China Custom Manufacturing Inc. et al v. United States

Slip Op. No. 21-163
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
CHINA CUSTOM MANUFACTURING,
INC.
AND
GREENTEC ENGINEERING LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS FAIR
TRADE COMMITTEE,
Defendant-Intervenor.
Before: Stephen Alexander Vaden,
Judge
Court No. 1:20-cv-00121
OPINION AND ORDER
[Sustaining Commerce’s final scope determination.]
Dated: December 6, 2021
George R. Tuttle, III, Law Offices of George R. Tuttle, A.P.C., of San Rafael,
California, for Plaintiffs. With him on the brief was George R. Tuttle, Sr.
Patricia McCarthy, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C. for Defendant United States. With
her on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne
E. Davidson, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Reginald T. Blades, Jr.,
Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Jamie Shookman, Trial Attorney,
Commercial Litigation Branch, and Savannah Rose Maxwell, Of Counsel, Office of
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 1 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 2
Chief 	Counsel 	for 	Trade 	Enforcement 	and 	Compliance, 	U.S. 	Department 	of
Commerce.
Robert E. DeFrancesco, Counsel for Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee,
Wiley Rein, LLP, of Washington D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor. With him on the
brief were Alan H. Price and Elizabeth S. Lee.
Vaden, Judge: This action involves a challenge to a U.S. Department of
Commerce (Commerce or the Department) scope determination for the antidumping
and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic
of 	China. 	See 	Aluminum 	Extrusions 	from 	the 	People’s 	Republic 	of 	China:
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,650 (Dep’t of Com. May 26, 2011) (AD
Order); Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing
Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,653 (Dep’t of Com. May 26, 2011) (CVD Order)
(collectively, the Orders). 	Plaintiffs China Custom Manufacturing, Inc. (CCM) and
Greentec Engineering, LLC (together, Plaintiffs), challenge a scope ruling in which
Commerce determined that Plaintiffs’ ROCK-IT 3.0 solar roof mountings (solar
mounts) fall within the scope of the Orders. First Am. Compl. (Compl.) ¶ 1, ECF No.
10.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record, in
which Plaintiffs argue that the Final Scope Ruling is contrary to law and that
Commerce should have excluded the solar mounts from the scope of the Orders. See
Pls.’ Mot. for J. on the Agency R. (Pls.’ Mot.), ECF No. 31-1. 	Commerce and
Defendant-Intervenor 	Aluminum 	Extrusions 	Fair 	Trade 	Committee, 	a 	trade
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 2 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 3
association of U.S. producers of aluminum extrusions and a petitioner in the
antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion. 	See
Def.’s Resp. to Pls.’ Mot. for J. on the Agency R. (Def.’s Resp.), ECF No. 35; Def.-
Intervenor’s Resp. to Pls.’ Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. on the Agency R. (Def.-Intervenor
Resp.), ECF No. 36. 	For the reasons set forth below, the Court affirms Commerce’s
determination.
I. 	BACKGROUND
The merchandise at issue in this case is Rock-It 3.0 solar roof mounts sold by
CCM. The Rock-It 3.0 mounts are solar panel mounts that are used with other parts
in a downstream structure, the EcoFasten Rock-It System 3.0, to mount solar panels
on a roof. 	J.A. at 1202. 	Plaintiffs’ Scope Request specified that the solar mounts
contain “aluminum exclusion [sic] parts . . . fabricated from an aluminum alloy
corresponding to Alloy Series 6 published by the Aluminum Association and are
machined to precise specifications.” J.A. at 1015. The EcoFasten Rock-It System 3.0
consists of the Rock-It 3.0 solar mounts, the Rock-It slide, the level nut cap, the Rock-
it 3.0 coupling and load bearing foot, and the Rock-It 3.0 array skirt. 	J.A. at 1202.
According to the Scope Request, the solar mounts consist of aluminum
extrusion components that are fastened together with non-aluminum components.
J.A. at 1010. The solar mounts are “fully and permanently assembled and complete
at the time of entry [and] ready for installation as EcoFasten Rock-It 3.0 solar panel
mounting system, a downstream structure.” Id.
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 3 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 4
A. Relevant Scope Proceedings
Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum
extrusions from China in May 2011. AD Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,650; CVD Order, 76
Fed. Reg. 30,653. The scope of the Orders included:
The merchandise covered by the Orders is aluminum
extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an
extrusion process, made from aluminum alloys having
metallic 	elements 	corresponding 	to 	the 	alloy 	series
designations 	published 	by 	The 	Aluminum 	Association
commencing with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or proprietary
equivalents 	or 	other 	certifying 	body 	equivalents).
