“The Government must give due regard to finality and cannot simply ask for a do-over any time it wishes.”
How later courts described this case
- “The Government must give due regard to finality and cannot simply ask for a do-over any time it wishes.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Slip Op. 25-23
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
PT ECOS JAYA INDONESIA
AND PT GRANTEC JAYA
INDONESIA,
Plaintiffs,
and
BROOKLYN BEDDING, LLC,
FXI, INC., KOLCRAFT
ENTERPRISES INC., LEGGETT
& PLATT, INCORPORATED,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, AND UNITED
STEEL, PAPER AND Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
FORESTRY, RUBBER,
MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, Consol. Court No. 24-00001
ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND
SERVICE WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL-CIO,
Consolidated Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
BROOKLYN BEDDING, LLC,
FXI, INC., KOLCRAFT
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 2
ENTERPRISES INC., LEGGETT
& PLATT, INCORPORATED,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, AND UNITED
STEEL, PAPER AND
FORESTRY, RUBBER,
MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,
ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND
SERVICE WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL-CIO,
Defendant-Intervenors.
OPINION AND ORDER
[Sustaining in part and remanding in part the U.S. Department of Commerce’s
final results in the 2020–2022 administrative review of the antidumping duty order
on mattresses from Indonesia.]
Dated: March 7, 2025
Jarrod M. Goldfeder and MacKensie R. Sugama, Trade Pacific PLLC, of
Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia and PT Grantec Jaya
Indonesia.
Yohai Baisburd, Chase J. Dunn, and Nicole Brunda, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA)
LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiffs and Defendant-Intervenors
Brooklyn Bedding, LLC, FXI, Inc., Kolcraft Enterprises Inc., Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO.
L. Misha Preheim, Assistant Director, and Kara M. Westercamp, Trial Attorney,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of
Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. With them on the brief were
Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Patricia M.
McCarthy, Director. Of counsel on the brief was David Richardson, Attorney,
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 3
Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S.
Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.
Choe-Groves, Judge: Plaintiffs PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia (“PT Ecos”) and PT
Grantec Jaya Indonesia (“PT Grantec”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “PT
Ecos/Grantec”) and Consolidated Plaintiffs and Defendant-Intervenors Brooklyn
Bedding, LLC, FXI, Inc., Kolcraft Enterprises Inc., Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO (collectively, “Consolidated Plaintiffs” or
“Brooklyn Bedding”) challenge the final affirmative determination of the U.S.
Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) in the antidumping duty investigation on
mattresses from Indonesia. Mattresses from Indonesia, 88 Fed. Reg. 85,240 (Dec.
7, 2023) (final results of antidumping duty admin. review; 2020–2022) (“Final
Results”) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Final IDM”), PR
233. 1
Before the Court are the Motions for Judgment on the Agency Record
Pursuant to Rule 56.2 filed respectively by PT Ecos/Grantec and Brooklyn
1
Citations to the administrative record reflect the public record (“PR”) and
confidential record (“CR”) document numbers filed in this case. ECF Nos. 35, 36.
Plaintiffs filed a corrected confidential joint appendix on December 30, 2024. See
Corrected Confidential Joint App., ECF No. 39.
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 4
Bedding. Pls.’ Mot. J. Agency R. Pursuant Rule 56.2 (“PT Ecos/Grantec’s
Motion” or “PT Ecos/Grantec’s Br.”), ECF No. 22; Brooklyn Bedding, LLC et al’s
Mot. J. Agency R. (“Brooklyn Bedding’s Motion”), ECF Nos. 22, 23, Court No.
24-00002; Mem. Points Law Fact Supp. Pls.’ Rule 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R.
(“Brooklyn Bedding’s Br.”), ECF Nos. 22, 23, Court No. 24-00002. 2
Defendant United States (“the Government” or “Defendant”) filed its
comments in opposition and requested a voluntary remand on certain issues.
Def.’s Resp. Pls.’ Mots. J. Agency R. (“Def.’s Br.”), ECF Nos. 28, 29. PT
Ecos/Grantec filed a response brief, agreeing with and incorporating by reference
certain arguments by the Government. Resp. [Pls.] Mem. Points Law Fact Supp.
Consol. Pls.’ Rule 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R. (“PT Ecos/Grantec’s Resp.”), ECF No.
30.
Brooklyn Bedding and PT Ecos/Grantec filed their reply briefs. Mattress
Pet’rs’ Reply Br. (“Brooklyn Bedding’s Reply”), ECF Nos. 31, 32; Reply [PT
Ecos/Grantec] Def.’s Resp. Pls.’ Mots. J. Agency R. (“PT Ecos/Grantec’s Reply”),
ECF No. 33.
