ȱofȱtheȱCustomsȱ
CourtsȱActȱofȱ1980,ȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1581(c),ȱwhichȱgrantsȱjurisdictionȱoverȱcivilȱactionsȱ
broughtȱunderȱsectionȱ516AȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱofȱ1930,ȱasȱamendedȱ(“TariffȱAct”),ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ
§ȱ1516a.4ȱȱAmongȱtheȱdecisionsȱthatȱmayȱbeȱcontestedȱaccordingȱtoȱsectionȱ516Aȱisȱaȱ
determinationȱofȱ“whetherȱaȱparticularȱtypeȱofȱmerchandiseȱisȱwithinȱtheȱclassȱorȱkindȱ
ofȱmerchandiseȱdescribedȱinȱanȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱantidumpingȱorȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorder.”ȱȱId.ȱ
§ȱ1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi).ȱ
ȱ 4 ȱCitationsȱhereinȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱCodeȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2018ȱedition.ȱ ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ7ȱ ȱ B.ȱȱScopeȱLanguageȱIdentifyingȱ“DoorȱThresholds”ȱandȱ“Parts”ȱofȱ“DoorȱFrames”ȱasȱ ExamplesȱofȱAluminumȱExtrusionsȱthatȱAreȱWithinȱtheȱScopeȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱ ȱ TheȱOrders,ȱwhichȱcontainȱessentiallyȱidenticalȱscopeȱlanguage,ȱapplyȱgenerallyȱ
toȱ“aluminumȱextrusions”ȱmadeȱfromȱspecifiedȱaluminumȱalloys.5ȱȱADȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱ
Reg.ȱatȱ30,650;ȱCVDȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,653–54.ȱȱInȱadditionȱtoȱanȱaluminumȱshapeȱ
orȱformȱthatȱresultsȱonlyȱfromȱanȱextrusionȱprocess,ȱtheȱOrdersȱalsoȱinclude,ȱwithȱ
certainȱexceptions,ȱanyȱproductȱfabricatedȱfromȱaȱsingleȱaluminumȱextrusion,ȱregardlessȱ
ofȱanyȱdrawing,ȱfinishing,ȱcoating,ȱorȱfabricatingȱoperations,ȱincludingȱoperationsȱthatȱ
resultȱinȱfinishedȱproducts,ȱsuchȱasȱ“fenceȱposts,”ȱ“electricalȱconduits,”ȱandȱ“doorȱ
thresholds,”6ȱorȱinȱ“partsȱforȱfinalȱfinishedȱproductsȱthatȱareȱassembledȱafterȱ
ȱ ȱTheȱOrdersȱdefineȱtheȱtermȱ“aluminumȱextrusions”ȱasȱ“shapesȱandȱforms,ȱ 5
producedȱbyȱanȱextrusionȱprocess,ȱmadeȱfromȱaluminumȱalloysȱhavingȱmetallicȱ elementsȱcorrespondingȱtoȱtheȱalloyȱseriesȱdesignationsȱpublishedȱbyȱTheȱAluminumȱ Associationȱcommencingȱwithȱtheȱnumbersȱ1,ȱ3,ȱandȱ6ȱ(orȱproprietaryȱequivalentsȱorȱ otherȱcertifyingȱbodyȱequivalents).”ȱȱAluminumȱExtrusionsȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱ China:ȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ30,650,ȱ30,650ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱMayȱ26,ȱ 2011)ȱ(“ADȱOrder”);ȱAluminumȱExtrusionsȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱ CountervailingȱDutyȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ30,653,ȱ30,653ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱMayȱ26,ȱ2011)ȱ (“CVDȱOrder”).ȱ ȱ 6ȱ“Subjectȱextrusionsȱmayȱbeȱidentifiedȱwithȱreferenceȱtoȱtheirȱendȱuse,ȱsuchȱasȱ
fenceȱposts,ȱelectricalȱconduits,ȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱcarpetȱtrim,ȱorȱheatȱsinksȱ(thatȱdoȱnotȱ meetȱtheȱfinishedȱheatȱsinkȱexclusionaryȱlanguageȱbelow).ȱȱSuchȱgoodsȱareȱsubjectȱ merchandiseȱifȱtheyȱotherwiseȱmeetȱtheȱscopeȱdefinition,ȱregardlessȱofȱwhetherȱtheyȱareȱ readyȱforȱuseȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱimportation.”ȱȱADȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,651;ȱCVDȱOrder,ȱ 76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,654.ȱ ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ8ȱ ȱ importation,”ȱincludingȱ“doorȱframes.”7ȱȱADȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,650–51;ȱCVDȱ
Order,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,654.ȱ
TheȱScopeȱRulingȱcitedȱtheȱ“doorȱthresholds”ȱexemplarȱinȱtheȱscopeȱlanguageȱinȱ
concludingȱthatȱColumbia’sȱproductsȱfallȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrders.ȱȱScopeȱ
Rulingȱ34.ȱȱOnȱthatȱbasis,ȱamongȱothers,ȱColumbiaȱIȱrejectedȱthisȱapproach,ȱnotingȱthatȱ
theȱdoorȱthresholdsȱexemplarȱrefersȱtoȱaluminumȱextrusionsȱthatȱareȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱ
notȱdoorȱthresholdsȱmadeȱfromȱaȱcombinationȱofȱcomponents,ȱonlyȱoneȱofȱwhichȱhasȱ
beenȱfabricatedȱfromȱanȱaluminumȱextrusion.ȱȱColumbiaȱI,ȱ44ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ470ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ
atȱ1358.ȱ
C.ȱȱTheȱ“Subassemblies”ȱProvisionȱandȱtheȱ“FinishedȱMerchandise”ȱExclusionȱ ȱ TheȱOrdersȱalsoȱcontainȱaȱprovisionȱdescribedȱbyȱCommerceȱasȱtheȱ
“subassemblies”ȱprovision.ȱȱThisȱprovisionȱwasȱatȱissueȱinȱtheȱdecisionȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱ
AppealsȱinȱWorldwideȱV,ȱwhichȱaffirmedȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱthatȱtheȱ
provisionȱdescribedȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱthresholds.ȱȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ969–72.ȱȱTheȱ
subassembliesȱprovisionȱisȱasȱfollows:ȱȱ