Specifically, the subject merchandise made from aluminum
alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation
commencing with the number 1 contains not less than 99
percent aluminum by weight. The subject merchandise
made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association
series designation commencing with the number 3 contains
manganese as the major alloying element, with manganese
accounting for not more than 3.0 percent of total materials
by weight. The subject merchandise is made from an
aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series
designation 	commencing 	with 	the 	number 	6 	contains
magnesium and silicon as the major alloying elements,
with magnesium accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not
more than 2.0 percent of total materials by weight, and
silicon accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not more than
3.0 	percent 	of 	total 	materials 	by 	weight. 	The 	subject
aluminum extrusions are properly identified by a four-digit
alloy series without either a decimal point or leading letter.
Illustrative examples from among the approximately 160
registered 	alloys 	that 	may 	characterize 	the 	subject
merchandise are as follows: 1350, 3003, and 6060.
Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported in a wide
variety of shapes and forms, including, but not limited to,
hollow profiles, other solid profiles, pipes, tubes, bars, and
rods. Aluminum extrusions that are drawn subsequent to
extrusion (drawn aluminum) are also included in the scope.
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 4 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 5
Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported with a
variety of finishes (both coatings and surface treatments),
and 	types 	of 	fabrication. 	The 	types 	of 	coatings 	and
treatments 	applied 	to 	subject 	aluminum 	extrusions
include, but are not limited to, extrusions that are mill
finished (i.e., without any coating or further finishing),
brushed, buffed, polished, anodized (including brightdip
anodized), liquid painted, or powder coated. Aluminum
extrusions 	may 	also 	be 	fabricated, 	i.e., 	prepared 	for
assembly. Such operations would include, but are not
limited to, extrusions that are cut-to-length, machined,
drilled, 	punched, 	notched, 	bent, 	stretched, 	knurled,
swedged, mitered, chamfered, threaded, and spun. The
subject merchandise includes aluminum extrusions that
are 	finished 	(coated, 	painted, 	etc.), 	fabricated, 	or 	any
combination thereof.
Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time
of importation as parts for final finished products that are
assembled after importation, including, but not limited to,
window frames, door frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or
furniture. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of
aluminum extrusions are included in the scope. The scope
includes the aluminum extrusion components that are
attached 	(e.g., 	by 	welding 	or 	fasteners) 	to 	form
subassemblies, 	i.e., 	partially 	assembled 	merchandise
unless imported as part of the finished goods ‘kit’ defined
further 	below. 	The 	scope 	does 	not 	include 	the 	non-
aluminum 	extrusion 	components 	of 	subassemblies 	or
subject kits.
76 Fed. Reg. at 30,650-51. 	The Orders also included exclusions to the scope. 	The
exclusion language explains:
The scope also excludes finished merchandise containing
aluminum 	extrusions 	as 	parts 	that 	are 	fully 	and
permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry,
such as finished windows with glass, doors with glass or
vinyl, picture frames with glass pane and backing material,
and solar panels. The scope also excludes finished goods
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 5 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 6
containing 	aluminum 	extrusions 	that 	are 	entered
unassembled in a “finished goods kit.” A finished goods kit
is understood to mean a packaged combination of parts
that 	contains, 	at 	the 	time 	of 	importation, 	all 	of 	the
necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good and
requires no further finishing or fabrication, such as cutting
or punching, and is assembled “as is” into a finished
product. An imported product will not be considered a
“finished goods kit” and therefore excluded from the scope
of the Orders merely by including fasteners such as screws,
bolts, etc. in the packaging with an aluminum extrusion
product. An imported product will not be considered a
“finished goods kit” and therefore excluded from the scope
of the Orders merely by including fasteners such as screws,
bolts, etc. in the packaging of an aluminum extrusion
product.
76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651. Since the Orders were first issued, Commerce’s interpretation
of the scope has evolved extensively. 	In addition to the numerous scope rulings
issued, the application of the finished merchandise exclusion in the Orders has been
heavily litigated.
In one of the earliest scope rulings involving the Orders, Commerce examined
whether a solar panel mounting system was included within the scope. 	In the
Clenergy Solar Panel Mounting Systems Scope Ruling, Commerce examined whether
an unassembled solar panel mounting system consisting of both aluminum extrusions
and non-aluminum components would be excluded from the Orders under the
finished merchandise exclusion. 	See Final Scope Ruling on Clenergy (Xiamen)
Technology's 	Solar 	Panel 	Mounting 	Systems, 	A-570-967, 	at 	2 	(Oct. 	31, 	2012),
https://enforcement.trade.gov/download/prc-ae/scope/21-Clenergy-Solar-Panel-
Mounting-Systems-20121031.pdf 	(last 	visited 	Dec. 	6, 	2021). 	The 	solar 	panel
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 6 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 7
mounting system included all parts necessary to mount a solar panel on a roof. 	Id.