Oral argument was held on December 11, 2024. Oral Arg., ECF No. 38.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court sustains in part and remands in
2
Brooklyn Bedding’s Motion was filed in Brooklyn Bedding, LLC et al v. United
States, Court No. 24-00002, before it was consolidated with the instant case.
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 5
part the Final Results.
ISSUES PRESENTED
This case presents the following issues:
1. Whether Commerce’s determination that certain floor sofas and
mattresses produced by PT Ecos/Grantec were excluded from the scope of
the antidumping order is supported by substantial evidence.
2. Whether Commerce’s determination to calculate ratios for constructed
value profit and selling expenses and constructed export price profit
based on the average of two different surrogate sources, Masterfoam
Industries Sdn. Bhd. (“Masterfoam”) and Kurlon Enterprise Limited
(“KEL”), is supported by substantial evidence.
3. Whether Commerce’s rejection of PT Ecos/Grantec’s ministerial error
allegation, which raised an adjustment error in Commerce’s calculation
of the constructed value profit and selling expense ratios for Masterfoam,
is supported by substantial evidence.
BACKGROUND
On May 14, 2021, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on
mattresses from Indonesia. Mattresses from Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Serbia, Thailand, Republic of Turkey, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 86
Fed. Reg. 26,460 (Dep’t of Commerce May 14, 2021) (antidumping duty orders
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 6
and am. final affirmative antidumping determ. for Cambodia) (“Order”).
On July 14, 2022, Commerce initiated the first administrative review of the
antidumping duty order covering mattresses from Indonesia. Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 87 Fed. Reg.
42,144, 42,147 (Dep’t of Commerce July 14, 2022), PR 7. The period of review
was November 3, 2020, through April 30, 2022. Final Results, 88 Fed. Reg.
85,240.
Commerce selected PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia and PT Zinus Global Indonesia
(“PT Zinus”) as mandatory respondents. Resp’t Selection Mem. at 4–5, PR 17.
Commerce later collapsed PT Ecos Jaya Indonesia with PT Grantec Indonesia and
treated them as a single respondent, “Ecos/Grantec.” Collapsing Mem., PR 114. 3
On June 6, 2023, Commerce published its preliminary results. Mattresses
from Indonesia, 88 Fed. Reg. 37,027 (Dep’t of Commerce June 6, 2023) (prelim.
results) (“Preliminary Results”), PR 189, and accompanying Preliminary Issues
and Decision Memorandum (“PDM”), PR 175. In the Preliminary Results,
Commerce determined that PT Ecos/Grantec’s floor sofas and tri-folding mattress
toppers at issue were excluded from the scope of the Order and used the simple
averages of the profit data from the financial statements of Masterfoam and KEL to
3
The Court abbreviates the collapsed entity as “PT Ecos/Grantec” for the
purposes of this Opinion.
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 7
calculate PT Ecos/Grantec’s constructed value profit and constructed export price
profit. Commerce determined that the financial statements of PT Ecos/Grantec
were not usable for constructed profit calculation purposes because the entity did
not have a viable home or third-country market. See PT Ecos/Grantec’s Prelim.
Cost Mem. at 2, PR 178. The parties submitted administrative case briefs.
Brooklyn Bedding’s Admin. Case Br., PR 223; PT Ecos/Grantec’s Admin. Case
Br., PR 227.
On December 7, 2023, Commerce published the final results of the
administrative review and continued to determine that the floor sofas and tri-
folding mattress toppers at issue were excluded from the scope of the Order and
continued to use the simple averages of the profit data from the financial statements
of Masterfoam and KEL to calculate PT Ecos/Grantec’s constructed value and
constructed export price profit. Final Results, 88 Fed. Reg. 85,240; Final IDM at
24–26.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The U.S. Court of International Trade has jurisdiction pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grant the Court authority to
review actions contesting the final determination of an administrative authority as
to whether a particular type of merchandise falls within the scope of an
antidumping duty order. The Court will hold unlawful any determination found to
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 8
be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record or otherwise not in
accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
DISCUSSION
I. Scope Exclusions of PT Ecos/Grantec’s Merchandise
Brooklyn Bedding challenges Commerce’s determination to exclude PT
Ecos/Grantec’s floor sofas and tri-folding mattresses from the scope of the Order
as unsupported by substantial evidence. Brooklyn Bedding’s Br. at 9–25. The
Government contends that Commerce’s determination to exclude the subject
merchandise from the Order was supported by substantial evidence. Def.’s Br. at
15–22. PT Ecos/Grantec joins the Government’s arguments. See PT
Ecos/Grantec’s Resp.
A. Legal Framework for Scope Determination
The descriptions of merchandise covered by the scope of an antidumping or
countervailing duty order must be written in general terms, and questions may arise
as to whether a particular product is included within the scope of an order. See 19
C.F.R. § 351.225(a). When such questions arise, Commerce’s regulations direct it
to issue scope rulings that clarify whether the products are in scope or out of scope.
