Worldwide Door Components, Inc. v. United States

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 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 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 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