Commerce concluded that, because the entry at issue contained all the parts
necessary to assemble a finished product for mounting solar panels, the solar panel
mounting system was excluded from the Orders under the finished merchandise
exclusion. Id.
That same year, Commerce revised the way it determined whether a given
product was finished merchandise or a finished goods kit in the Side Mount Valve
Controls (SMVC) Scope Ruling. In this scope inquiry, Commerce examined whether
certain side-mount valve controls used in pumping apparatuses that attach to fire
engines could be excluded from the Orders under the finished merchandise exclusion.
Final Scope Ruling on Side Mount Valve Controls, A-570-967, at 1 (Oct. 26, 2012),
https://enforcement.trade.gov/download/prc-ae/scope/27-Innovative%20Controls-
Side-Mount-Valve-Controls-20121026.pdf (last visited Dec. 6, 2021). 	Petitioners
argued that, although the entry did not include all the parts of the downstream
product — the fire engine — the side mount valve controls were fully assembled and
complete products and therefore should qualify as excluded finished merchandise. Id.
In its scope ruling, Commerce reexamined its prior interpretation of the finished
merchandise and finished goods kit exclusions, which required all components of the
downstream product be included in order to qualify for the exclusions. Id. Commerce
determined the prior interpretation of the exclusions could inadvertently expand the
scope of the order. 	It instead identified a new category of entries identified as
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 7 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 8
subassemblies. 	Id. 	Commerce’s updated scope ruling defined subassemblies as
“partially assembled merchandise” that could be excluded from the Orders provided
they enter the United States as finished merchandise requiring no further finishing
or fabrication. Id.
Commerce’s application of the subassembly test as applied to the finished
merchandise exclusion was affirmed one year later in the Valeo Final Remand
Redetermination. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand
Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China, Valeo, Inc., et al v. United
States, No. 12-00381, at 8 (May 14, 2013). 	The products at issue were two distinct
types 	of 	automotive 	heating 	and 	cooling 	components. 	In 	this 	remand
redetermination, 	Commerce 	applied 	the 	subassemblies 	test 	the 	Department
articulated in the SMVC Scope Ruling. 	See id. 	Commerce concluded that “at the
time of importation, the products at issue contain all of the necessary components
required for integration into a larger system[,]” the automotive unit, and thus
qualified as subassemblies excluded from the Orders under the finished merchandise
exclusion. Id.
The 	subassembly 	test 	as 	applied 	to 	the 	finished 	merchandise 	exclusion
remained consistent through Commerce’s scope rulings until the Shenyang case in
2015. See Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng’g Co. v. United States, 776 F.3d
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In Shenyang, Commerce examined whether curtain wall units,
which fastened together to form a completed curtain wall, should be excluded from
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 8 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 9
the Orders under the finished merchandise exclusion. 	Id. at 1353-54. 	Plaintiff
Shenyang argued the individual curtain wall units were finished merchandise
because each unit was fully assembled and complete on entry to later be installed in
a downstream product — a curtain wall. 	Id. at 1358. 	After a series of appeals and
remands, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that curtain wall units
were subassemblies because they required installation into a downstream structure.
Id. at 1358-59. 	The Court further held that subassemblies could never meet the
conditions 	to 	be 	excluded 	under 	the 	finished 	merchandise 	exclusion 	because
subassemblies are parts for a finished product and not the finished product itself. Id.
at 1359. Consequently, Commerce adopted an updated interpretation of the finished
merchandise exclusion in line with the Federal Circuit’s holding. See id.
In 2019, Commerce’s updated interpretation of the finished merchandise
exclusion was affirmed by this Court in the Meridian Door Handles Second Remand
Redetermination. 	See Meridian Products LLC v. United States, No. 13-00246, 2020
WL 1672840 at *2 (CIT 2020) (Meridian). 	The products at issue in Meridian were
door handles for ovens that Meridian described as fully and permanently assembled
and complete at the time of entry. 	See id. 	In the final redetermination, Commerce
found that the door handles were subassemblies, as they were parts for a final
finished good — the oven — not the finished good itself. Id. Having determined the
handles were subassemblies, Commerce determined they did not meet the criteria for
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 9 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 10
the finished merchandise exclusion in the Orders and thus were subject to the duties.
Id.
B. The Scope Ruling in Question
On May 10, 2019, Plaintiffs submitted a request for Commerce to issue a scope
ruling that its Rock-It 3.0 solar mounts are not covered by the scope of the Orders.
