Columbia Aluminum Prod., LLC v. United States

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 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 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 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 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 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 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