Id. Commerce is guided by case law and agency regulations in their scope rulings.
See Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States (“Meridian Prods.”), 851 F.3d 1375,
1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 19 C.F.R. § 351.225.
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 9
Commerce’s inquiry must begin with the relevant scope language. See, e.g.,
OMG, Inc. v. United States, 972 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2020). If the scope
language is unambiguous, “the plain meaning of the language governs.” Id. If the
language is ambiguous, however, Commerce interprets the scope with the aid of
the sources set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1). Meridian Prods., 851 F.3d at
1382. If the (k)(1) sources do not dispositively answer the question, Commerce
may consider the (k)(2) factors under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2). Id.
Commerce may consider the following interpretive sources under 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.225(k)(1) to determine whether merchandise is covered by the scope of an
order:
(A) The descriptions of the merchandise contained in the petition
pertaining to the order at issue;
(B) The descriptions of the merchandise contained in the initial
investigation pertaining to the order at issue;
(C) Previous or concurrent determinations of the Secretary, including
prior scope rulings, memoranda, or clarifications pertaining to both
the order at issue, as well as other orders with same or similar
language as that of the order at issue; and
(D) Determinations of the Commission pertaining to the order at issue,
including reports issued pursuant to the Commission’s initial
investigation.
19 C.F.R. § 351.255(k)(1).
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 10
It is well-established that “Commerce cannot ‘interpret’ an antidumping
order so as to change the scope of th[e] order, nor can Commerce ‘interpret’ an
order in a manner contrary to its terms.” Eckstrom Indus., Inc. v. United States,
254 F.3d 1068, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2001). When a party challenges a scope
determination, the Court must determine whether the scope of the order “contain[s]
language that specifically includes the subject merchandise or may be reasonably
interpreted to include it.” Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087,
1089 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
B. Scope Language of the Order
The scope of the Order states:
The products covered by these orders are all types of youth and adult
mattresses. The term “mattress” denotes an assembly of materials that
at a minimum includes a “core,” which provides the main support
system of the mattress, and may consist of innersprings, foam, other
resilient filling, or a combination of these materials. Mattresses may
also contain: (1) “Upholstery,” the material between the core and the
top panel of the ticking on a single-sided mattress; or between the core
and the top and bottom panel of the ticking on a double-sided mattress;
and/or (2) “ticking,” the outermost layer of fabric or other material (e.g.,
vinyl) that encloses the core and any upholstery, also known as a cover.
The scope of these orders is restricted to only “adult mattresses” and
“youth mattresses.” “Adult mattresses” are frequently described as
“twin,” “extra-long twin,” “full,” “queen,” “king,” or “California king”
mattresses. “Youth mattresses” are typically described as “crib,”
“toddler,” or “youth” mattresses. All adult and youth mattresses are
included regardless of size and size description.
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 11
The scope encompasses all types of “innerspring mattresses,” “non-
innerspring mattresses,” and “hybrid mattresses.” “Innerspring
mattresses” contain innersprings, a series of metal springs joined
together in sizes that correspond to the dimensions of mattresses.
Mattresses that contain innersprings are referred to as “innerspring
mattresses” or “hybrid mattresses.” “Hybrid mattresses” contain two
or more support systems as the core, such as layers of both memory
foam and innerspring units.
“Non-innerspring mattresses” are those that do not contain any
innerspring units. They are generally produced from foams (e.g.,
polyurethane, memory (viscoelastic), latex foam, gel-infused
viscoelastic (gel foam), thermobonded polyester, polyethylene) or other
resilient filling.
Mattresses covered by the scope of these orders may be imported
independently, as part of furniture or furniture mechanisms (e.g.,
convertible sofa bed mattresses, sofa bed mattresses imported with sofa
bed mechanisms, corner group mattresses, day-bed mattresses, roll-
away bed mattresses, high risers, trundle bed mattresses, crib
mattresses), or as part of a set in combination with a “mattress
foundation.” “Mattress foundations” are any base or support for a
mattress. Mattress foundations are commonly referred to as
“foundations,” “boxsprings,” “platforms,” and/or “bases.” Bases can
be static, foldable, or adjustable. Only the mattress is covered by the
scope if imported as part of furniture, with furniture mechanisms, or as
part of a set in combination with a mattress foundation. . . .
***
Also excluded is certain multifunctional furniture that is convertible
from seating to sleeping, regardless of filler material or components,
where that filler material or components are upholstered, integrated into
the design and construction of, and inseparable from, the furniture
framing, and the outermost layer of the multifunctional furniture
converts into the sleeping surface. Such furniture may, and without
limitation, be commonly referred to as “convertible sofas,” “sofabeds,”
“sofa chaise sleepers,” “futons,” “ottoman sleepers” or a like
description. . . .