Commerce rejected this scope request for failing to include certain information
necessary for Commerce to make a ruling. Along with the rejection, Commerce also
included 	a 	Supplemental 	Questionnaire 	to 	Plaintiffs 	requesting 	the 	needed
additional information. On October 4, 2019, Plaintiffs resubmitted their request that
Commerce determine whether their solar mounts are subject to the Orders. See J.A.
at 1009. 	Commerce issued an additional Supplemental Questionnaire to Plaintiffs
on December 30, 2019, to clarify information contained in the October 4, 2019
submission. 	Id. 	at 	1195. 	Plaintiffs 	responded 	to 	Commerce’s 	Supplemental
Questionnaire on February 13, 2020. Id. at 1202.
In its Scope Request and Supplemental Questionnaire responses, Plaintiffs
described the solar mounts as “finished merchandise containing aluminum and non-
aluminum parts.” Id. at 1010, 1206. The mounts are further identified as “fully and
permanently assembled and complete at the time of entry ready for installation into
the EcoFasten Rock-It 3.0 solar panel mounting system.” 	Id. at 1010. 	Plaintiffs
argued the solar mounts qualified as finished merchandise under the plain meaning
of the finished merchandise exemption in the Orders because the solar mounts are
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 10 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 11
imported fully and permanently assembled and require no further assembly. 	Id. at
1010-13. As such, Plaintiffs asserted the solar mounts meet the requirements for the
finished merchandise exclusion in the scope of the Orders. Id. at 1027.
As part of its administrative inquiry, Commerce examined Plaintiffs’ Scope
Request, Supplemental Questionnaire responses, and its previous scope rulings. Id.
at 1225. 	Commerce found the description of the products, the scope language, and
Commerce’s prior determinations to be dispositive as to whether the solar mounts are
subject merchandise. Id. Commerce determined that, because the solar mounts are
intermediary products that require incorporation into a downstream product to
function, the solar mounts meet the definition of a subassembly as articulated and
affirmed in the Meridian Door Handles Second Remand. 	See id. at 1212. 	Thus,
Commerce issued its Final Scope Ruling on May 14, 2020, in which it found that the
solar mounts are within the scope of the Orders and therefore subject to the duties
the Orders imposed. See id.
C. The Present Case
Plaintiffs commenced this action on June 11, 2020, seeking to overturn the
scope decision. Summons, ECF No. 1. Before any substantive briefing on the issues,
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the case to Commerce to supplement the
administrative record. Pls.’ Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 25. On December 8, 2020, the
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 11 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 12
Court 1 denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ renewal
of certain arguments in their Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record. Order at
3, ECF No. 30. On December 14, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Judgment on
the Agency Record. Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 31-1. In their Motion, Plaintiffs raise three
arguments: first, that this Court should find that the solar mounts are “finished
merchandise” as defined by the Orders’ scope and therefore excluded from the Orders;
second, that the Court should remand the case to Commerce with instructions that
non-aluminum extrusion components that make up subassemblies are excluded from
the Orders; and third, that alternatively, the Court should remand the case to
Commerce to supplement the administrative record. 	Id. at 1. 	Defendant and
Defendant-Intervenor responded on April 2, 2021 and May 5, 2021, respectively.
Def.’s Resp., ECF No. 35; Def-Intervenor Resp., ECF No. 36.
The Court held oral argument on August 17, 2021. 	Counsel for all parties
attended. 	The Court first addressed the issue of whether the non-aluminum
extrusion components of the mounts were excluded from the Orders’ scope. 	Tr. of
Oral Arg. 6:9-24, ECF No. 43. 	In response to the Court’s questions, Commerce
confirmed “the scope does not include the non-aluminum extrusion components of
subassemblies or subject kits.” 	Id. at 7:5-6. 	Having heard Commerce’s response,
Plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed agreement that there was no longer any dispute and
1 This case was originally assigned to The Honorable Mark A. Barnett, who ruled on the Plaintiffs’
Motion to Remand to the Department of Commerce. Order, ECF No. 31. On January 8, 2021, the case
was reassigned by then-Chief Judge Stanceu from Judge Barnett to Judge Vaden. Order, ECF No. 32.
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 12 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 13
that the non-aluminum extrusion components of the mount would not be subject to
duties under Commerce’s Orders. 	Id. at 9:3-6. 	The Court then turned to Plaintiffs’
argument to remand the case to Commerce to supplement the administrative record.
Id. at 9:10-25, 10:1-4. 	Specifically, Plaintiffs argued for remand to supplement the
record to ensure the “Meridian second remand decision is a part of the record.” Id. at
10:6-7. 	At the Court’s request, the Government confirmed the Meridian second
remand decision is in the record. 	Id. at 10:8-10. 	Plaintiffs agreed that the issue of
the state of the record was also no longer a live dispute. Id. at 10:5-7. Therefore, the
only remaining contested issue before the Court is whether the solar mounts fall
within the scope of the Orders.
