SlipȱOp.ȱ25Ȭ80ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ
WORLDWIDEȱDOORȱCOMPONENTS,ȱ INC.,ȱ
Plaintiff,ȱ
v.ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ Before:ȱȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ
Defendant,ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ
andȱ
ALUMINUMȱEXTRUSIONSȱFAIRȱ TRADEȱCOMMITTEEȱANDȱENDURAȱ PRODUCTS,ȱINC.,ȱ
DefendantȬIntervenors.ȱ
OPINIONȱ
[EffectuatingȱtheȱmandateȱofȱtheȱU.S.ȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱforȱtheȱFederalȱCircuitȱbyȱ reinstatingȱaȱportionȱofȱaȱpreviousȱagencyȱdetermination]ȱ
Dated:ȱJuneȱ25,ȱ2025ȱ
JohnȱM.ȱFooteȱandȱMelissaȱM.ȱBrewer,ȱKelleyȱDryeȱ&ȱWarrenȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱ D.C.,ȱforȱplaintiffȱWorldwideȱDoorȱComponents,ȱInc.
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.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ2ȱ 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
WorldwideȱDoorȱComponents,ȱInc.ȱ(“Worldwide”)ȱimportedȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱ
RepublicȱofȱChinaȱ(“China,”ȱorȱtheȱ“PRC”),ȱeachȱofȱwhichȱcontainedȱasȱaȱcomponentȱ
partȱanȱ“aluminumȱextrusion.”ȱȱTheȱissueȱinȱthisȱlitigationȱwasȱwhetherȱthatȱcomponentȱ
partȱisȱsubjectȱtoȱantidumpingȱ(“AD”)ȱandȱcountervailingȱdutyȱ(“CVD”)ȱordersȱonȱ
certainȱaluminumȱextrusionsȱfromȱChinaȱ(theȱ“Orders”).ȱ
BeforeȱtheȱcourtȱisȱtheȱmandateȱissuedȱbyȱtheȱU.S.ȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱforȱtheȱ
FederalȱCircuitȱ(“CourtȱofȱAppeals”)ȱinȱWorldwideȱDoorȱComponents,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ
119ȱF.4thȱ959ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2024)ȱ(“WorldwideȱV”),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ118.ȱȱMandateȱinȱAppealȱ
Nos.ȱ2023Ȭ1532,ȱ2023Ȭ1534ȱ(Nov.ȱ14,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ120.ȱȱWorldwideȱVȱvacatedȱthisȱ
Court’sȱjudgmentȱinȱWorldwideȱDoorȱComponents,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ606ȱ
F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1363ȱ(2022)ȱ(“WorldwideȱIV”),ȱunderȱwhichȱtheȱaluminumȱextrusionȱ
componentȱinȱeachȱdoorȱthresholdȱwasȱheldȱtoȱbeȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrders,ȱid.,ȱ
46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ606ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1364.ȱȱWorldwideȱV,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ972.ȱȱWorldwideȱVȱ
reversedȱthisȱCourt’sȱremandȱorderȱinȱWorldwideȱDoorȱComponents,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ
45ȱCITȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1403ȱ(2021)ȱ(“WorldwideȱII”),ȱandȱvacatedȱthisȱCourt’sȱ
subsequentȱopinionsȱinȱWorldwideȱDoorȱComponents,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ589ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ3ȱ ȱ F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1185ȱ(2022)ȱ(“WorldwideȱIII”)ȱandȱWorldwideȱIV.ȱȱId.ȱȱInȱWorldwideȱV,ȱtheȱ
CourtȱofȱAppealsȱdirectedȱthisȱCourtȱtoȱ“reinstateȱtheȱnonȬprotestedȱportions”ȱofȱanȱ
earlierȱagencyȱdecision,ȱtheȱ“FirstȱRemandȱRedetermination”ȱofȱtheȱInternationalȱTradeȱ
Administration,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱCommerceȱ(“Commerce”ȱorȱtheȱ“Department”).ȱȱ
Id.;ȱseeȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCt.ȱRemand:ȱAluminumȱExtrusionsȱ
fromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱDec.ȱ23,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ64Ȭ1ȱ
(“FirstȱRemandȱRedetermination”).ȱȱInȱtheȱnonȬprotestedȱportionȱofȱtheȱFirstȱRemandȱ
Redetermination,ȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱthatȱtheȱaluminumȱextrusionȱcomponentȱinȱ
eachȱofȱtheȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱbutȱnotȱtheȱotherȱcomponents,ȱwasȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱ
Orders.ȱȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ1–2,ȱ10,ȱ38.ȱ
I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ
Worldwideȱcommencedȱthisȱactionȱinȱ2019.ȱȱSummonsȱ(Jan.ȱ18,ȱ2019),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ1;ȱ
Compl.ȱ(Feb.ȱ19,ȱ2019),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ13.ȱȱTheȱAluminumȱExtrusionsȱFairȱTradeȱCommitteeȱ
(theȱ“petitioner”)ȱandȱEnduraȱProducts,ȱInc.ȱ(“Endura”)ȱwereȱdefendantȬintervenors.1ȱ
Backgroundȱonȱthisȱlitigationȱisȱdescribedȱinȱtheȱpriorȱopinionsȱofȱtheȱcourtȱandȱ
theȱopinionȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱandȱisȱsummarizedȱandȱsupplementedȱherein.ȱȱSeeȱ
WorldwideȱDoorȱComponents,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ44ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ466ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1370,ȱ
ȱ ȱEnduraȱProducts,ȱInc.ȱwithdrewȱitsȱpositionȱasȱdefendantȬintervenorȱonȱ 1
Marchȱ23,ȱ2023.ȱȱOrderȱ(Mar.ȱ23,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ116.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ4ȱ ȱ 1372–73ȱ(2020)ȱ(“WorldwideȱI”);ȱWorldwideȱII,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1405–06;ȱ