Theȱscopeȱincludesȱtheȱaluminumȱextrusionȱcomponentsȱthatȱareȱattachedȱ (e.g.,ȱbyȱweldingȱorȱfasteners)ȱtoȱformȱsubassemblies,ȱi.e.,ȱpartiallyȱ assembledȱmerchandiseȱunlessȱimportedȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱfinishedȱgoodsȱ‘kit’ȱ ȱ 7ȱ“Subjectȱaluminumȱextrusionsȱmayȱbeȱdescribedȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱimportationȱasȱ
partsȱforȱfinalȱfinishedȱproductsȱthatȱareȱassembledȱafterȱimportation,ȱincluding,ȱbutȱnotȱ limitedȱto,ȱwindowȱframes,ȱdoorȱframes,ȱsolarȱpanels,ȱcurtainȱwalls,ȱorȱfurniture.ȱȱSuchȱ partsȱthatȱotherwiseȱmeetȱtheȱdefinitionȱofȱaluminumȱextrusionsȱareȱincludedȱinȱtheȱ scope.”ȱȱADȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,650–51;ȱCVDȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,654.ȱȱ ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ9ȱ ȱ definedȱfurtherȱbelow.ȱȱTheȱscopeȱdoesȱnotȱincludeȱtheȱnonȬaluminumȱ extrusionȱcomponentsȱofȱsubassembliesȱorȱsubjectȱkits.ȱ ȱ ADȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,651;ȱCVDȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,654.ȱȱAddressingȱ
theȱsubassembliesȱprovision,ȱtheȱScopeȱRulingȱstatedȱasȱfollows:ȱ
Additionally,ȱweȱfindȱthatȱtheȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱwhichȱconstituteȱ aluminumȱextrusionȱcomponentsȱattachedȱtoȱnonȬaluminumȱextrusionȱ components,ȱmayȱalsoȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱsubassembliesȱpursuantȱtoȱtheȱ scopeȱofȱtheȱOrders.ȱȱThus,ȱtheȱnonȬaluminumȱextrusionȱcomponentsȱ(i.e.,ȱ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱtheȱPVCȱextrusions,ȱinsertȱbars,ȱinjectionȱmoldedȱwoodȱfilledȱplasticȱ substrates,ȱextrudedȱPVCȱsubstratesȱinȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱthresholds),ȱ whichȱareȱassembledȱwithȱtheȱinȬscopeȱaluminumȱextrusionȱcomponents,ȱ areȱnotȱincludedȱinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrders.ȱ ȱ ScopeȱRulingȱ34.ȱȱCommerceȱconsideredȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱtoȱfallȱwithinȱtheȱ
scopeȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱthatȱrefersȱtoȱ“subassemblies,ȱi.e.,ȱpartiallyȱassembledȱ
merchandise,”ȱADȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,651ȱ(emphasisȱadded);ȱCVDȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱ
Reg.ȱatȱ30,654ȱ(emphasisȱadded),ȱdespiteȱrecordȱevidenceȱthatȱtheseȱthresholds,ȱinȱtheȱ
formȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱwereȱimportedȱasȱ“merchandise,”ȱwereȱfullyȱassembled,ȱseeȱScopeȱ
Rulingȱ14;ȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ26ȱ(statingȱasȱaȱfindingȱthatȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱ
thresholdsȱareȱ“fullyȱassembled”).ȱ
TheȱDepartment’sȱrelianceȱonȱtheȱsubassembliesȱprovisionȱalsoȱraisedȱtheȱissueȱofȱ
whetherȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱqualifiedȱforȱanȱexclusion,ȱtheȱ“finishedȱ
merchandise”ȱexclusion,ȱthatȱtheȱOrdersȱalsoȱprovided.ȱȱThisȱexclusionȱisȱasȱfollows:ȱ
Theȱscopeȱalsoȱexcludesȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱcontainingȱaluminumȱ extrusionsȱasȱpartsȱthatȱareȱfullyȱandȱpermanentlyȱassembledȱandȱ completedȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱentry,ȱsuchȱasȱfinishedȱwindowsȱwithȱglass,ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ10ȱ ȱ doorsȱwithȱglassȱorȱvinyl,ȱpictureȱframesȱwithȱglassȱpaneȱandȱbackingȱ material,ȱandȱsolarȱpanels.ȱ ȱ ADȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,651;ȱCVDȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,654.ȱȱCommerceȱ
concludedȱinȱtheȱScopeȱRulingȱthatȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱdidȱnotȱapply,ȱ
relying,ȱerroneously,ȱonȱtheȱ“‘expressȱinclusionȱofȱ“doorȱthresholds”ȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱ
theȱOrders.’”ȱȱColumbiaȱI,ȱ44ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ470ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1358–59ȱ(quotingȱScopeȱ
Rulingȱ35–36).ȱȱColumbiaȱIȱdirectedȱCommerceȱtoȱ“giveȱfullȱandȱfairȱconsiderationȱtoȱtheȱ
issueȱofȱwhetherȱthisȱexclusionȱapplies,ȱuponȱmakingȱfindingsȱthatȱareȱsupportedȱbyȱ
substantialȱrecordȱevidence.”ȱȱId.,ȱ44ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ470ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1362.ȱ
Inȱtheȱdeterminationȱitȱsubmitted,ȱunderȱprotest,ȱinȱresponseȱtoȱColumbiaȱIȱ(i.e.,ȱ
theȱFirstȱRemandȱRedetermination),ȱCommerceȱagainȱconcludedȱthatȱtheȱfinishedȱ
merchandiseȱexclusionȱdidȱnotȱapply.ȱȱCommerceȱdecidedȱthatȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱ
thresholdsȱareȱ“subassemblies”ȱthatȱareȱnotȱ“finishedȱmerchandise”ȱwithinȱtheȱmeaningȱ
ofȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusion,ȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ23,ȱbecauseȱtheyȱ
“areȱnotȱinȱandȱofȱthemselvesȱtheȱfinalȱfinishedȱproduct,ȱbutȱratherȱaȱcomponentȱofȱaȱ
largerȱdownstreamȱproduct,”ȱid.ȱatȱ24.ȱȱRegardingȱ“downstreamȱproducts,”ȱCommerceȱ
mentionedȱasȱexamplesȱ“doorȱframesȱandȱpermanentȱbuildingȱstructures.”ȱȱId.ȱȱInȱ
reachingȱthisȱconclusion,ȱCommerceȱstatedȱthatȱitȱfoundȱinstructiveȱtheȱdecisionȱofȱtheȱ
CourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱShenyangȱYuandaȱAluminumȱIndus.ȱEng’gȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ
776ȱF.3dȱ1351,ȱ1358ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2015)ȱ(“ShenyangȱYuandaȱI”),ȱwhichȱrejectedȱtheȱclaimȱthatȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ11ȱ ȱ certainȱcurtainȱwallȱunitsȱwereȱexcludedȱfromȱtheȱOrdersȱunderȱtheȱfinishedȱ
merchandiseȱexclusion.ȱȱId.ȱ
Commerceȱsummarizedȱitsȱconclusionȱusingȱtheȱtermsȱofȱtheȱfinishedȱ
merchandiseȱexclusion,ȱstatingȱinȱtheȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱthatȱ“basedȱonȱourȱ
findingȱthatȱtheȱdoorȱthresholdsȱareȱ‘subassemblies,’ȱweȱfindȱthatȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱconstituteȱ
‘finishedȱmerchandiseȱcontainingȱextrusionsȱasȱpartsȱthatȱareȱfullyȱandȱpermanentlyȱ
assembledȱandȱcompletedȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱentry,ȱsuchȱasȱfinishedȱwindowsȱwithȱglass,ȱ
doorsȱwithȱglassȱorȱvinyl,ȱpictureȱframesȱwithȱglassȱpaneȱandȱbackingȱmaterial,ȱandȱ
solarȱpanels.’”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ26ȱ(citingȱtheȱOrders).ȱȱȱ
ThisȱCourt’sȱdecisionȱinȱColumbiaȱIIȱidentifiedȱaȱcontradictionȱinȱtheȱ
Department’sȱreasoningȱforȱdecidingȱthatȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱdidȱnotȱ
applyȱtoȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱthresholds.ȱȱTheȱColumbiaȱIIȱopinionȱstatedȱthatȱ“[t]heȱ
limitationȱonȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱCommerceȱattemptsȱtoȱimposeȱisȱ
contraryȱtoȱtheȱexemplarsȱforȱdoorsȱandȱwindowsȱthatȱtheȱscopeȱlanguageȱusedȱforȱtheȱ
purposeȱofȱillustration.”ȱȱColumbiaȱII,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ536ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1356.ȱȱAsȱtheȱ
opinionȱexplained,ȱtheȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱattemptedȱtoȱresolveȱthisȱ
contradictionȱbyȱaddressingȱtheȱdoorȱandȱwindowȱexemplarsȱasȱfollows:ȱ
[T]heseȱexemplarsȱareȱdefinedȱbyȱtheȱscopeȱasȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱthat,ȱ inȱandȱofȱthemselves,ȱsatisfyȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusion.ȱȱBecauseȱ theyȱareȱthemselvesȱfinishedȱmerchandise,ȱtheyȱareȱnotȱintermediaryȱ productsȱtoȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱthatȱmightȱqualifyȱasȱaȱsubassembly.ȱȱ Thereȱisȱnoȱneedȱtoȱfurtherȱanalyzeȱwhetherȱtheȱenumeratedȱproductsȱinȱ theȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱworkȱinȱconjunctionȱwithȱotherȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ12ȱ ȱ products,ȱandȱnoȱrequirementȱthat,ȱforȱexample,ȱaȱwindowȱwithȱglassȱorȱaȱ doorȱwithȱglassȱorȱvinylȱbeȱassembledȱintoȱaȱhouseȱtoȱsatisfyȱtheȱfinishedȱ merchandiseȱexclusion.ȱȱInȱcontrast,ȱbecauseȱdoorȱthresholdsȱareȱnotȱ specificallyȱenumeratedȱexamplesȱofȱfinishedȱmerchandise,ȱCommerceȱ mustȱundertakeȱanȱanalysisȱofȱwhetherȱtheyȱsatisfyȱtheȱcriteriaȱforȱtheȱ finishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusion.ȱȱAsȱexplainedȱabove,ȱweȱhaveȱdeterminedȱ thatȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱareȱsubassembliesȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱ incorporatedȱintoȱaȱlargerȱdownstreamȱproductȱand,ȱconsequently,ȱdoȱnotȱ satisfyȱtheȱcriteriaȱforȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusion.ȱ ȱ Id.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ536ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1355–56ȱ(quotingȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ46).ȱȱ
ColumbiaȱIIȱopinedȱthatȱ“[t]hisȱreasoningȱisȱbasedȱonȱaȱseriousȱmisinterpretationȱofȱtheȱ
scopeȱlanguageȱsettingȱforthȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusion,”ȱbyȱwhichȱ“Commerceȱ
interpretsȱtheȱexemplarsȱthereinȱasȱseparate,ȱindividualȱexclusionsȱratherȱthanȱasȱwhatȱ
theyȱplainlyȱare,”ȱi.e.,ȱ“exemplars.”ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ536ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1356.ȱȱTheȱ
opinionȱstated,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱȱ
Commerceȱprovidesȱnoȱconvincingȱexplanationȱofȱwhyȱgoodsȱthatȱare,ȱinȱ theȱDepartment’sȱwords,ȱ“designedȱforȱtheȱsoleȱpurposeȱofȱbecomingȱpartȱ ofȱaȱlargerȱwhole,”ȱ[First]ȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ24,ȱorȱ“meantȱtoȱbeȱ incorporatedȱintoȱaȱlargerȱdownstreamȱproduct,”ȱid.ȱatȱ46,ȱmustȱbeȱ disqualifiedȱfromȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱbyȱthatȱcharacteristicȱ alone,ȱdespiteȱtheȱexemplarsȱofȱproductsȱthatȱalsoȱareȱdesignedȱforȱtheȱsoleȱ purposeȱofȱbecomingȱpartȱofȱaȱlargerȱwholeȱyetȱareȱlistedȱinȱtheȱscopeȱ languageȱasȱexamplesȱofȱproductsȱthatȱsatisfyȱtheȱtermsȱofȱtheȱfinishedȱ merchandiseȱexclusion.ȱ ȱ Id.ȱȱColumbiaȱIIȱdirectedȱ“thatȱCommerce,ȱinȱaȱnewȱdecision,ȱreconsiderȱinȱtheȱentiretyȱ
theȱdecisionȱreachedȱinȱtheȱ[First]ȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱasȱtoȱtheȱfinishedȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ13ȱ ȱ merchandiseȱexclusion.”8ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ536ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1357.ȱ