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 12
***
Additionally, also excluded from the scope of these orders are
“mattress toppers.” A “mattress topper” is a removable bedding
accessory that supplements a mattress by providing an additional layer
that is placed on top of a mattress. Excluded mattress toppers have a
height of four inches or less.
The products subject to these orders are currently properly classifiable
under HTSUS subheadings: 9404.21.0010, 9404.21.0013,
9404.29.1005, 9404.29.1013, 9404.29.9085, and 9404.29.9087.
Products subject to these orders may also enter under HTSUS
subheadings: 9404.21.0095, 9404.29.1095, 9404.29.9095,
9401.40.0000, and 9401.90.5081. Although the HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the merchandise subject to these orders is dispositive.
Order, 86 Fed. Reg. 26,460 (emphasis added).
C. “Multifunctional Furniture” Exclusion
Brooklyn Bedding argues that Commerce should not have excluded PT
Ecos/Grantec’s multifunctional floor sofas from the Order under the exclusion for
“multifunctional furniture.” See Brooklyn Bedding’s Br. at 22–25. The subject
merchandise includes two variations of floor sofas, described as “8 Inch Gel Foam
Mattress and Floor Sofa,” that Commerce determined were excluded from the
Order. See Final IDM at 24; Resp. Pet’rs’ Sec. C Rebuttal Factual Information at
Att., PR 99, CR 134.
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 13
1. Plain Language
The “multifunctional furniture” scope language excludes from the Order
“certain multifunctional furniture that is convertible from seating to sleeping,
regardless of filler material or components, where that filler material or
components are upholstered, integrated into the design and construction of, and
inseparable from, the furniture framing, and the outermost layer of the
multifunctional furniture converts into the sleeping surface.” Order, 86 Fed. Reg.
26,460. The Order specifies that multifunctional furniture subject to the exclusion
may be commonly referred to as “convertible sofas,” “sofabeds,” “sofa chaise
sleepers,” “futons,” “ottoman sleepers” or a similar description. Id. In this case,
the subject merchandise are referred to as “foam mattresses and floor sofas.” Final
IDM at 24.
Whether an ambiguity exists in an antidumping order is a question of law
that the Court considers de novo. Meridian Prods., 851 F.3d at 1382. The Court
considered each aspect of the “multifunctional furniture” exclusion, as discussed
below, and concludes that the “multifunctional furniture” exclusion is
unambiguous.
The first clause of the “multifunctional furniture” exclusion requires that an
excluded floor sofa must be “convertible from seating to sleeping, regardless of
filler material or components.” Order, 86 Fed. Reg. at 26,463. The meaning of
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 14
this clause is unambiguous. For a floor sofa to meet this exclusion, the floor sofa
must be able to be converted from a sitting configuration to a sleeping
configuration. A floor sofa may meet this exclusion regardless of the type of
material that is used for the filling of the floor sofa.
The second clause of the “multifunctional furniture” exclusion requires
that “filler material or components are upholstered, integrated into the design
and construction of, and inseparable from, the furniture framing.” Id.
The Order defines “upholstery” as “the material between the core and the
top panel of the ticking on a single-sided mattress; or between the core and the top
and bottom panel of the ticking on a double-sided mattress” and also defines
“ticking” as “the outermost layer of fabric or other material (e.g., vinyl) that
encloses the core and any upholstery, also known as a cover.” Id. To “upholster”
means “to furnish with or as if with upholstery.” Upholster, Merriam-Webster
Dictionary, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/upholster
(last visited Mar. 7, 2025).
The scope exclusion language requires that the filler material or components
of a floor sofa are “integrated into the design and construction of, and inseparable
from, the furniture framing.” Order, 86 Fed. Reg. at 26,463. “Integrated” means
“to [be] incorporate[d] into a larger unit” or “to [be] unite[d] with something else.”
Integrate, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at https://www.merriam-
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 15
webster.com/dictionary/integrate (last visited Mar. 7, 2025). “Inseparable” means
“incapable of being separated or disjoined” from the other entity.
Inseparable, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/inseparable (last visited Mar. 7, 2025). “Inseparable” also
means “said of two or more united things or persons, or of their connection or
relation.” Inseparable, Oxford English Dictionary, available at
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/inseparable_adj?tab=meaning_and_use (last
visited Mar. 7, 2025). A “frame” is defined as “the underlying constructional
system or structure that gives shape or strength.” Frame, Merriam-Webster
Dictionary, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frame (last
visited Mar. 7, 2025).
The Court concludes that the meaning of the second clause of the scope
exclusion is unambiguous. Based on the definitions of “integrated,” “inseparable,”
and “furniture framing,” the Court concludes that the second clause of the
“multifunctional furniture” exclusion means that a floor sofa’s filler or components
must be incorporated into or connected to the “furniture framing,” which is the
underlying constructional system or structure that gives shape or strength to a sofa.