WorldwideȱIII,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ589ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1186–87;ȱWorldwideȱIV,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ606ȱ
F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1364–65;ȱWorldwideȱV,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.ȱȱWorldwide’sȱImportedȱDoorȱThresholdsȱ
Atȱissueȱareȱ18ȱmodelsȱofȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱeachȱofȱwhichȱisȱanȱassemblyȱofȱ
variousȱcomponentsȱandȱeachȱofȱwhichȱcontainsȱaȱsingleȱcomponentȱfabricatedȱfromȱanȱ
aluminumȱextrusion.ȱȱWorldwideȱI,ȱ44ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ466ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1372–73.ȱȱEachȱofȱtheȱ
modelsȱcontainsȱvariousȱcomponentsȱotherȱthanȱtheȱaluminumȱcomponent,ȱwhichȱareȱ
madeȱofȱvariousȱnonȬaluminumȱmaterials,ȱincludingȱpolyvinylȱchlorideȱ(“PVC”)ȱand,ȱ
variously,ȱplasticȱpolymer,ȱwood,ȱorȱsteel.ȱȱId.,ȱ44ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ466ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1373.ȱ
C.ȱȱTheȱContestedȱScopeȱRulingȱ
WorldwideȱbroughtȱthisȱactionȱtoȱcontestȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱonȱtheȱ
importedȱdoorȱthresholdsȱ(theȱ“ScopeȱRuling”),ȱwhichȱCommerceȱissuedȱinȱ2018.ȱȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ5ȱ ȱ AntidumpingȱandȱCountervailingȱDutyȱOrdersȱonȱAluminumȱExtrusionsȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱ
RepublicȱofȱChina:ȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingsȱonȱWorldwideȱDoorȱComponentsȱInc.,ȱMJBȱWoodȱ
GroupȱInc.,ȱandȱColumbiaȱAluminumȱProductsȱDoorȱThresholdsȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱDec.ȱ19,ȱ
2018),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ36,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ53Ȭ1ȱ(“ScopeȱRuling”).2ȱȱTheȱScopeȱRulingȱconstruedȱtheȱ
scopeȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱtoȱincludeȱtheȱaluminumȱextrusionȱcomponentȱofȱeachȱdoorȱ
threshold,ȱbutȱnotȱtheȱotherȱcomponents.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ37–38.ȱȱCommerceȱissuedȱtheȱScopeȱ
RulingȱinȱresponseȱtoȱaȱrequestȱWorldwideȱsubmittedȱonȱAugustȱ3,ȱ2017.ȱȱWorldwideȱI,ȱ
44ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ466ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1372–73ȱ(citationsȱomitted).ȱ
II.ȱȱDISCUSSIONȱ
A.ȱȱJurisdictionȱ
Theȱcourtȱexercisesȱsubjectȱmatterȱjurisdictionȱunderȱsectionȱ201ȱofȱtheȱCustomsȱ
CourtsȱActȱofȱ1980,ȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1581(c),ȱwhichȱgrantsȱjurisdictionȱoverȱcivilȱactionsȱ
broughtȱunderȱsectionȱ516AȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱofȱ1930,ȱasȱamendedȱ(“TariffȱAct”),ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ
§ȱ1516a.3ȱȱAmongȱtheȱdecisionsȱthatȱmayȱbeȱcontestedȱaccordingȱtoȱsectionȱ516Aȱisȱaȱ
determinationȱofȱ“whetherȱaȱparticularȱtypeȱofȱmerchandiseȱisȱwithinȱtheȱclassȱorȱkindȱ
ȱ 2ȱDocumentsȱinȱtheȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Dec.ȱ4,ȱ2019),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ52ȱ(conf.),ȱ53ȱ(public),ȱ
areȱcitedȱhereinȱasȱ“P.R.ȱDoc.ȱ__.”ȱȱCitationsȱtoȱJointȱAppendixȱdocumentsȱareȱtoȱtheȱ publicȱversions.ȱȱ ȱ 3ȱCitationsȱhereinȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱCodeȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2018ȱedition.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ6ȱ ȱ ofȱmerchandiseȱdescribedȱinȱanȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱantidumpingȱorȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorder.”ȱȱId.ȱ
§ȱ1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi).ȱ
B.ȱȱScopeȱLanguageȱIdentifyingȱ“DoorȱThresholds”ȱandȱ“Parts”ȱofȱ“DoorȱFrames”ȱasȱ ExamplesȱofȱAluminumȱExtrusionsȱthatȱAreȱWithinȱtheȱScopeȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱ ȱ TheȱOrders,ȱwhichȱcontainȱessentiallyȱidenticalȱscopeȱlanguage,ȱapplyȱgenerallyȱ
toȱ“aluminumȱextrusions”ȱmadeȱfromȱspecifiedȱaluminumȱalloys.4ȱȱADȱOrder,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,”5ȱorȱinȱ“partsȱforȱfinalȱfinishedȱproductsȱthatȱareȱassembledȱafterȱ
ȱ ȱTheȱOrdersȱdefineȱtheȱtermȱ“aluminumȱextrusions”ȱasȱ“shapesȱandȱforms,ȱ 4
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 5ȱ“Subjectȱextrusionsȱmayȱbeȱidentifiedȱwithȱreferenceȱtoȱtheirȱendȱuse,ȱsuchȱasȱ
fenceȱposts,ȱelectricalȱconduits,ȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱcarpetȱtrim,ȱorȱheatȱsinksȱ(thatȱdoȱnotȱ (continuedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.)ȱ ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ7ȱ ȱ importation,”ȱincludingȱ“doorȱframes.”6ȱȱADȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,650–51;ȱCVDȱ
Order,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,654.ȱ
TheȱScopeȱRulingȱcitedȱtheȱ“doorȱthresholds”ȱexemplarȱinȱtheȱscopeȱlanguageȱinȱ
concludingȱthatȱWorldwide’sȱproductsȱfallȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrders.ȱȱScopeȱ
Rulingȱ34.ȱ WorldwideȱIȱrejectedȱthisȱapproach,ȱpointingȱoutȱthatȱtheȱdoorȱthresholdsȱ
exemplarȱrefersȱtoȱaluminumȱextrusionsȱthatȱareȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱnotȱdoorȱthresholdsȱ
madeȱfromȱaȱcombinationȱofȱcomponents,ȱonlyȱoneȱofȱwhichȱhasȱbeenȱfabricatedȱfromȱ
anȱaluminumȱextrusion.ȱȱWorldwideȱI,ȱ44ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ466ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1375–76.ȱȱSimilarly,ȱ
WorldwideȱIȱrejectedȱtheȱDepartment’sȱconclusionȱthatȱWorldwide’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱ
wereȱdescribedȱbyȱscopeȱlanguageȱidentifyingȱ“‘[s]ubjectȱaluminumȱextrusions’”ȱthatȱ
“‘mayȱbeȱdescribedȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱimportationȱasȱpartsȱforȱfinalȱfinishedȱproducts.’”ȱȱId.,ȱ
44ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ466ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1374–75ȱ(quotingȱScopeȱRulingȱ33,ȱinȱturnȱquotingȱADȱ
Order,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,650–51,ȱCVDȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,654).ȱȱTheȱWorldwideȱIȱ
ȱ meetȱtheȱfinishedȱheatȱsinkȱexclusionaryȱlanguageȱbelow).ȱȱSuchȱgoodsȱareȱsubjectȱ merchandiseȱifȱtheyȱotherwiseȱmeetȱtheȱscopeȱdefinition,ȱregardlessȱofȱwhetherȱtheyȱareȱ readyȱforȱuseȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱimportation.”ȱȱADȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,651;ȱCVDȱOrder,ȱ 76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,654.ȱ ȱ 6ȱ“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 CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ8ȱ ȱ opinionȱandȱorderȱnotedȱthatȱ“atȱtheȱtimeȱofȱimportation”ȱWorldwide’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱ
wereȱnotȱthemselvesȱaluminumȱextrusionsȱbutȱinsteadȱwereȱassemblies,ȱeachȱcontainingȱ
anȱaluminumȱextrusion.ȱȱId.,ȱ44ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ466ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1375.ȱ
C.ȱȱTheȱ“Subassemblies”ȱProvisionȱandȱtheȱ“FinishedȱMerchandise”ȱExclusionȱ ȱ TheȱOrdersȱalsoȱcontainȱaȱprovisionȱdescribedȱbyȱCommerceȱasȱtheȱ
“subassemblies”ȱprovision.ȱȱThisȱprovisionȱwasȱatȱissueȱinȱtheȱdecisionȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱ
AppealsȱinȱWorldwideȱV,ȱwhichȱaffirmedȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱthatȱtheȱ
provisionȱdescribedȱWorldwide’sȱdoorȱthresholds.ȱȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ969–72.ȱȱTheȱ
subassembliesȱprovisionȱisȱasȱfollows:ȱȱ
Theȱscopeȱincludesȱtheȱaluminumȱextrusionȱcomponentsȱthatȱareȱattachedȱ (e.g.,ȱbyȱweldingȱorȱfasteners)ȱtoȱformȱsubassemblies,ȱi.e.,ȱpartiallyȱ assembledȱmerchandiseȱunlessȱimportedȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱfinishedȱgoodsȱ‘kit’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.ȱtheȱsyntheticȱplasticȱpolymers,ȱpolyethylene,ȱpolyurethane,ȱ polypropyleneȱorȱthermoplasticȱelastomer,ȱwood,ȱandȱstainlessȱsteelȱinȱ Worldwide’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ),ȱwhichȱareȱassembledȱwithȱtheȱinȬscopeȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ9ȱ ȱ aluminumȱextrusionȱcomponents,ȱareȱnotȱincludedȱinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱ Orders.ȱ ȱ ScopeȱRulingȱ34.ȱȱCommerceȱconsideredȱWorldwide’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱtoȱfallȱwithinȱtheȱ
scopeȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱthatȱrefersȱtoȱ“subassemblies,ȱi.e.,ȱpartiallyȱassembledȱ
merchandise,”ȱADȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,651ȱ(emphasisȱadded);ȱCVDȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱ
Reg.ȱatȱ30,654ȱ(emphasisȱadded),ȱevenȱthoughȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱestablishedȱthatȱtheseȱ
thresholds,ȱinȱtheȱformȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱwereȱimportedȱasȱ“merchandise,”ȱwereȱfullyȱ
assembled,ȱseeȱScopeȱRulingȱ21;ȱWorldwideȱII,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1412ȱ
(citationȱomitted).ȱ
TheȱDepartment’sȱrelianceȱonȱtheȱsubassembliesȱprovisionȱalsoȱraisedȱtheȱissueȱofȱ
whetherȱWorldwide’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱqualifiedȱforȱanȱexclusion,ȱtheȱ“finishedȱ
merchandise”ȱexclusion,ȱthatȱtheȱOrdersȱalsoȱprovided.ȱȱThisȱexclusionȱisȱasȱfollows:ȱ
Theȱscopeȱalsoȱexcludesȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱcontainingȱaluminumȱ extrusionsȱasȱpartsȱthatȱareȱfullyȱandȱpermanentlyȱassembledȱandȱ completedȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱentry,ȱsuchȱasȱfinishedȱwindowsȱwithȱglass,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.’”ȱȱWorldwideȱI,ȱ44ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ466ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1376–77ȱ(quotingȱScopeȱ
Rulingȱ35–36).ȱȱWorldwideȱIȱdirectedȱCommerceȱtoȱ“giveȱfullȱandȱfairȱconsiderationȱtoȱtheȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ10ȱ ȱ issueȱofȱwhetherȱthisȱexclusionȱapplies,ȱuponȱmakingȱfindingsȱthatȱareȱsupportedȱbyȱ
substantialȱrecordȱevidence.”ȱȱId.,ȱ44ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ466ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1380.ȱ
InȱtheȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱitȱsubmitted,ȱunderȱprotest,ȱinȱresponseȱtoȱ
WorldwideȱI,ȱCommerceȱagainȱconcludedȱthatȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱdidȱ
notȱapply,ȱbutȱitȱdidȱsoȱunderȱdifferentȱreasoning.ȱȱFirst,ȱitȱconcludedȱthatȱtheȱfinishedȱ
merchandiseȱexclusionȱwasȱirrelevantȱtoȱitsȱanalysis,ȱrelyingȱinȱpartȱonȱShenyangȱYuandaȱ
AluminumȱIndus.ȱEng’gȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ776ȱF.3dȱ1351,ȱ1358ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2015)ȱ
(“ShenyangȱYuandaȱI”),ȱwhichȱrejectedȱtheȱclaimȱthatȱcertainȱcurtainȱwallȱunitsȱwereȱ
excludedȱfromȱtheȱOrdersȱasȱ“finishedȱmerchandise.”7ȱȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ24.ȱȱ
AsȱinterpretedȱbyȱCommerce,ȱShenyangȱYuandaȱIȱheldȱthatȱtheȱunitsȱwereȱnotȱfinishedȱ
merchandiseȱbecauseȱtheyȱ“wereȱsubassembliesȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱfastenedȱtogetherȱtoȱformȱaȱ
completedȱcurtainȱwall.”ȱȱId.ȱ(citingȱShenyangȱYuandaȱI,ȱ776ȱF.3dȱatȱ1358).8ȱ
ȱ 7 ȱThisȱCourtȱdistinguishedȱtheȱissueȱpresentedȱbyȱthisȱcaseȱfromȱthatȱadjudicatedȱ byȱtheȱU.S.ȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱforȱtheȱFederalȱCircuitȱ(“CourtȱofȱAppeals”)ȱinȱShenyangȱ YuandaȱAluminumȱIndus.ȱEng’gȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ776ȱF.3dȱ1351ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2015)ȱ (“ShenyangȱYuandaȱI”),ȱwhichȱ“consideredȱtheȱcurtainȱwallȱunitȱtoȱbeȱaȱ‘subassembly’ȱ withinȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱscopeȱlanguage”ȱandȱ“whichȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱindicatedȱ wasȱnotȱ‘merchandise’”ȱbecause,ȱasȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱnoted,ȱanȱindividualȱcurtainȱ wallȱunitȱisȱneverȱpurchasedȱforȱconsumption.ȱȱWorldwideȱDoorȱComponents,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱ UnitedȱStates,ȱ44ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ466ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1370,ȱ1377ȱn.4ȱ(2020).ȱ ȱ 8ȱInȱShenyangȱYuandaȱAluminumȱIndus.ȱEng’gȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ918ȱF.3dȱ
1355,ȱ1367–68ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2019)ȱ(“ShenyangȱYuandaȱII”),ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱheldȱthatȱ (continuedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.)ȱ ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ11ȱ ȱ InȱtheȱFirstȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱalsoȱcitedȱaȱsecondȱ
redeterminationȱitȱissuedȱonȱremandȱsubsequentȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱ
inȱMeridianȱProds.,ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ890ȱF.3dȱ1272ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2018)ȱ(“Meridian”).ȱȱId.ȱ
atȱ24–25.ȱȱThere,ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱorderedȱthisȱCourtȱtoȱdirectȱCommerceȱtoȱ
determineȱwhetherȱcertainȱkitchenȱapplianceȱdoorȱhandlesȱwereȱ“importedȱfullyȱandȱ
permanentlyȱassembled,”ȱand,ȱifȱso,ȱwhetherȱtheyȱwereȱexcludedȱunderȱtheȱfinishedȱ
merchandiseȱexclusion.ȱȱMeridian,ȱ890ȱF.3dȱatȱ1281–82.ȱȱInȱitsȱremandȱredeterminationȱ
subsequentȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppeals,ȱCommerceȱfoundȱthatȱevenȱthoughȱ
theȱ“handlesȱrequireȱnoȱfurtherȱfabricationȱorȱassembly,”ȱtheyȱwereȱ“‘subassemblies’ȱ
thatȱwereȱintendedȱtoȱ‘becomeȱpartȱofȱaȱlargerȱwhole’ȱandȱthatȱtherefore,ȱtheyȱwereȱnotȱ
finishedȱmerchandiseȱcontainingȱextrusions.”ȱȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ24–25ȱ
(quotingȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱSecondȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCt.ȱRemandȱ31,ȱMeridianȱ
Prods.ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱCt.ȱNo.ȱ1:13ȬcvȬ00246ȬTCSȱ(Ct.ȱInt’lȱTradeȱMayȱ15,ȱ2019),ȱECFȱ
No.ȱ88Ȭ1ȱ(“MeridianȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination”));ȱMeridianȱSecondȱRemandȱ
Redeterminationȱ30.ȱȱCommerceȱdrewȱtheȱfollowingȱconclusion:ȱ
ȱ curtainȱwallȱunitsȱwereȱnotȱeligibleȱforȱexclusionȱfromȱtheȱOrdersȱunderȱtheȱfinishedȱ goodsȱkitȱexclusion,ȱwhichȱappliesȱtoȱ“aȱpackagedȱcombinationȱofȱpartsȱthatȱcontains,ȱatȱ theȱtimeȱofȱimportation,ȱallȱofȱtheȱnecessaryȱpartsȱtoȱfullyȱassembleȱaȱfinalȱfinishedȱgoodȱ andȱrequiresȱnoȱfurtherȱfinishingȱorȱfabrication,ȱsuchȱasȱcuttingȱorȱpunching,ȱandȱisȱ assembledȱ‘asȱis’ȱintoȱaȱfinishedȱproduct.”ȱȱADȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,651;ȱCVDȱOrder,ȱ 76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,654.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ12ȱ ȱ ConsistentȱwithȱShenyangȱYuandaȱ[I]ȱandȱtheȱanalysisȱprovidedȱinȱtheȱ MeridianȱDoorȱHandlesȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱweȱfindȱ whetherȱtheȱdoorȱthresholdsȱareȱinherentlyȱpartȱofȱaȱlargerȱwholeȱisȱ relevantȱinȱdeterminingȱifȱtheȱthresholdsȱareȱeitherȱexcludedȱfinishedȱ goodsȱorȱincludedȱsubassemblies.ȱ ȱ FirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ25.ȱȱAsȱfurtherȱsupportȱforȱitsȱreasoning,ȱCommerceȱquotedȱ
WhirlpoolȱCorp.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ890ȱF.3dȱ1302ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2018)ȱ(“Whirlpool”),ȱwhichȱ
concludedȱthatȱ“‘[t]heȱgeneralȱscopeȱlanguageȱunambiguouslyȱincludesȱaluminumȱ