InȱitsȱdecisionȱinȱresponseȱtoȱColumbiaȱIIȱ(theȱ“SecondȱRemandȱ
Redetermination”),ȱCommerceȱruled,ȱunderȱprotest,ȱthatȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱ
areȱexcludedȱinȱtheȱentiretyȱfromȱtheȱOrders.ȱȱColumbiaȱIII,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ587ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ
atȱ1376ȱ(citingȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCt.ȱRemandȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ
Admin.ȱDec.ȱ13,ȱ2021),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ67Ȭ1).ȱȱBecauseȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ
wasȱnotȱaȱdecisionȱinȱaȱformȱtheȱcourtȱcouldȱsustain,ȱtheȱcourtȱdirectedȱCommerceȱtoȱ
issueȱaȱthirdȱremandȱredeterminationȱthatȱisȱ“inȱaȱformȱthatȱwouldȱgoȱintoȱeffectȱifȱ
sustainedȱuponȱjudicialȱreview.”ȱȱId.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ587ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1385.ȱ
CommerceȱruledȱinȱitsȱresponseȱtoȱColumbiaȱIIIȱ(theȱThirdȱRemandȱ
Redetermination),ȱunderȱprotest,ȱthatȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱwereȱexcludedȱfromȱ
ȱ 8 ȱInȱColumbiaȱAluminumȱProds.,ȱLLC.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ45ȱCITȱ__,ȱ536ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ 1346,ȱ1352–54ȱ(2021)ȱ(“ColumbiaȱII”),ȱthisȱCourtȱalsoȱdeclinedȱtoȱsustainȱanȱimpliedȱ findingȱorȱinferenceȱinȱtheȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱthatȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱ thresholdsȱrequiredȱcuttingȱorȱmachiningȱpriorȱtoȱincorporationȱintoȱaȱdoorȱframeȱorȱ otherȱstructure,ȱconcludingȱthatȱsuchȱaȱfindingȱorȱinferenceȱwasȱunsupportedȱbyȱ substantialȱevidenceȱandȱcontradictedȱbyȱcertainȱrecordȱevidenceȱsubmittedȱbyȱ Columbia.ȱȱColumbiaȱIIȱdirectedȱCommerceȱtoȱmakeȱanȱactualȱfindingȱofȱfactȱtoȱresolveȱ theȱissueȱbasedȱonȱrecordȱevidenceȱviewedȱinȱtheȱentirety.ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ536ȱ F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1354.ȱȱInȱitsȱnextȱdecision,ȱCommerceȱdeclinedȱtoȱreachȱaȱfindingȱthatȱanyȱ suchȱcuttingȱorȱmachiningȱwasȱrequiredȱuponȱitsȱconclusion,ȱunderȱprotestȱ(discussedȱ herein),ȱthatȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱappliedȱtoȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱthresholds.ȱȱ SeeȱColumbiaȱAluminumȱProds.,ȱLLC.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ587ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1375,ȱ 1383–84ȱ(2022).ȱȱInȱitsȱfinalȱdecision,ȱCommerceȱfoundȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱdidȱnotȱ supportȱaȱconclusionȱthatȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱrequiredȱcuttingȱorȱmachining.ȱȱ ColumbiaȱAluminumȱProds.,ȱLLC.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1275,ȱ1283ȱ (2022).ȱ ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ14ȱ ȱ theȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱinȱtheȱentirety.ȱȱColumbiaȱIV,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1282ȱ
(citingȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ3).ȱȱTheȱdecisionȱwasȱinȱaȱformȱthatȱwouldȱgoȱintoȱ
effectȱifȱsustainedȱbyȱthisȱCourt.ȱȱId.ȱȱConcludingȱthatȱ“[t]heȱessentialȱagencyȱfindingsȱ
supporting”ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱ“areȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱ
recordȱofȱthisȱcase,”ȱid.,ȱtheȱcourtȱsustainedȱthisȱdecisionȱandȱenteredȱjudgmentȱinȱfavorȱ
ofȱColumbia,ȱid.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1283.ȱ
D.ȱȱTheȱDecisionȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱWorldwideȱVȱ
InȱtheȱproceedingsȱbeforeȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppeals,ȱtheȱpartiesȱ“present[ed]ȱ
argumentȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱallȱthreeȱbasesȱthatȱtheȱagencyȱconsideredȱinȱtheȱ[Scopeȱ
Ruling],ȱnamely,ȱwhetherȱAppellees’ȱdoorȱthresholdsȱcanȱbeȱconsideredȱsubjectȱ
merchandiseȱasȱ(1)ȱ‘partsȱforȱfinalȱfinishedȱproducts,’ȱ(2)ȱproductsȱ‘identifiedȱwithȱ
referenceȱtoȱtheirȱendȱuse,’ȱorȱ(3)ȱ‘subassemblies.’”ȱȱWorldwideȱV,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ968.ȱȱTheȱ
CourtȱofȱAppealsȱaddressedȱtheȱsubassembliesȱprovisionȱandȱdidȱnotȱreachȱtheȱotherȱ
twoȱbasesȱtheȱpartiesȱaddressed.ȱȱId.,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ968,ȱ972.ȱ
Inȱaddressingȱtheȱsubassembliesȱprovision,ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱmadeȱthreeȱ
rulings.ȱȱFirst,ȱitȱruledȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱinȱtheȱScopeȱRulingȱthatȱ
Columbia’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱareȱsubassembliesȱwasȱnotȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱ
evidence.ȱȱId.,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ969.ȱȱItȱexplainedȱthatȱCommerceȱdidȱnotȱprovideȱaȱsufficientȱ
explanationȱforȱitsȱconclusion,ȱi.e.,ȱ“atȱleastȱsomeȱcitationȱandȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱrecordȱ
evidence.”ȱȱId.ȱȱSecond,ȱitȱruledȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱsubassembliesȱfindingȱinȱtheȱFirstȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ15ȱ ȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱwasȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidence,ȱid.,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ971,ȱ
whichȱcuredȱ“anyȱdefectȱinȱtheȱagency’sȱsubassembliesȱanalysis”ȱinȱtheȱScopeȱRuling,ȱ
id.,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ969.ȱȱFinally,ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱruledȱthatȱ“itȱwasȱerrorȱforȱtheȱtrialȱ
courtȱtoȱremandȱtheȱcaseȱbackȱtoȱtheȱagencyȱforȱfailureȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱfinishedȱ
merchandiseȱexceptionȱinȱlightȱofȱitsȱsubassemblyȱfinding,”ȱ“[b]ecauseȱsubassembliesȱ
andȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱareȱmutuallyȱexclusiveȱcategoriesȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱtheȱ
Orders.”ȱȱId.,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ972.ȱȱInȱsoȱconcluding,ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱappliedȱitsȱ
decisionȱinȱChinaȱCustomȱMfg.ȱInc.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ61ȱF.4thȱ956,ȱ960ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2023),ȱ
issuedȱafterȱColumbiaȱIVȱwasȱdecided.ȱȱId.ȱ(citingȱalsoȱShenyangȱYuandaȱI,ȱ776ȱF.3dȱ
atȱ1358).ȱȱTheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱsustained,ȱasȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidence,ȱtheȱ
Department’sȱdeterminationȱthatȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱwere,ȱinȱtheȱwordsȱofȱtheȱ
subassembliesȱprovision,ȱ“partiallyȱassembledȱmerchandise,”ȱwhichȱCommerceȱreachedȱ
onȱtheȱbasisȱofȱtheȱuncontestedȱfactȱthatȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱalthoughȱfullyȱ
assembledȱwhenȱimported,ȱareȱintendedȱtoȱbeȱattachedȱtoȱotherȱcomponentsȱafterȱ
importation.ȱȱId.,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ969–72;ȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ25.ȱ
E.ȱȱFutureȱCasesȱ
Theȱsubassembliesȱprovisionȱhasȱgeneratedȱproblemsȱofȱinterpretation,ȱnotȱonlyȱ
forȱtheȱcourtsȱbutȱalsoȱforȱCommerce.ȱȱTheȱproblemsȱstemȱinȱpartȱfromȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ
currentȱposition,ȱnowȱaffirmedȱbyȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱChinaȱCustomȱMfg.ȱandȱ
WorldwideȱV,ȱthatȱanȱimportedȱgoodȱcontainingȱanȱ“aluminumȱextrusion”ȱ(asȱdefinedȱinȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ16ȱ ȱ theȱOrders)ȱdoesȱnotȱqualifyȱforȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱifȱitȱisȱaȱ
“subassembly,”ȱaȱscopeȱtermȱCommerceȱnowȱconsidersȱtoȱinclude,ȱbroadly,ȱanyȱgoodȱ
thatȱisȱdesignedȱtoȱbeȱincorporatedȱintoȱaȱlargerȱdownstreamȱproductȱafterȱimportation.ȱ
InȱWorldwideȱV,ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱalludedȱtoȱoneȱofȱtheȱissuesȱposedȱbyȱtheȱ
Department’sȱbroadȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱtermȱ“subassemblies”ȱbyȱreferencingȱtheȱ
exemplarsȱforȱfinishedȱwindowsȱwithȱglassȱandȱdoorsȱwithȱglassȱorȱvinylȱthatȱareȱ
containedȱwithinȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusion.ȱȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ971–72.ȱȱAsȱdiscussedȱ
supra,ȱColumbiaȱIIȱidentifiedȱasȱaȱcontradictionȱinȱtheȱDepartment’sȱreasoningȱthatȱtheseȱ
exemplarsȱdescribeȱproductsȱspecificallyȱdesignedȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱbecomingȱpartȱofȱaȱ
largerȱwhole,ȱandȱthusȱwouldȱbeȱconsideredȱ“subassemblies”ȱunderȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ
analysis,ȱyetȱareȱexpresslyȱexcludedȱbyȱunambiguousȱscopeȱlanguage.ȱȱColumbiaȱII,ȱ
45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ536ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1355–56.ȱȱInȱWorldwideȱV,ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱ
recountedȱthatȱthisȱCourtȱsoughtȱ“‘aȱplausibleȱexplanationȱofȱwhyȱtheȱarticlesȱ
mentionedȱinȱtheȱ“door”ȱandȱ“window”ȱexemplarsȱofȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱ
exclusionȱsatisfyȱthatȱexclusionȱbutȱthatȱ[Columbia’s]ȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱasȱdescribedȱinȱ
theȱScopeȱRulingȱRequest,ȱdoȱnot.’”ȱȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ971–72ȱ(citationsȱomitted).ȱȱAlthoughȱitȱ
interpretedȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱtoȱmeanȱthatȱaȱproductȱdescribedȱasȱaȱ
“subassembly”ȱ“‘cannotȱqualifyȱforȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusion,’”ȱid.,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱ
atȱ972ȱ(quotingȱChinaȱCustomȱMfg.,ȱ61ȱF.4thȱatȱ960),ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱacknowledgedȱ
thisȱCourt’sȱ“concern”ȱarisingȱfromȱtheȱexclusionȱfromȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱproductsȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ17ȱ ȱ identifiedȱinȱtheȱdoorȱandȱwindowȱexemplars,ȱid.ȱ(“Weȱacknowledgeȱtheȱtrialȱcourt’sȱ
concernȱwithȱlineȬdrawingȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheseȱOrdersȱandȱagreeȱthatȱaȱdiscussionȱ
distinguishingȱtheȱcategoriesȱcouldȱhaveȱbeenȱaȱhelpfulȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱagency’sȱ
decision.”).ȱȱTheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱconcluded,ȱnevertheless,ȱthatȱ“suchȱanȱomissionȱdoesȱ
notȱconstituteȱreversibleȱerror,”ȱreasoningȱthatȱtheȱissueȱpresentedȱ“‘aȱquestionȱofȱfactȱ
reviewedȱforȱsubstantialȱevidence.’”ȱȱId.ȱ(quotingȱMeridianȱProds.,ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ
851ȱF.3dȱ1375,ȱ1382ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2017)).ȱȱInȱsoȱruling,ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱappliedȱChinaȱ
CustomȱMfg.ȱasȱaȱprecedentȱsustainingȱtheȱDepartment’sȱinterpretationȱthatȱtheȱ
“subassemblies”ȱprovisionȱandȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱareȱ“mutuallyȱ
exclusive.”ȱȱId.ȱ
AȱsecondȱproblemȱisȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱcurrent,ȱbroadȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱ
subassembliesȱprovisionȱcanȱleadȱtoȱunreasonable,ȱandȱevenȱabsurd,ȱresults.ȱȱThatȱ
Commerceȱhasȱbeenȱawareȱofȱthisȱproblemȱsinceȱatȱleastȱ2012ȱisȱdemonstratedȱbyȱtheȱ
Department’sȱscopeȱrulingȱonȱaȱ“sideȱmountȱvalveȱcontrol,”ȱorȱ“SMVC.”ȱȱSeeȱ
AntidumpingȱDutyȱ(AD)ȱandȱCountervailingȱDutyȱ(CVD)ȱOrders:ȱAluminumȱExtrusionsȱfromȱ
theȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱ(PRC):ȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱonȱSideȱMountȱValveȱControls,ȱCaseȱ
Nos.ȱCȬ570Ȭ968,ȱBarcodeȱNo.ȱ3103459Ȭ01;ȱAȬ570Ȭ967,ȱBarcodeȱNo.ȱ3103461Ȭ01ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ
Admin.ȱOct.ȱ26,ȱ2012),ȱaccess.trade.gov.ȱȱThisȱ“SMVCȱScopeȱRuling”ȱadoptedȱ
unchangedȱtheȱpreliminaryȱdecisionȱCommerceȱreachedȱinȱthatȱscopeȱproceeding.ȱȱId.ȱ
atȱ1–2;ȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱ(AD)ȱandȱCountervailingȱDutyȱ(CVD)ȱOrders:ȱAluminumȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ18ȱ ȱ ExtrusionsȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱ(PRC):ȱInitiationȱandȱPreliminaryȱScopeȱRulingȱ
onȱSideȱMountȱValveȱControls,ȱCaseȱNos.ȱCȬ570Ȭ968,ȱBarcodeȱNo.ȱ3098425Ȭ01;ȱAȬ570Ȭ967,ȱ
BarcodeȱNo.ȱ3098426Ȭ01ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱSept.ȱ24,ȱ2012),ȱaccess.trade.govȱ(“SMVCȱ
Prelim.ȱScopeȱRuling”).ȱ
TheȱimportedȱproductȱatȱissueȱinȱtheȱSMVCȱScopeȱRulingȱwasȱaȱcollectionȱofȱ
componentsȱinȱunassembledȱ“kit”ȱform,ȱwhichȱcontainedȱallȱtheȱpartsȱnecessaryȱtoȱ
assembleȱaȱcompleteȱsideȱmountȱvalveȱcontrol.ȱȱSMVCȱPrelim.ȱScopeȱRulingȱ2,ȱ7.ȱȱ
CommerceȱdescribedȱtheȱSMVCȱasȱaȱproductȱthatȱ“manuallyȱcontrolsȱwaterȱorȱfoamȱ
pressureȱandȱflowȱinȱfirefightingȱequipment,ȱspecificallyȱfromȱhosesȱorȱtheirȱpumperȱ
discharges,ȱsuchȱasȱdeckȱgunsȱandȱmonitors.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ2.ȱȱTheȱkitȱcontainedȱsomeȱ
componentsȱthatȱwereȱnotȱaluminumȱextrusions.ȱȱSeeȱid.ȱȱCommerceȱexplainedȱthatȱ
“[a]fterȱimportation,ȱtheȱSMVCȱisȱassembledȱandȱinstalledȱonȱtoȱaȱfireȱtruck”ȱandȱthatȱ
“[o]nceȱinstalled,ȱtheȱSMVCȱcontrolsȱtheȱlineȱpressureȱandȱsubsequentȱstreamȱdistanceȱ
ofȱtheȱhoseȱdischarge.”ȱȱId.ȱȱAddressingȱbothȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱandȱtheȱ
finishedȱgoodsȱkitȱexclusionȱinȱtheȱscopeȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱOrders,ȱCommerceȱstatedȱitsȱ
positionȱasȱfollows:ȱ
Department’sȱPosition:ȱȱInȱpriorȱscopeȱrulings,ȱtheȱDepartmentȱfoundȱthatȱ merchandiseȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱ“finishedȱgood”ȱorȱ“finishedȱ goodsȱkit”ȱifȱitȱwasȱdesignedȱtoȱworkȱwithȱotherȱpartsȱtoȱformȱaȱlargerȱ structureȱorȱsystem.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱHowever,ȱuponȱfurtherȱreflectionȱofȱtheȱlanguageȱ inȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱandȱforȱpurposesȱofȱthisȱpreliminaryȱscopeȱ ruling,ȱtheȱDepartmentȱisȱrevisingȱtheȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱitȱdeterminesȱ whetherȱaȱgivenȱproductȱisȱaȱ“finishedȱgood”ȱorȱ“finishedȱgoodsȱkit.”ȱȱTheȱ Departmentȱhasȱidentifiedȱaȱconcernȱwithȱthisȱanalysis,ȱnamelyȱthatȱitȱmayȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ19ȱ ȱ leadȱtoȱunreasonableȱresults.ȱȱAnȱinterpretationȱofȱ“finishedȱgoodsȱkit”ȱ whichȱrequiresȱallȱpartsȱtoȱassembleȱtheȱultimateȱdownstreamȱproductȱ mayȱleadȱtoȱabsurdȱresults,ȱparticularlyȱwhereȱtheȱultimateȱdownstreamȱ productȱis,ȱforȱexample,ȱaȱfireȱtruck.ȱȱThisȱinterpretationȱmayȱexpandȱtheȱ scopeȱofȱtheȱOrders,ȱwhichȱareȱintendedȱtoȱcoverȱaluminumȱextrusions.ȱ ȱ Id.ȱatȱ6–7ȱ(footnotesȱomitted).ȱȱReferringȱtoȱtheȱkitȱexclusionȱandȱalludingȱtoȱtheȱ
exemplarsȱinȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusion,ȱCommerceȱruledȱthatȱtheȱSMVCȱisȱaȱ
“subassembly”ȱthatȱqualifiedȱforȱtheȱfinishedȱgoodsȱkitȱexclusion,ȱreasoningȱthatȱ“[t]hisȱ
isȱconsistentȱwithȱscopeȱlanguageȱthatȱexcludesȱmerchandiseȱlikeȱwindowsȱwithȱglassȱorȱ