The third clause of the “multifunctional furniture” exclusion states that “the
outermost layer of the multifunctional furniture converts into the sleeping surface.”
Order, 86 Fed. Reg. at 26,463. It is clear that the product’s outermost layer must
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 16
be able to be used for sleeping after it is converted from a seat to a sleeping
surface.
In summary, the Court concludes that the “multifunctional furniture”
exclusion language is unambiguous. The relevant scope terms are unambiguous
when they have a “single clearly defined or stated meaning.” Vandewater Int’l Inc.
v. United States, No. 2023-1093, 2025 WL 719966, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2025)
(citing Meridian Prods., 851 F.3d at 1382 n.7). Commerce did not determine
clearly that the scope language for the “multifunctional furniture” exclusion was
unambiguous, but Commerce did not rely on (k)(1) sources to interpret the scope
language and only examined documents to determine if the evidence supported its
determination that the floor sofas were excluded under the scope language.
2. Substantial Evidence
The Parties focus their arguments solely on the second clause of the
“multifunctional furniture” exclusion. As discussed above, the Court concludes
that the second clause of the “multifunctional furniture” exclusion means that a
floor sofa’s filler or components must be incorporated into or connected to the
“furniture framing,” which is the underlying constructional system or structure that
gives shape or strength to a sofa.
Commerce examined PT Ecos/Grantec’s product brochure to support its
determination that PT Ecos/Grantec’s foam mattress floor sofas met all of the
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 17
criteria for the “multifunctional furniture” exclusion. See Final IDM at 20–26; PT
Ecos/Grantec’s Sec. A QR at Ex. A-18 (“PT Ecos/Grantec’s Product Brochure”),
PR 40.
Brooklyn Bedding contends that Commerce’s determination to exclude PT
Ecos/Grantec’s floor sofas was not supported by substantial evidence because the
products do not have any “furniture framing.” Brooklyn Bedding’s Br. at 23–24.
Brooklyn Bedding suggests that the scope language “furniture framing” requires
that a floor sofa’s frame must be made of non-foam materials, such as PT
Ecos/Grantec’s “futon couch bed” or “multi-functional sofabed,” which have foam
cushions and “a solid wood frame and high-quality metal legs” that constitute the
furniture framing to which the foam cushions are attached. Id. at 23–25.
Defendant contends that Commerce’s determination was supported by substantial
evidence because the mattress itself can serve as both a mattress and frame and the
exclusion does not require the frame to be made of a particular material. Def.’s Br.
at 15–17. The Court observes that the plain language of the “multifunctional
furniture” exclusion does not require that the furniture framing be made of any
particular material, such as wood or metal. While many sofabed frames are made
of wood, metal, or other rigid materials, the exclusion language in the Order does
not require that the furniture frame must consist of any particular material. Thus,
because the plain language of the “multifunctional furniture” exclusion does not
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 18
specify the frame’s materials, the Court agrees with Commerce’s determination
that PT Ecos/Grantec’s floor sofas are not required to have frames made of wood,
metal, or a similar rigid material, and may meet the exclusion requirements if PT
Ecos/Grantec’s floor sofas are made of foam materials that otherwise meet the
exclusion requirements by providing an underlying constructional system or
structure that gives shape or strength to a sofa.
The Court next considers the requirement in the exclusion language that a
floor sofa’s filler or components must be “integrated into” and “inseparable from”
the furniture framing. See Order. Commerce cited PT Ecos/Grantec’s product
brochure as evidence, stating that, “the product described as ‘8 inch Gel Foam
Mattress and Floor Sofa’ is one integrated unit consisting of foam and a cover.
The unit serves as both mattress and frame; there are no pieces of these products
that separate from one another.” See Final IDM at 24–25 (citing PT
Ecos/Grantec’s Product Brochure). The product brochure described the “8 Inch
Gel Foam Mattress” as a “multi-functional mattress” that is “perfect for
unexpected guests, sleepover, apartment dwellers, or leisure activities such as
having a cup of tea/coffee, reading a book, watching TV or gaming. With Gel
infused foam and supportive high density foam providing soothing leisure or
sleeping.” See PT Ecos/Grantec’s Product Brochure.
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 19
Record evidence supports Commerce’s determination that Plaintiffs’ floor
sofas met the requirements of the second clause in the exclusion provision.
Plaintiffs’ product brochure showed that the floor mattress was convertible from
seating to sleeping, the foam mattress components were integrated into and
inseparable from the furniture framing, and the floor sofa provided an underlying
constructional system or structure that gave shape and strength to the sofa. See id.