II. 	JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction under section 201 of the
Customs Courts Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grants jurisdiction over civil
actions 	brought 	under 	section 	516A 	of 	the 	Tariff 	Act 	of 	1930. 	19 	U.S.C. 	§
1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi). 	Section 516A provides for judicial review of a determination of
“whether a particular type of merchandise is within the class or kind of merchandise
described in an . . . antidumping or countervailing order.” 	Id. 	This type of
determination is known as a “scope ruling.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.225.
Scope rulings are “highly fact-intensive and case-specific determination[s].”
Global Commodity Grp., LLC v. United States, 709 F.3d 1134, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
(quoting King Supply Co., LLC v. United States, 674 F.3d 1343, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 13 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 14
As such, the Court “grant[s] significant deference to Commerce’s interpretation of a
scope order.” 	Id. 	The Court must uphold a scope ruling unless it finds it to be
“unsupported by substantial evidence on the record or otherwise not in accordance
with the law.” Sango Int’l, L.P. v. United States, 484 F.3d 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i)). “[T]he court may not substitute its judgment
for that of the [agency] when the choice is between two fairly conflicting views, even
though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been
before it de novo.” Goldlink Indus. Co. v. United States, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1326
(CIT 2006) (citations omitted) (second alteration in original).
III. 	DISCUSSION
As outlined above, there no longer remain any contested questions regarding
the exclusion of the mounts’ non-aluminum extrusion components or the sufficiency
of the administrative record. See supra Part I. Plaintiffs’ only remaining argument
is that the solar mounts at issue should be excluded from the Orders under the
finished merchandise exclusion. 	Pls.’ Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pls.’ Rule 56.2 Mot.
for J. on the Agency R. (Pls.’ Mem.) at 21, ECF No. 31-2; Tr. Of Oral Arg. 11:12-18.
Commerce argues that the solar mounts do not qualify as finished merchandise and
therefore should not be excluded from the Orders. See Def.’s Resp., ECF No. 35. After
examining the plain language of the Orders and the descriptions contained in
Plaintiffs’ Scope Request and Supplemental Questionnaire responses, Commerce
found the solar mounts to be covered by the Orders’ plain language. J.A. at 1212.
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 14 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 15
Plaintiffs’ position is that the solar mounts are finished merchandise and
therefore covered under the Orders’ finished merchandise exclusion. 	During oral
argument in this case, Plaintiffs confirmed that they are “making only a finished
merchandise argument,” not an argument for exclusion as a finished goods kit. 	Tr.
of Oral Arg. 11:5-14. 	Although Plaintiffs acknowledge that the solar mounts do not
meet Commerce’s present interpretation of what constitutes finished merchandise,
Plaintiffs argue that Commerce impermissibly modified its interpretation of the
finished merchandise exclusion. 	See Pls.’ Mem. at 30. 	Therefore, Plaintiffs argue
that 	Commerce’s 	actions 	were 	arbitrary, 	capricious, 	and 	contrary 	to 	law 	in
determining that the solar mounts were not excluded from the Orders. Id.
Commerce argues that the solar mounts meet the definition of a subassembly
as defined in the Orders and when considered alongside Commerce’s prior scope
proceedings. Def.’s Resp. at 19. Based on information in the administrative record,
Commerce determined that, after importation, the solar mounts are combined with
additional parts to form the Rock-It System 3.0. Id. at 22; J.A. at 1217. Accordingly,
Commerce found that, despite the solar mounts’ being fully assembled at the time of
entry, they are subassemblies because the solar mounts are only intermediary
products that require incorporation into a downstream product — the solar panel
mounting system. See Def.’s Resp. at 22-23.
The question before the Court is whether substantial evidence supports
Commerce’s determination that the solar mounts do not meet the requirements for
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 15 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 16
the finished merchandise exclusion and the mounts are therefore included within the
scope of the Orders. 	After reviewing the scope language, the Plaintiffs’ Scope
Request, the Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Questionnaire responses, and Commerce’s
prior scope rulings, the Court agrees that the solar mounts are subassemblies — not
excludable as finished merchandise — and affirms Commerce’s determination that
the solar mounts are included within the scope of the Orders.
A. The Scope Language in the Orders
The relevant scope language reads:
The merchandise covered by the Orders is aluminum
extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an
extrusion process, made from aluminum alloys having
metallic 	elements 	corresponding 	to 	the 	alloy 	series
designations 	published 	by 	The 	Aluminum 	Association
commencing with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or proprietary
equivalents or other certifying body equivalents).
. . . .
Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time
of importation as parts for final finished products that are
assembled after importation, including, but not limited to,
window frames, door frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or
furniture. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of
aluminum extrusions are included in the scope. The scope
includes the aluminum extrusion components that are
attached 	(e.g., 	by 	welding 	or 	fasteners) 	to 	form
subassemblies, 	i.e., 	partially 	assembled 	merchandise
unless imported as part of the finished goods ‘kit’ defined
further 	below. 	The 	scope 	does 	not 	include 	the 	non-
aluminum 	extrusion 	components 	of 	subassemblies 	or
subject kits.
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 16 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 17
76 Fed. Reg. at 30,650-51. Plaintiffs do not contest that the solar mounts fall within
the plain language of the Orders because “they are composed of aluminum extrusions
from an aluminum alloy corresponding to the Aluminum Association series 6 alloy
that are machined and fabricated.” J.A. at 1226. Instead, Plaintiffs argue the solar
mounts meet the requirements to be excluded under the finished merchandise
exclusion.
Despite acknowledging the solar mounts meet Commerce’s updated definition
of 	a 	subassembly, 	which 	cannot 	be 	excluded 	under 	the 	finished 	merchandise
exclusion, Plaintiffs nonetheless argue the solar mounts meet the plain language
definition of finished merchandise. 	See Pls.’ Mem. at 29-30, ECF No. 31-2. 	The
finished merchandise exclusion reads:
The scope also excludes finished merchandise containing
aluminum 	extrusions 	as 	parts 	that 	are 	fully 	and
permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry,
such as finished windows with glass, doors with glass or
vinyl, picture frames with glass pane and backing material,
and solar panels.
76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651. 	In order to apply the product description from the Scope
Request 	to 	the 	relevant 	finished 	merchandise 	exclusion 	language, 	Commerce
evaluated the scope language while considering the series of scope rulings that
followed the Orders. 	J.A. at 1225. 	Specifically, Commerce applied its updated
interpretation of the finished merchandise exclusion as first outlined in Shenyang
and later expounded on in Meridian. Id. at 1226. Under the updated interpretation,
affirmed 	in 	the 	Meridian 	Redetermination, 	subassemblies 	are 	not 	finished
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 17 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 18
merchandise but rather parts later to be installed in a downstream product; and, as
such, subassemblies are subject to the scope of the Orders. See id. at 1212.
B. The Development of the Finished Merchandise Exclusion
Plaintiffs’ primary argument is that the scope language of the Orders explicitly
excludes finished merchandise and that the solar mounts consisting of aluminum
extrusions 	connected 	by 	non-aluminum 	extrusion 	parts 	qualify 	as 	finished
merchandise. 	Pls.’ Mem. at 22-23. 	Plaintiffs argue that the solar mounts meet the
“plain meaning of the finished merchandise exclusion . . . because they are fully and
permanently assembled and complete at the time of entry, and ready for installation
in the downstream structure: a rooftop mounted solar panel system.” 	Id. at 23.
Plaintiffs contend that Commerce’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, and
contrary to law because Commerce “impermissibly[] modif[ied] its position on what
constitutes finished merchandise for purposes of the finished merchandise exclusion
provided in the Orders.” Id. at 21.
All parties have acknowledged that “the question of what constitutes finished
merchandise has changed and evolved over time and has been the subject [of]
numerous scope ruling[s] and litigation.” 	Pls.’ Mem. at 9; see also Def.’s Mot. at 4.
Over the past decade, Commerce, this Court, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit have all explored the parameters of the finished merchandise exclusion in the
Orders. 	Decisions in previous cases that have progressed from a Commerce scope
ruling, through the Court of International Trade, to the Federal Circuit, have
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 18 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 19
provided this Court with valuable insights to guide its examination of the finished
merchandise exclusion.
Although it initially recognized subassemblies as finished merchandise for
purposes of the exclusion, Commerce reevaluated its interpretation of the finished
merchandise exclusion in 2015 following a series of appeals and remands initiated by
Shenyang 	Yuanda 	Aluminum 	Industry 	Engineering 	Company 	(Shenyang). 	In
Shenyang, the Federal Circuit held that “parts for” and “subassemblies for” a finished
product cannot qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion. 	776 F.3d at 1358.
Shenyang submitted a Scope Request to Commerce seeking to confirm whether
curtain wall units and other parts of a curtain wall system are subject to the Orders.
Id. at 1353. 	It argued that the curtain wall units were finished merchandise
containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled
and complete at the time of entry and therefore should be excluded from the scope of
the Orders. Id. at 1358.