extrusionsȱthatȱareȱpartȱofȱanȱassembly.’”9ȱȱId.ȱatȱ30ȱ(quotingȱWhirlpool,ȱ890ȱF.3dȱatȱ1309).ȱȱ
LikeningȱWorldwide’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱtoȱtheȱproductsȱinȱShenyangȱYuandaȱIȱandȱinȱ
Meridian,ȱCommerceȱconcludedȱthatȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱdidȱnotȱapply.ȱȱ
Id.ȱatȱ25.ȱȱAccordingȱtoȱCommerce,ȱtheȱdoorȱthresholdsȱ“areȱdesignedȱtoȱbeȱattachedȱ
withȱotherȱcomponentsȱafterȱimportationȱtoȱproduceȱtheȱcompletedȱdownstreamȱ
product”ȱandȱthereforeȱ“areȱnotȱthemselvesȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱwhichȱperformȱaȱ
functionȱindependentȱofȱtheȱlargerȱdownstreamȱproduct.”ȱȱId.ȱ
ȱ 9ȱAsȱitȱdidȱinȱMeridianȱProds.,ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ890ȱF.3dȱ1272,ȱ1281–82ȱ(Fed.ȱ Cir.ȱ2018),ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱdirectedȱthatȱCommerceȱdetermineȱwhetherȱcertainȱ applianceȱdoorȱhandles,ȱwhichȱinȱthatȱcaseȱwereȱrecognizedȱasȱhavingȱbeenȱimportedȱinȱ assembledȱform,ȱqualifiedȱforȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusion.ȱȱSeeȱWhirlpoolȱCorp.ȱv.ȱ UnitedȱStates,ȱ890ȱF.3dȱ1302,ȱ1312ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2018)ȱ(“Finally,ȱtheȱcaseȱisȱremandedȱtoȱtheȱ CITȱforȱfurtherȱproceedings,ȱinȱkeepingȱwithȱthisȱopinion,ȱtoȱdetermineȱwhetherȱ Whirlpool’sȱassembledȱhandlesȱmeetȱtheȱrequirementsȱforȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱ exclusion.”).ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ13ȱ ȱ InȱtheȱFirstȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱalsoȱreliedȱonȱaȱfindingȱorȱ
inferenceȱpertainingȱtoȱlanguageȱinȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusion.ȱȱOnȱtheȱfactualȱ
issueȱofȱwhetherȱWorldwide’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱareȱ“fullyȱandȱpermanentlyȱassembledȱ
andȱcompleted,”ȱasȱrequiredȱbyȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusion—seeȱADȱOrder,ȱ
76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,651ȱ(emphasisȱadded);ȱCVDȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,654ȱ(emphasisȱ
added)—Commerceȱstatedȱthatȱ“‘theȱrecordȱevidenceȱsubmittedȱbyȱtheȱpetitionerȱandȱ
Enduraȱindicatesȱthatȱtheȱcompletedȱdoorȱunitȱisȱhighlyȱcustomizable,ȱandȱmayȱrequireȱ
additionalȱcuttingȱandȱmachiningȱofȱtheȱdoorȱthreshold.’”ȱȱWorldwideȱII,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ
537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1412ȱ(quotingȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ36).ȱ
InȱWorldwideȱII,ȱthisȱCourtȱnotedȱthatȱtheȱevidenceȱsubmittedȱbyȱdefendantȬ
intervenorsȱspokeȱofȱassembledȱdoorȱthresholdsȱinȱgeneralȱratherȱthanȱdescribingȱ
Worldwide’sȱdoorȱthresholds.ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1413ȱ(“DefendantȬ
intervenors’ȱcomments,ȱandȱtheȱevidenceȱtheyȱcite,ȱareȱnotȱdirectedȱtoȱtheȱspecificȱissueȱ
theȱcourtȱidentifies,ȱwhichȱisȱwhetherȱWorldwide’sȱimportedȱthresholds,ȱasȱidentifiedȱinȱ
theȱScopeȱRulingȱRequest,ȱareȱsoȱdesignedȱandȱmanufacturedȱasȱtoȱrequireȱcuttingȱorȱ
machiningȱpriorȱtoȱuseȱasȱaȱcomponentȱinȱaȱdoorȱunitȱorȱotherȱstructure.”).ȱȱThisȱCourtȱ
directedȱCommerceȱtoȱaddressȱtheȱissueȱofȱwhetherȱ“theȱdoorȱthresholdsȱatȱissueȱinȱthisȱ
caseȱeitherȱare,ȱorȱareȱnot,ȱsoȱdesignedȱandȱproducedȱasȱtoȱrequireȱcuttingȱorȱmachiningȱ
priorȱtoȱuse.”ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1414.ȱȱWorldwideȱIIȱdirected,ȱfurther,ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ14ȱ ȱ thatȱafterȱreachingȱaȱfindingȱonȱthatȱissue,ȱ“Commerceȱmustȱconsiderȱthatȱfindingȱinȱ
decidingȱanewȱwhetherȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱappliesȱtoȱtheȱspecificȱdoorȱ
thresholdsȱatȱissueȱinȱthisȱlitigation.”ȱȱId.ȱ
ThisȱCourtȱalsoȱdirectedȱinȱWorldwideȱIIȱthatȱCommerceȱreconsiderȱtheȱ
applicabilityȱofȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱbasedȱonȱcertainȱ“exemplars”ȱstatedȱ
therein.ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1413–14;ȱseeȱADȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ
atȱ30,651;ȱCVDȱOrder,ȱ76ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ30,654ȱ(listingȱasȱexemplarsȱ“finishedȱwindowsȱ
withȱglass,ȱdoorsȱwithȱglassȱorȱvinyl,ȱpictureȱframesȱwithȱglassȱpaneȱandȱbackingȱ
material,ȱandȱsolarȱpanels”).ȱȱAsȱrecountedȱinȱWorldwideȱII,ȱ“Commerceȱconsideredȱ
Worldwide’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱtoȱbeȱ‘subassemblies’ȱbecauseȱtheyȱ‘doȱnotȱfunctionȱonȱ
theirȱown,ȱbutȱratherȱareȱincorporatedȱintoȱaȱlargerȱdownstreamȱproduct.’”ȱȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ
__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1413ȱ(quotingȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ23).ȱȱWorldwideȱIIȱ
identifiedȱtheȱcontradictionȱinȱthisȱreasoning:ȱ“Twoȱofȱtheȱexemplars—theȱ
aforementionedȱdoorȱexemplarȱandȱtheȱ‘finishedȱwindowsȱwithȱglass’ȱexemplar—areȱ
specificallyȱdesignedȱforȱtheȱsoleȱpurposeȱofȱbecomingȱpartȱofȱaȱlargerȱwhole.”ȱȱId.,ȱ
45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1414.ȱȱWithȱparticularȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱ“doorsȱwithȱglassȱorȱ