The product brochure cited by Commerce showed that when folded into a sofa, the
floor sofa provided structure by allowing a user to fold the mattress into two sizes,
one version that had a smaller surface area for sitting and a second version that had
a larger surface area for sitting. Id. The evidence cited by Commerce
demonstrated that both sizes of Plaintiffs’ floor sofa had an underlying
constructional system or structure that gave shape and strength to the sofa frame,
with a seat, a back, and arm rests. Id.
Because Commerce cited substantial record evidence in the form of
Plaintiffs’ product brochure showing that Plaintiffs’ floor sofas contained filler or
components that were incorporated into and connected to the furniture frame,
which was an underlying constructional system or structure that gave shape and
strength to the sofa, the Court concludes that Commerce’s determination to
exclude PT Ecos/Grantec’s foam mattress floor sofas from the Order under the
“multifunctional furniture” exclusion was supported by substantial evidence.
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 20
D. Mattress Topper Exclusion
Brooklyn Bedding argues that Commerce should not have determined that
PT Ecos/Grantec’s tri-folding mattresses were excluded under the “mattress
topper” exclusion of the Order. See Final IDM at 25–26.
1. Plain Language
The “mattress topper” scope language excludes from the Order “a removable
bedding accessory that supplements a mattress by providing an additional layer
that is placed on top of a mattress.” Order, 86 Fed. Reg. at 26,463. Excluded
mattress toppers have a height of four inches or less. Id. The Court considered
each aspect of the “mattress topper” exclusion, as discussed below, and concludes
that the “mattress topper” exclusion is unambiguous.
First, the meaning of the height requirement of the product being “four
inches or less” is clear. Second, the requirement for an excluded mattress to be “a
removable bedding accessory that supplements a mattress by providing an
additional layer that is placed on top of a mattress” is also clear. To “supplement”
is defined as “add[ing] something to something to make it larger or better.”
Supplement, Cambridge Dictionary, available
at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/supplement (last visited
Mar. 7, 2025). To supplement a mattress, an excluded product must add another
layer when placed on top of an existing mattress.
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 21
Commerce did not state that the scope language for the “multifunctional
furniture” exclusion was unambiguous, but Commerce did not rely on (k)(1)
sources to interpret the scope language and only examined documents to determine
if the evidence supported its determination that Plaintiffs’ tri-folding mattress
products were excluded under the scope language.
2. Substantial Evidence
Brooklyn Bedding asserts that Commerce’s determination to exclude PT
Ecos/Grantec’s tri-folding mattresses under the “mattress toppers” exclusion
provision was not supported by substantial evidence because the product brochure
evidence demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ products were marketed as traditional
mattresses, rather than as a “supplement” to an existing mattress. 4 See Brooklyn
Bedding’s Br. at 12–21; see also Final IDM at 25 (“[PT Ecos/Grantec’s] tri-folding
mattresses, or toppers, all have a height of four inches or less, a fact which [is] not
disputed by [Brooklyn Bedding].”). Brooklyn Bedding also argues that
4
Commerce excluded eleven products under the “mattress topper” exclusion. Of
these eleven excluded products, Brooklyn Bedding contested the exclusion of only
ten types of tri-folding mattresses. Brooklyn Bedding’s Br. at 20 (“In contrast, all
ten of Ecos/Grantec’s tri-folding mattresses are produced to sizes that do not
correspond to traditional mattress sizes”); see Resp. Pet’rs’ Sec. C Rebuttal Factual
Information at Att. (showing eleven excluded products under the mattress topper
exclusion). Of the eleven challenged products, Brooklyn Bedding did not
challenge the exclusion of the “4 in Memory Foam Topper” with the product code
04TP02, which is included in the product brochure.
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 22
inconsistent labelling in the product brochure and specification sheets demonstrate
that the excluded products were not “mattress toppers.” See Brooklyn Bedding’s
Br. at 12–21.
The Government argues that Commerce’s exclusion of the tri-folding
mattresses was supported by substantial evidence because Plaintiffs’ products have
a height of four inches or less and their dual use as mattresses and toppers does not
disqualify the products from the “mattress topper” exclusion. Def.’s Br. at 17–22.
Commerce examined PT Ecos/Grantec’s product brochure and product
specification sheets to support its determination that PT Ecos/Grantec’s tri-folding
mattresses met the “mattress topper” exclusion. See Final IDM at 25–26; PT
Ecos/Grantec’s Product Brochure; see PT Ecos/Grantec’s Suppl. QR at Ex. SC-3
(“PT Ecos/Grantec’s Product Specification Sheets”), PR 123–26. Based on its
review of record evidence, Commerce determined that Plaintiffs’ products met the
requirements in the “mattress topper” exclusion because: (1) the products had a
height of four inches or less; (2) the product codes were described as “toppers” in
the product brochure and specification sheets; and (3) the products were
“removable and portable” and could be used as both a mattress and topper. See
Final IDM at 25–26 (citing PT Ecos/Grantec’s Product Brochure; PT
Ecos/Grantec’s Product Specification Sheets).