In the course of its inquiry, Commerce determined that curtain wall units were
“designed to be attached to other units to eventually form a completed curtain wall”
and that “an individual curtain wall unit has no consumptive or practical use because
multiple units are required to form the wall of a building.” Id. Because the individual
curtain wall units were found to be a “part or subassembly” of a completed curtain
wall, the Federal Circuit held they could not qualify as a finished product. 	Id. at
1359.
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 19 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 20
Although 	the 	Federal 	Circuit’s 	2015 	Shenyang 	decision 	triggered 	a
reinterpretation of the finished merchandise exclusion by Commerce, subsequent
appeals 	in 	the 	case 	provided 	further 	direction 	regarding 	the 	definition 	of
subassemblies. See Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co. v. United
States, 918 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2019). After a series of appeals and redeterminations,
in 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed Commerce’s determination that the Orders
“exclud[e] ‘subassemblies’ only if they are ‘imported as part of the finished goods “kit”’
as defined.” 	Id. at 1367; see also 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651. 	Because the curtain wall
units were subassemblies but not part of a finished goods kit, the curtain wall units
could not be excluded from the scope of the Orders. 	Shenyang, 918 F.3d at 1367.
Most relevant to the present matter, the Federal Circuit also held that, for an item
to qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion, the item must “be ready for
installation ‘as is.’” Id. Shenyang’s administrative record indicated the curtain wall
units being imported would not complete a curtain wall because they did not include
all items necessary for installation. See id. at 1367-68. The curtain wall units thus
did not qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion. Id.
Following the 2015 Shenyang case, Commerce reinterpreted the finished
merchandise exclusion to conform with the Federal Circuit’s holdings. See Shenyang,
776 F.3d at 1358. In 2020, the courts affirmed Commerce’s updated interpretation of
the finished merchandise exclusion following a series of appeals initiated by Meridian
Products. 	See Meridian Products L.L.C. v. United States, 125 F.Supp.3d 1306 (CIT
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 20 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 21
2015); Meridian, 180 F.Supp.3d 1283 (CIT 2016); Meridian, 851 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2017); Meridian, 890 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Meridian, 2020 WL 1672840 (CIT
2020). 2
In its initial appeal, Meridian contested a 2013 Final Scope Ruling from
Commerce that found certain kitchen appliance door handles to be within the scope
of the Orders. 	See Meridian, 125 F.Supp.3d at 1308. 	Meridian argued the kitchen
appliance door handles at issue should be excluded from the Orders either because
the handles were not included within the Orders’ general scope or because they
qualified under the Orders’ finished merchandise exclusion. 	See id. 	In 2015, this
Court held that Commerce did not base its conclusion that the handles were subject
merchandise on a reasonable interpretation of the scope language. Id. at 1314. The
Court 	further 	found 	Commerce’s 	determination 	“fail[ed] 	to 	demonstrate 	the
reasonableness of the Department’s conclusion that the . . . handles do not satisfy the
requirements of the finished merchandise exclusion when the scope language setting
forth that exclusion is interpreted according to plain meaning.” 	Id. at 1316. 	After
remand, consistent with this Court’s opinion, Commerce found the handles to be
outside the scope of the Orders because there is no general scope language that covers
such products. Meridian, 180 F.Supp.3d at 1289. Commerce did not address whether
the handles were excluded under the finished merchandise exclusion. Id. Defendant-
2 Rather than list the cases in this string cite in accordance with the Order of Authorities, the cases
are listed in chronological order to illustrate Meridian’s progression through the appeals process.
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 21 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 22
Intervenor Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee then appealed Commerce’s
Remand Redetermination.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the general scope language
in the Orders included the appliance door handles. See Meridian, 890 F.3d at 1278-
82. The Federal Circuit reversed this Court’s order, finding that the handles were in
fact within the Orders’ general scope. 	Id. 	The Federal Circuit did not address the
issue of whether the handles were excluded as finished merchandise and instead
“direct[ed] Commerce to address the question of whether the . . . handles are excluded
from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty order as ‘finished
merchandise.’” Id. at 1281-82.
Commerce issued a Second Remand Redetermination in which it found, after
analyzing the scope language and structure as a whole, a delineation in the scope
among three categories of products: (1) subassemblies, (2) finished goods kits, and (3)
finished merchandise. 	See Final Results of Second Redetermination Pursuant to
Court Remand at 23, Meridian Products L.L.C. v. United States, 2020 WL 1672840
(CIT 2020) (No. 13-00246). 	Commerce first recognized that subassemblies, defined
as aluminum extrusion components that are attached by non-aluminum parts, are
included in the Orders. 	Id. 	Second, applying the updated interpretation of the
finished merchandise exclusion post Shenyang, Commerce determined that, because
the kitchen appliance door handles would be installed in downstream products, the
handles were subassemblies. 	Id. 	Therefore, Commerce concluded, and this Court
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 22 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 23
affirmed, 	that 	“products 	which 	satisfy 	the 	subassemblies 	language 	cannot 	be
excluded under the finished merchandise exclusion.” 	Id. at 22; see also Meridian,
2020 WL 1672840, at *2.
C. Commerce’s Scope Ruling Is Supported by Substantial Evidence
In this case, Plaintiffs argue the solar mounts meet the plain language
definition of finished merchandise in the finished merchandise exclusion. Pls.’ Mem.