doorsȱwithȱglassȱorȱvinyl,ȱeachȱofȱwhichȱincludesȱallȱofȱtheȱpartsȱnecessaryȱtoȱassembleȱaȱ
completeȱwindowȱorȱdoor,ȱbutȱareȱnecessarilyȱassembledȱintoȱaȱlargerȱstructure,ȱsuchȱasȱ
aȱhouse.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ7–8.ȱ
CommerceȱreversedȱtheȱpositionȱtakenȱinȱtheȱSMVCȱScopeȱRulingȱsubsequentȱtoȱ
theȱdecisionȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱShenyangȱYuandaȱI.ȱȱConsequently,ȱtheȱproblemȱ
persistsȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱcurrentȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱsubassembliesȱprovisionȱcanȱ
leadȱtoȱ“unreasonable”ȱandȱ“absurd”ȱresults.ȱȱAȱseeminglyȱinfiniteȱvarietyȱofȱimported,ȱ
assembledȱproductsȱmayȱcontainȱanȱ“aluminumȱextrusion”ȱcomponentȱyetȱbeȱdesignedȱ
toȱbeȱincorporatedȱintoȱaȱlargerȱdownstreamȱproductȱafterȱimportation.ȱȱItȱisȱnotȱ
reasonableȱtoȱexpectȱthatȱeveryȱsuchȱaluminumȱextrusionȱcomponentȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱ
soldȱseparatelyȱtoȱtheȱimporter,ȱwhoȱevenȱmayȱbeȱunawareȱofȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱ
component.ȱȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱnotȱonlyȱcanȱtheȱcurrentȱDepartmentȱinterpretationȱleadȱtoȱ
resultsȱthat,ȱinȱtheȱDepartment’sȱownȱcharacterizations,ȱareȱ“unreasonable”ȱorȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ20ȱ ȱ “absurd,”ȱbutȱitȱalsoȱcanȱgenerateȱcircumstancesȱincapableȱofȱadministrationȱfromȱaȱ
customsȱstandpoint.9ȱ
Inȱfutureȱcases,ȱtheȱsolutionȱtoȱtheȱvariousȱproblemsȱofȱinterpretationȱposedȱbyȱ
theȱsubassembliesȱprovision,ȱasȱcurrentlyȱappliedȱbyȱCommerce,ȱmayȱlieȱinȱprovisionsȱ
ofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱitself,ȱinȱparticularȱsectionsȱ731ȱandȱ701(a),ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§§ȱ1673,ȱ1671(a).ȱȱ
Sectionȱ731ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱimposes,ȱuponȱcertainȱdefinedȱprerequisites,ȱ“anȱ
antidumpingȱduty”ȱuponȱ“aȱclassȱorȱkindȱofȱforeignȱmerchandise”ȱthatȱ“isȱbeing,ȱorȱisȱ
likelyȱtoȱbe,ȱsoldȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱatȱlessȱthanȱitsȱfairȱvalue.”ȱȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1673ȱ
(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱSimilarly,ȱsectionȱ701(a)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱimposes,ȱuponȱcertainȱ
definedȱprerequisites,ȱ“aȱcountervailingȱdutyȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱequalȱtoȱtheȱamountȱofȱtheȱnetȱ
countervailableȱsubsidy”ȱuponȱ“aȱclassȱorȱkindȱofȱmerchandiseȱimported,ȱorȱsoldȱ(orȱlikelyȱ
toȱbeȱsold)ȱforȱimportation,ȱintoȱtheȱUnitedȱStates.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1671(a)ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱTheȱ
“classȱorȱkindȱofȱmerchandise”ȱsoldȱorȱofferedȱforȱsaleȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱisȱthatȱwhichȱ
CommerceȱmustȱdefineȱandȱaddressȱinȱanȱADȱorȱCVDȱorder.ȱȱSeeȱid.ȱ§§ȱ1673,ȱ1673e(a)ȱ
(togetherȱprovidingȱforȱissuanceȱofȱanȱorderȱassessingȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱequalȱtoȱtheȱ
amountȱbyȱwhichȱnormalȱvalueȱexceedsȱtheȱexportȱpriceȱorȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱofȱ
ȱ 9 ȱLikeȱtheȱantidumpingȱandȱcountervailingȱdutyȱprovisionsȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱofȱ 1930,ȱasȱamendedȱ(“TariffȱAct”),ȱtheȱappraisementȱprovisionsȱofȱsectionȱ402ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱ Actȱare,ȱasȱaȱgeneralȱmatter,ȱstructuredȱforȱtheȱassessmentȱofȱdutiesȱonȱtheȱimportedȱ merchandiseȱitself,ȱandȱtypicallyȱonȱtheȱimportedȱmerchandiseȱthatȱisȱsoldȱforȱexportȱtoȱ theȱUnitedȱStates,ȱandȱnotȱonȱaȱsingleȱupstreamȱcomponentȱorȱsubstanceȱusedȱinȱ producingȱthatȱimportedȱmerchandise.ȱȱSeeȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1401a(a).ȱ ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ21ȱ ȱ theȱmerchandiseȱsoldȱorȱofferedȱforȱsaleȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStates);ȱ1671(a),ȱ1671e(a)ȱ(togetherȱ
providingȱforȱissuanceȱofȱanȱorderȱassessingȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱequalȱtoȱtheȱamountȱ
ofȱtheȱsubsidyȱprovidedȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱmanufacture,ȱproduction,ȱorȱexportȱofȱtheȱ
classȱorȱkindȱofȱmerchandiseȱimported,ȱsold,ȱorȱlikelyȱtoȱbeȱsoldȱforȱimportationȱintoȱtheȱ
UnitedȱStates).ȱȱThus,ȱbothȱtheȱantidumpingȱandȱtheȱcountervailingȱdutyȱprovisionsȱofȱ
theȱTariffȱActȱareȱdirectedȱtoȱ“merchandise”ȱthatȱisȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱunfairlyȱtraded,ȱasȱ
aȱresultȱofȱdumpingȱorȱaȱcountervailableȱsubsidy,ȱuponȱbeingȱsold,ȱorȱofferedȱforȱsale,ȱ
forȱimportationȱintoȱtheȱUnitedȱStates.10ȱȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱantidumpingȱandȱ
countervailingȱdutiesȱareȱconsideredȱ“remedial,”ȱi.e.,ȱtheyȱareȱdirectedȱtoȱremedyingȱtheȱ
unfairȱpricesȱatȱwhichȱtheȱimportedȱmerchandiseȱisȱsoldȱorȱofferedȱforȱsaleȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱ
States,ȱifȱfoundȱtoȱposeȱinjuryȱorȱthreatȱtoȱaȱdomesticȱindustry.ȱ
Inȱcontrast,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱcurrentȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱcanȱresultȱinȱ
theȱassessmentȱofȱantidumpingȱandȱcountervailingȱdutiesȱonȱproductsȱthatȱareȱnotȱsoldȱ
orȱofferedȱforȱsaleȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱbutȱinsteadȱareȱupstreamȱcomponentsȱinȱtheȱ
ȱ 10 ȱReferringȱtoȱtheȱ“merchandise”ȱthatȱisȱfoundȱtoȱbeȱunfairlyȱsoldȱorȱofferedȱforȱ saleȱinȱtheȱU.S.ȱmarketȱdueȱtoȱdumpingȱorȱaȱsubsidy,ȱtheȱstatuteȱdefinesȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱ U.S.ȱInternationalȱTradeȱCommissionȱasȱdeterminingȱwhetherȱ“importsȱofȱthatȱ merchandiseȱorȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱsalesȱ(orȱtheȱlikelihoodȱofȱsales)ȱofȱthatȱmerchandise”ȱcauseȱinjuryȱorȱ threatȱofȱinjuryȱtoȱaȱdomesticȱindustry,ȱorȱmaterialȱretardationȱofȱestablishmentȱofȱaȱ domesticȱindustry.ȱȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§§ȱ1671(a)ȱ(emphasisȱadded),ȱ1673ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱ ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ22ȱ ȱ merchandiseȱthatȱactuallyȱisȱimportedȱandȱsold.11ȱȱTheȱcourtȱisȱunawareȱofȱTariffȱActȱ
provisionsȱthatȱexpresslyȱauthorizeȱCommerceȱtoȱstructureȱorȱapplyȱanȱantidumpingȱorȱ
countervailingȱdutyȱorderȱinȱthisȱway.ȱȱSeeȱTheȱMosaicȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ47ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ
659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1285,ȱ1294–95ȱ(2023).ȱ
Inȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱsubassembliesȱprovision,ȱasȱ
appliedȱtoȱColumbia’sȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱwillȱresultȱinȱtheȱassessmentȱofȱantidumpingȱ
andȱcountervailingȱdutiesȱonȱanȱupstream,ȱincorporatedȱcomponentȱ(i.e.,ȱtheȱaluminumȱ
extrusionȱcomponent)ȱofȱtheȱmerchandiseȱthatȱwasȱimportedȱandȱsoldȱ(i.e.,ȱtheȱ
complete,ȱassembledȱdoorȱthreshold,ȱwhichȱisȱnotȱanȱ“aluminumȱextrusion”ȱasȱdefinedȱ
inȱtheȱOrders).ȱȱNevertheless,ȱColumbiaȱdidȱnotȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱ
subassembliesȱprovisionȱCommerceȱappliedȱtoȱitsȱfullyȱassembledȱdoorȱthresholdsȱ
contravenedȱtheȱplainȱmeaningȱandȱpurposeȱofȱbasicȱTariffȱActȱprovisionsȱgoverningȱ
theȱassessmentȱofȱantidumpingȱandȱcountervailingȱduties.ȱȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱtheȱissueȱtheȱ
courtȱhasȱidentifiedȱrelatingȱtoȱtheseȱbasicȱstatutoryȱprovisionsȱwasȱnotȱbeforeȱitȱ(and,ȱ
therefore,ȱwasȱnotȱbeforeȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppeals)ȱinȱthisȱlitigation.ȱȱFutureȱcasesȱcouldȱ
provideȱclarityȱonȱtheȱissueȱofȱwhetherȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱandȱspecificallyȱsectionsȱ731ȱandȱ
701(a)ȱthereof,ȱallowsȱCommerceȱroutinelyȱtoȱorderȱtheȱassessmentȱofȱtheseȱremedialȱ
ȱ 11ȱTheȱTariffȱActȱcontainsȱaȱprovisionȱforȱassessmentȱofȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱonȱ
anȱ“upstreamȱsubsidy,”ȱbutȱitȱappliesȱonlyȱinȱcircumstancesȱnotȱrelevantȱhere.ȱȱSeeȱ 19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677Ȭ1.ȱ ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00013ȱȱ Pageȱ23ȱ
dutiesȱonȱupstreamȱmaterialsȱandȱcomponentsȱusedȱinȱtheȱproductionȱofȱtheȱ
merchandiseȱthatȱisȱsoldȱorȱofferedȱforȱsaleȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStates.ȱȱSuchȱclarityȱmayȱbeȱ
needed,ȱinȱparticular,ȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱsignificantȱproblemsȱofȱinterpretationȱpresentedȱbyȱ
theȱDepartment’sȱcurrentȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱandȱtheȱlimitingȱprincipleȱthatȱ
LoperȱBrightȱEnters.ȱv.ȱRaimondo,ȱ603ȱU.S.ȱ369,ȱ391–92,ȱ394–96,ȱ412–13ȱ(2024),ȱappliesȱtoȱ
anȱagency’sȱinterpretationȱofȱaȱstatuteȱitȱisȱchargedȱtoȱadminister.ȱ
III. CONCLUSION
Forȱtheȱpresent,ȱitȱremainsȱforȱthisȱCourtȱtoȱenterȱaȱjudgmentȱthatȱeffectuatesȱtheȱ
decisionȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱWorldwideȱVȱandȱgovernsȱtheȱliquidationȱofȱtheȱ
entriesȱatȱissueȱinȱthisȱcase.ȱȱȱ
WorldwideȱVȱdirectedȱthisȱCourtȱtoȱ“reinstateȱtheȱnonȬprotestedȱportionsȱofȱtheȱ
agency’sȱFirstȱRemandȱRedetermination.”ȱȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ972.ȱȱTheȱnonȬprotestedȱportionsȱofȱ
theȱagency’sȱdecisionȱprovidedȱforȱtheȱaluminumȱextrusionȱcomponentȱwithinȱeachȱofȱ
Columbia’sȱimportedȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱbutȱnotȱtheȱotherȱcomponents,ȱtoȱbeȱsubjectȱtoȱ
antidumpingȱandȱcountervailingȱduties,ȱwhileȱtheȱprotestedȱportionȱconsistedȱofȱtheȱ
directiveȱinȱColumbiaȱIȱtoȱconsiderȱwhetherȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱappliedȱ
toȱtheseȱproducts.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱwillȱenterȱaȱjudgmentȱaccordingly.ȱ
/s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu TimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ Dated:ȱJuneȱ25,ȱ2025ȱȱ ȱNewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