vinyl”ȱexemplar,ȱtheȱcourtȱalsoȱobservedȱthatȱinȱtheȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ
“Commerceȱdescribedȱthatȱproductȱasȱ‘anȱentireȱdoorȱunit’ȱandȱasȱ‘aȱcompletedȱdoorȱ
unit’ȱthatȱ‘requiresȱadditionalȱparts,ȱsuchȱasȱdoorȱjambs,ȱaȱdoorȱpanel,ȱglass,ȱhinges,ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ15ȱ ȱ weatherstripping,ȱandȱotherȱhardwareȱparts.’”ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ
atȱ1413–14ȱ(quotingȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ36).ȱȱTheȱcourtȱstatedȱthatȱ“[t]oȱ
interpretȱtheȱwordsȱ‘doorsȱwithȱglassȱorȱvinyl’ȱtoȱreferȱonlyȱtoȱcomplete,ȱassembledȱdoorȱ
units,ȱi.e.,ȱthoseȱcompleteȱwithȱdoors,ȱdoorȱframes,ȱhinges,ȱweatherstripping,ȱandȱallȱ
otherȱnecessaryȱhardwareȱandȱfittings,ȱasȱCommerceȱapparentlyȱdid,ȱisȱtoȱadoptȱanȱ
interpretationȱthatȱisȱcontraryȱtoȱtheȱplainȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱdoorȱexemplarȱasȱitȱappearsȱinȱ
theȱscopeȱlanguage.”ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1414.ȱ
InȱresponseȱtoȱWorldwideȱII,ȱCommerceȱissuedȱtheȱ“SecondȱRemandȱ
Redetermination,”ȱinȱwhichȱitȱconcluded,ȱunderȱprotest,ȱthatȱWorldwide’sȱdoorȱ
thresholdsȱwereȱexcludedȱinȱtheȱentiretyȱfromȱtheȱOrdersȱasȱfinishedȱmerchandise.ȱȱ
FinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCt.ȱRemandȱ2,ȱ16ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱ
Dec.ȱ13,ȱ2021),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ85Ȭ1.ȱȱBecauseȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱwasȱnotȱaȱ
decisionȱinȱaȱformȱtheȱcourtȱcouldȱsustain,ȱtheȱcourtȱdirectedȱ“Commerceȱtoȱissueȱaȱthirdȱ
remandȱredetermination”ȱthatȱisȱ“inȱaȱformȱthatȱwouldȱgoȱintoȱeffectȱifȱsustainedȱuponȱ
judicialȱreview.”ȱȱWorldwideȱIII,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ589ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1193,ȱ1195.ȱ
Inȱtheȱ“ThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination,”ȱCommerceȱstated,ȱunderȱprotest,ȱthatȱ
Worldwide’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱwereȱexcludedȱfromȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱinȱtheȱ
entiretyȱ“basedȱonȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusion.”ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱ
RedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCt.ȱRemandȱ3ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱSept.ȱ9,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ16ȱ ȱ No.ȱ101Ȭ1.ȱȱConcludingȱthatȱ“[t]heȱessentialȱagencyȱfindingsȱsupporting”ȱtheȱ
Department’sȱdecisionȱ“areȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecordȱofȱthisȱ
case,”ȱtheȱcourtȱsustainedȱthisȱdecision.ȱȱWorldwideȱIV,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ606ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ
atȱ1369–70.ȱȱ
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
Worldwide’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱareȱsubassembliesȱwasȱnotȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱ
evidence.ȱȱId.,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ969.ȱȱItȱexplainedȱthatȱCommerceȱdidȱnotȱprovideȱaȱsufficientȱ
explanationȱforȱitsȱconclusion,ȱi.e.,ȱ“atȱleastȱsomeȱcitationȱandȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱrecordȱ
evidence.”ȱȱId.ȱȱSecond,ȱitȱruledȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱsubassembliesȱfindingȱinȱtheȱFirstȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱwasȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidence,ȱid.,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ971,ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ17ȱ 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
issuedȱafterȱWorldwideȱIVȱwasȱdecided.ȱȱId.ȱ(citingȱalsoȱShenyangȱYuandaȱI,ȱ776ȱF.3dȱ
atȱ1358).ȱȱTheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱsustained,ȱasȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidence,ȱtheȱ
Department’sȱdeterminationȱthatȱWorldwide’sȱdoorȱthresholdsȱwere,ȱinȱtheȱwordsȱofȱ
theȱsubassembliesȱprovision,ȱ“partiallyȱassembledȱmerchandise,”ȱwhichȱCommerceȱ
reachedȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱtheȱuncontestedȱfactȱthatȱtheȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱalthoughȱfullyȱ
assembledȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱimportation,ȱwereȱintendedȱtoȱ“becomeȱpartȱofȱaȱlargerȱwhole”ȱ
afterȱimportation.ȱȱId.,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ969–72;ȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ24–25.ȱ
E.ȱȱFutureȱCasesȱ
Theȱsubassembliesȱprovisionȱhasȱgeneratedȱproblemsȱofȱinterpretation,ȱnotȱonlyȱ
forȱtheȱcourtsȱbutȱalsoȱforȱCommerce.ȱȱTheȱproblemsȱstemȱinȱpartȱfromȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ
currentȱposition,ȱnowȱaffirmedȱbyȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱChinaȱCustomȱMfg.ȱandȱ
WorldwideȱV,ȱthatȱanȱimportedȱgoodȱcontainingȱanȱ“aluminumȱextrusion”ȱ(asȱdefinedȱinȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ18ȱ ȱ theȱOrders)ȱdoesȱnotȱqualifyȱforȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱifȱitȱisȱaȱ