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 23
The Court finds unpersuasive Brooklyn Bedding’s argument that PT
Ecos/Grantec’s tri-folding mattresses could not function as mattress supplements
because the products were not designed or produced in sizes that corresponded to
traditional mattress sizes. See Brooklyn Bedding’s Br. at 19–21. Brooklyn
Bedding points to PT Ecos/Grantec’s sale of other mattress toppers, such as its
“Gel Memory Foam Air Flow Topper” and different types of “2.5 Inch Gel Foam
Topper,” which were described as products that supplemented existing mattresses
in traditional sizes of twin, full, queen, and king, while the tri-folding mattresses at
issue in this case did not correspond to traditional mattress sizes. Id.
The Court notes that the plain language of the scope exclusion does not
require that excluded mattress toppers must be in specific sizes, such as twin, full,
queen, and king mattress sizes. Order, 86 Fed. Reg. 26,460. The scope exclusion
language only requires that the products must be less than four inches high and
must be “a removable bedding accessory that supplements a mattress by providing
an additional layer that is placed on top of a mattress.” Id. at 26,463.
The Court also finds unpersuasive Brooklyn Bedding’s argument that
Plaintiffs’ products should not have been excluded because the products have dual
uses as mattresses and mattress toppers. See Brooklyn Bedding’s Reply at 5–6.
The Court notes that the scope exclusion language does not require that excluded
mattress toppers must have only a single use, and the scope exclusion language
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 24
does not preclude mattresses from having dual purposes. Order, 86 Fed. Reg.
26,460.
a. Commerce’s Determinations of Excluded
Products Supported By Substantial Evidence
As discussed below in more detail, Commerce cited sufficient record
evidence to support its “mattress topper” exclusion determination for only five of
the ten products at issue in this case. Commerce’s determination to exclude five of
PT Ecos/Grantec’s products was not supported by substantial evidence.
With respect to the first grouping of five products for the “mattress topper”
exclusion, Commerce cited record evidence showing that Plaintiffs’ tri-folding
mattresses were less than four inches high, were removable, and supplemented
mattresses by providing an additional layer on top of the mattresses for Product
Codes 04TM01S, 04TM02S, 04TM02T, 04TM03S, and 04TM04S. See Final
IDM at 25 (citing PT Ecos/Grantec’s Product Brochure; PT Ecos/Grantec’s
Product Specification Sheets).
Commerce cited Plaintiffs’ product brochure, which showed that PT
Ecos/Grantec’s “4 inch Tri-Folding Memory Foam Mattress” (Product Codes
04TM01S, 04TM02S, and 04TM02T) was described as a “Tri-fold topper” and
was “the ideal option for visitors, sleepovers, car trips, camping or dorm room bed.
Portable and comfortable mattress, no pain in the back or neck when people sleep
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 25
on it. Complete with supportive memory foam mattress providing soothing
sleeping.” PT Ecos/Grantec’s Product Brochure; Final IDM at 25. Similarly, PT
Ecos/Grantec’s “4 inch Tri-Folding Topper” (Product codes 04TM03S and
04TM04S) were described in Plaintiffs’ product brochure in the same way as PT
Ecos/Grantec’s “4 inch Tri-Folding Memory Foam Mattress” (Product Codes
04TM01S, 04TM02S, and 04TM02T), except the outer cover was described as a
“washable tricot cover” rather than “a washable nice jacquard cover.” PT
Ecos/Grantec’s Product Brochure; see Final IDM at 25. This evidence supports
Commerce’s determination that these tri-fold toppers should be excluded from the
Order under the “mattress topper” exclusion because the evidence described the
products as a “Tri-fold topper” and indicated that the products could be used on a
dorm room bed, presumably as a supplement on top of an existing mattress. While
the evidence regarding the specific uses of the products could be clearer,
Commerce’s reliance on this evidence was reasonable.
Three of the product codes in the product brochure were labeled as a “4 inch
Tri-Folding Foam Folding Mattress” (Product Codes 04TM01S, 04TM02S,
04TM02T) and were labeled as “toppers” in the specification sheets. See PT
Ecos/Grantec’s Product Brochure; PT Ecos/Grantec’s Product Specification
Sheets. The Court acknowledges and agrees with Brooklyn Bedding’s argument
that merely naming a product as a “topper” does not automatically qualify such
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 26
product for the “mattress topper” exclusion. Here, a review of the product
brochure cited by Commerce shows that these three products could be used on
dorm room beds, suggesting that the “toppers” could be used as a supplement on
top of existing dorm room bed mattresses, which factually satisfies the criteria of
the “mattress topper” exclusion. Therefore, the evidence cited by Commerce
supports its determination that these products meet the “mattress topper” exclusion.