at 	22. 	Relying 	on 	scope 	rulings 	predating 	the 	Shenyang 	and 	Meridian
redeterminations, Plaintiffs argue the solar mounts meet the definition of finished
merchandise because they are fully and completely assembled products at the time
of entry. 	Pls.’ Mem. at 22-28. 	Plaintiffs have conceded that they do not argue the
solar mounts are part of a finished goods kit so that, if the solar mounts do not qualify
as finished merchandise, they will come within the Orders’ scope. 	Tr. of Oral Arg.
11:5-14.
Commerce’s application of the finished merchandise exclusion has evolved
since it first issued the Orders in 2011. 	In response to multiple Federal Circuit
holdings, Commerce updated its interpretation of the finished merchandise exclusion
to ensure conformity with the law. Finished merchandise, as defined in the Orders’
scope, is merchandise that is fully and permanently assembled and complete at the
time of entry. 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651. The Federal Circuit has also held that there is
a distinction between finished merchandise, which is excluded from the Orders, and
subassemblies, which are included in the Orders. 	As articulated in Shenyang, 776
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 23 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 24
F.3d at 1358-59, and later expounded on in Meridian, 2020 WL 1672840, at *2, a
subassembly is a part for a final finished good and intended to become part of a larger
whole.
Despite this, Plaintiffs asks this Court to disregard Federal Circuit caselaw
that has found subassemblies to be included in the scope of the Orders. Pls.’ Mem. at
28 (arguing Commerce failed to articulate a satisfactory rational explanation to
preclude 	the 	finished 	merchandise 	exclusion 	from 	applying 	to 	subassemblies
irrespective of prior caselaw). 	Plaintiffs’ argument can be essentially reduced to
“Because an earlier scope request would have likely resulted in Plaintiffs receiving a
different scope ruling, they should receive that ruling now.” Unfortunately for China
Custom Manufacturing, timing matters; and neither this Court nor Commerce may
disregard Federal Circuit precedent. Commerce followed the relevant caselaw when
making its scope determination and reached the only result it could consistent with
the 	rulings 	of 	the 	Federal 	Circuit. 	Substantial 	evidence 	therefore 	supports
Commerce’s determination, and the Court will not disturb it.
The Court and Commerce are guided and constrained by the series of cases
elucidated above that have shaped the parameters of the finished merchandise
exclusion. 	In response to the Federal Circuit’s holdings, Commerce appropriately
modified its position on what constitutes finished merchandise for purposes of the
exclusion. 	As Commerce correctly found here, a subassembly cannot qualify as
finished merchandise. 	See Shenyang, 776 F.3d at 1358-59; Meridian, 2020 WL
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 24 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 25
1672840, at *2; J.A. at 1005-06. 	A subassembly is a part for a final finished good
intended to become part of a larger whole. 	Meridian, 2020 WL 1672840, at *2. 	As
China Custom Manufacturing noted in its Supplemental Questionnaire responses,
the solar mounts require “other components with which the mounts and the solar
panels 	are 	used 	to 	form 	the 	solar 	panel 	mounting 	system,” 	ie., 	the 	finished
merchandise. 	J.A. 	at 	1202. 	The 	solar 	mounts 	themselves 	are 	not 	finished
merchandise but rather a part or subassembly of the finished merchandise — the
solar panel mounting system — and as such do not qualify as finished merchandise
excluded from the scope of the Orders. 	Accord Shenyang, 776 F.3d at 1358-59;
Meridian, 2020 WL 1672840, at *2.
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 25 of 26

Court No. 1:20-cv-00121 	Page 26
IV. 	CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court is left with a single contested issue — whether the solar mounts
should be excluded from the scope of the Orders under the finished merchandise
exclusion. 	Because 	Commerce 	correctly 	applied 	the 	litany 	of 	Federal 	Circuit
precedents interpreting the Orders to the solar mounts presented to it for review,
substantial evidence supports Commerce’s determination. 	The Court therefore
AFFIRMS Commerce’s scope ruling and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment
on the Agency Record.
/s/ 	Stephen Alexander Vaden
Judge
Dated: December 6, 2021
New York, New York
Case 1:20-cv-00121-SAV Document 44 Filed 12/06/21 Page 26 of 26