“subassembly,”ȱaȱscopeȱtermȱCommerceȱnowȱconsidersȱtoȱinclude,ȱbroadly,ȱanyȱgoodȱ
thatȱisȱdesignedȱtoȱbeȱincorporatedȱintoȱaȱlargerȱdownstreamȱproductȱafterȱimportation.ȱ
InȱWorldwideȱV,ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱalludedȱtoȱoneȱofȱtheȱissuesȱposedȱbyȱtheȱ
Department’sȱbroadȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱtermȱ“subassemblies”ȱbyȱreferencingȱtheȱ
exemplarsȱforȱfinishedȱwindowsȱwithȱglassȱandȱdoorsȱwithȱglassȱorȱvinylȱthatȱareȱ
containedȱwithinȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusion.ȱȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ971–72.ȱȱAsȱdiscussedȱ
supra,ȱWorldwideȱIIȱidentifiedȱasȱaȱcontradictionȱinȱtheȱDepartment’sȱreasoningȱthatȱtheseȱ
exemplarsȱdescribeȱproductsȱspecificallyȱdesignedȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱbecomingȱpartȱofȱaȱ
largerȱwhole,ȱandȱthusȱwouldȱbeȱconsideredȱ“subassemblies”ȱunderȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ
analysis,ȱyetȱareȱexpresslyȱexcludedȱbyȱunambiguousȱscopeȱlanguage.ȱȱWorldwideȱII,ȱ
45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1414.ȱȱInȱWorldwideȱV,ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱrecountedȱ
thatȱthisȱCourtȱsoughtȱ“‘aȱplausibleȱexplanationȱofȱwhyȱtheȱarticlesȱmentionedȱinȱtheȱ
“door”ȱandȱ“window”ȱexemplarsȱofȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱsatisfyȱthatȱ
exclusionȱbutȱthatȱ[Worldwide’s]ȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱasȱdescribedȱinȱtheȱScopeȱRulingȱ
Request,ȱdoȱnot.’”ȱȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ971–72ȱ(citationsȱomitted).ȱȱAlthoughȱitȱinterpretedȱtheȱ
languageȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱtoȱmeanȱthatȱaȱproductȱdescribedȱasȱaȱ“subassembly”ȱ“‘cannotȱ
qualifyȱforȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusion,’”ȱid.,ȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ972ȱ(quotingȱChinaȱ
CustomȱMfg.,ȱ61ȱF.4thȱatȱ960),ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱacknowledgedȱthisȱCourt’sȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ19ȱ ȱ “concern”ȱarisingȱfromȱtheȱexclusionȱfromȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱproductsȱidentifiedȱinȱtheȱ
doorȱandȱwindowȱexemplars,ȱid.ȱ(“Weȱacknowledgeȱtheȱtrialȱcourt’sȱconcernȱwithȱlineȬ
drawingȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheseȱOrdersȱandȱagreeȱthatȱaȱdiscussionȱdistinguishingȱtheȱ
categoriesȱcouldȱhaveȱbeenȱaȱhelpfulȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱagency’sȱdecision.”).ȱȱTheȱCourtȱofȱ
Appealsȱconcluded,ȱnevertheless,ȱthatȱ“suchȱanȱomissionȱdoesȱnotȱconstituteȱreversibleȱ
error,”ȱreasoningȱthatȱtheȱissueȱpresentedȱ“‘aȱquestionȱofȱfactȱreviewedȱforȱsubstantialȱ
evidence.’”ȱȱId.ȱ(quotingȱMeridianȱProds.,ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ851ȱF.3dȱ1375,ȱ1382ȱ(Fed.ȱ
Cir.ȱ2017)).ȱȱInȱsoȱruling,ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱappliedȱChinaȱCustomȱMfg.ȱasȱaȱprecedentȱ
sustainingȱtheȱDepartment’sȱinterpretationȱthatȱtheȱ“subassemblies”ȱprovisionȱandȱtheȱ
finishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱareȱ“mutuallyȱexclusive.”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 CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ20ȱ ȱ atȱ1–2;ȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱ(AD)ȱandȱCountervailingȱDutyȱ(CVD)ȱOrders:ȱAluminumȱ
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 CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ21ȱ ȱ inȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱandȱforȱpurposesȱofȱthisȱpreliminaryȱscopeȱ ruling,ȱtheȱDepartmentȱisȱrevisingȱtheȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱitȱdeterminesȱ whetherȱaȱgivenȱproductȱisȱaȱ“finishedȱgood”ȱorȱ“finishedȱgoodsȱkit.”ȱȱTheȱ Departmentȱhasȱidentifiedȱaȱconcernȱwithȱthisȱanalysis,ȱnamelyȱthatȱitȱmayȱ 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 CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ22ȱ ȱ soldȱseparatelyȱtoȱtheȱimporter,ȱwhoȱevenȱmayȱbeȱunawareȱofȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱ
component.ȱȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱnotȱonlyȱcanȱtheȱcurrentȱDepartmentȱinterpretationȱleadȱtoȱ
resultsȱthat,ȱinȱtheȱDepartment’sȱownȱcharacterizations,ȱareȱ“unreasonable”ȱorȱ
“absurd,”ȱbutȱitȱalsoȱcanȱgenerateȱcircumstancesȱincapableȱofȱadministrationȱfromȱaȱ
customsȱstandpoint.10ȱ
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
ȱ 10ȱLikeȱtheȱantidumpingȱandȱcountervailingȱdutyȱprovisionsȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱofȱ 1930,ȱasȱamendedȱ(“TariffȱAct”),ȱtheȱappraisementȱprovisionsȱofȱsectionȱ402ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱ Actȱare,ȱasȱaȱgeneralȱmatter,ȱstructuredȱforȱtheȱassessmentȱofȱdutiesȱonȱtheȱimportedȱ merchandiseȱitself,ȱandȱtypicallyȱonȱtheȱimportedȱmerchandiseȱthatȱisȱsoldȱforȱexportȱtoȱ theȱUnitedȱStates,ȱandȱnotȱonȱaȱsingleȱupstreamȱcomponentȱorȱsubstanceȱusedȱinȱ producingȱthatȱimportedȱmerchandise.ȱȱSeeȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1401a(a).ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ23ȱ ȱ “classȱorȱkindȱofȱmerchandise”ȱsoldȱorȱofferedȱforȱsaleȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱisȱthatȱwhichȱ
CommerceȱmustȱdefineȱandȱaddressȱinȱanȱADȱorȱCVDȱorder.ȱȱSeeȱid.ȱ§§ȱ1673,ȱ1673e(a)ȱ
(togetherȱprovidingȱforȱissuanceȱofȱanȱorderȱassessingȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱequalȱtoȱtheȱ
amountȱbyȱwhichȱnormalȱvalueȱexceedsȱtheȱexportȱpriceȱorȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱofȱ
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.11ȱȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱantidumpingȱandȱ
countervailingȱdutiesȱareȱconsideredȱ“remedial,”ȱi.e.,ȱtheyȱareȱdirectedȱtoȱremedyingȱtheȱ
unfairȱpricesȱatȱwhichȱtheȱimportedȱmerchandiseȱisȱsoldȱorȱofferedȱforȱsaleȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱ
States,ȱifȱfoundȱtoȱposeȱinjuryȱorȱthreatȱtoȱaȱdomesticȱindustry.ȱ
ȱ 11ȱReferringȱtoȱtheȱ“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 CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ24ȱ ȱ Inȱcontrast,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱcurrentȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱOrdersȱcanȱresultȱinȱ
theȱassessmentȱofȱantidumpingȱandȱcountervailingȱdutiesȱonȱproductsȱthatȱareȱnotȱsoldȱ
orȱofferedȱforȱsaleȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱbutȱinsteadȱareȱupstreamȱcomponentsȱinȱtheȱ
merchandiseȱthatȱactuallyȱisȱimportedȱandȱsold.12ȱȱTheȱcourtȱisȱunawareȱofȱTariffȱActȱ
provisionsȱthatȱexpresslyȱauthorizeȱCommerceȱtoȱstructureȱorȱapplyȱanȱantidumpingȱorȱ
countervailingȱdutyȱorderȱinȱthisȱway.ȱȱSeeȱTheȱMosaicȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ47ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ
659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1285,ȱ1294–95ȱ(2023).ȱ
Inȱthisȱcase,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱsubassembliesȱprovision,ȱasȱ
appliedȱtoȱWorldwide’sȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱwillȱresultȱinȱtheȱassessmentȱofȱantidumpingȱ
andȱcountervailingȱdutiesȱonȱanȱupstream,ȱincorporatedȱcomponentȱ(i.e.,ȱtheȱaluminumȱ
extrusionȱcomponent)ȱofȱtheȱmerchandiseȱthatȱwasȱimportedȱandȱsoldȱ(i.e.,ȱtheȱ
complete,ȱassembledȱdoorȱthreshold,ȱwhichȱisȱnotȱanȱ“aluminumȱextrusion”ȱasȱdefinedȱ
inȱtheȱOrders).ȱȱNevertheless,ȱWorldwideȱdidȱnotȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱ
subassembliesȱprovisionȱCommerceȱappliedȱtoȱitsȱfullyȱassembledȱdoorȱthresholdsȱ
contravenedȱtheȱplainȱmeaningȱandȱpurposeȱofȱbasicȱTariffȱActȱprovisionsȱgoverningȱ
theȱassessmentȱofȱantidumpingȱandȱcountervailingȱduties.ȱȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱtheȱissueȱtheȱ
courtȱhasȱidentifiedȱrelatingȱtoȱtheseȱbasicȱstatutoryȱprovisionsȱwasȱnotȱbeforeȱitȱ(and,ȱ
ȱ 12ȱTheȱTariffȱActȱcontainsȱaȱprovisionȱforȱassessmentȱofȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱonȱ
anȱ“upstreamȱsubsidy,”ȱbutȱitȱappliesȱonlyȱinȱcircumstancesȱnotȱrelevantȱhere.ȱȱSeeȱ 19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677Ȭ1.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ25ȱ ȱ therefore,ȱwasȱnotȱbeforeȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppeals)ȱinȱthisȱlitigation.ȱȱFutureȱcasesȱcouldȱ
provideȱclarityȱonȱtheȱissueȱofȱwhetherȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱandȱspecificallyȱsectionsȱ731ȱandȱ
701(a)ȱthereof,ȱallowsȱCommerceȱroutinelyȱtoȱorderȱtheȱassessmentȱofȱtheseȱremedialȱ
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.ȱȱCONCLUSIONȱ
Forȱtheȱpresent,ȱitȱremainsȱforȱthisȱCourtȱtoȱenterȱaȱjudgmentȱthatȱeffectuatesȱtheȱ
decisionȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱWorldwideȱVȱandȱgovernsȱtheȱliquidationȱofȱtheȱ
entriesȱatȱissueȱinȱthisȱcase.13ȱȱȱ
WorldwideȱVȱdirectedȱthisȱCourtȱtoȱ“reinstateȱtheȱnonȬprotestedȱportionsȱofȱtheȱ
agency’sȱFirstȱRemandȱRedetermination.”ȱȱ119ȱF.4thȱatȱ972.ȱȱTheȱnonȬprotestedȱportionsȱofȱ
theȱagency’sȱdecisionȱprovidedȱforȱtheȱaluminumȱextrusionȱcomponentȱwithinȱeachȱofȱ
ȱ 13ȱCommerceȱrecentlyȱissuedȱliquidationȱinstructionsȱtoȱU.S.ȱCustomsȱandȱBorderȱ
Protection.ȱȱLiquidationȱinstructionsȱforȱaluminumȱextrusionsȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱ China:ȱWorldwideȱDoorȱComponents,ȱInc.,ȱCaseȱNos.ȱCȬ570Ȭ968,ȱBarcodeȱNo.ȱ4755620Ȭ01;ȱ AȬ570Ȭ967,ȱBarcodeȱNo.ȱ4755605Ȭ01ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱApr.ȱ30,ȱ2025),ȱaccess.trade.gov.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ00012ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ26ȱ ȱ Worldwide’sȱimportedȱdoorȱthresholds,ȱbutȱnotȱtheȱotherȱcomponents,ȱtoȱbeȱsubjectȱtoȱ
antidumpingȱandȱcountervailingȱduties,ȱwhileȱtheȱprotestedȱportionȱconsistedȱofȱtheȱ
directiveȱinȱWorldwideȱIȱtoȱconsiderȱwhetherȱtheȱfinishedȱmerchandiseȱexclusionȱappliedȱ
toȱtheseȱproducts.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱwillȱenterȱaȱjudgmentȱaccordingly.ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ /s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ TimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ Dated:ȱJuneȱ25,ȱ2025ȱȱ ȱNewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