Brooklyn Bedding also argues that Commerce’s determination to exclude
the tri-folding mattresses was not supported by substantial evidence because
Commerce previously determined that tri-folding mattresses were within the scope
of the Order in a prior scope ruling. See Brooklyn Bedding’s Br. at 9–12; see also
Mattress Pet’rs’ Rebuttal Factual Information Submitted Resp. PT Ecos/Grantec’s
Sec. C QR at Ex. 1 (“Mattresses from Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Serbia,
Thailand, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Turkey, and the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Scope Decision Memorandum” or “Prior
Scope Ruling”), PR 71. In the Prior Scope Ruling, Commerce determined that
Night & Day’s tri-fold memory foam mattresses were in scope because the
products did not meet the requirements for the “multifunctional furniture” or futon
exclusions. Prior Scope Ruling at 13–15. The subject merchandise were tri-
folding mattresses, comprised of three equally-sized rectangular foam components,
no more than 6.25 inches thick. Id. at 14. The Prior Scope Ruling is inapposite
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 27
because it did not address the “mattress topper” exclusion, and thus Commerce did
not need to address or rely on the Prior Scope Ruling in this case.
b. Commerce’s Determinations of Excluded
Products Not Supported By Substantial
Evidence
In contrast to the first five products discussed above, Commerce did not cite
sufficient record evidence to support its determination regarding the “mattress
topper” exclusion for the remaining five products, identified by Product Codes
04TM02X, 04TMB1S, 04TMF01S, 04TM02O, and 04TM02F.
Commerce cited a product brochure in support of its determination, in which
PT Ecos/Grantec’s “4 inch Tri-Folding Memory Foam Mattress and Sofa Bed”
(Product Code 04TM02X) was described as “the ideal option for visitors,
apartment dwellers, college dorms, also great for car trips, video gaming, reading
book[s], watching TV or camping. With supportive high density foam providing
soothing leisure or sleeping.” PT Ecos/Grantec’s Product Brochure; Final IDM at
25. This evidence does not demonstrate factually that Product Code 04TM02X
could be used on top of a mattress as a supplement because the brochure only
describes Plaintiffs’ foam mattress and sofa bed as a sleep mattress, with a
removable cover and zipper system. PT Ecos/Grantec’s Product Brochure. The
brochure does not indicate that Product Code 04TM02X could be used on top of a
dorm room bed. It is a subtle distinction, but here Product Code 04TM02X is
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 28
described for use “in college dorms,” while the first set of products discussed
above were described for use as “an option for . . . dorm room bed.” Id. The
evidence shows that the first set of products could be used on a dorm room bed,
presumably as a supplement on top of a mattress, while Product Code 04TM02X
could be used “in college dorms,” perhaps on the floor, but not specifically on top
of a bed. Id. Without a clear indication from the evidence that Product Code
04TM02X could be used on top of a mattress as a supplement, the Court concludes
that the evidence does not support Commerce’s determination that Product Code
04TM02X met the “mattress topper” exclusion requirements.
Product Codes 04TMB1S, 04TMF01S, 04TM02O, and 04TM02F were not
included in the product brochure cited by Commerce. These four products were
only mentioned in product specification sheets that contained minimal information,
with each product being referred to as a “topper.” PT Ecos/Grantec’s Product
Specification Sheets. These product specification sheets contain no factual
information demonstrating how the products were intended to be used, and did not
state that these products could be used on top of a bed as a mattress supplement, or
how they would otherwise meet the “mattress topper” exclusion requirements. Id.
Merely having the product name “topper,” without any record evidence showing
how the products were intended to be used as a mattress supplement, does not
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 29
support Commerce’s determination that Product Codes 04TMB1S, 04TMF01S,
04TM02O, and 04TM02F met the “mattress topper” exclusion.
In summary, the Court concludes that Commerce’s determination that PT
Ecos/Grantec’s tri-folding mattresses for Product Codes 04TM01S, 04TM02S,
04TM02T, 04TM03S, and 04TM04S were excluded from the Order under the
“mattress topper” exclusion was supported by substantial evidence. However, the
Court concludes that Commerce’s determination that PT Ecos/Grantec’s Product
Codes 04TM02X, 04TMB1S, 04TMF01S, 04TM02O, and 04TM02F were
excluded from the Order under the “mattress topper” exclusion was not supported
by substantial evidence.
II. Commerce’s Calculation of Constructed Value Profit, Selling
Expenses, and Constructed Export Price Ratios
PT Ecos/Grantec contends that Commerce’s use of selected surrogate
financial statements was not appropriate because KEL has a different customer
base and the “other income” reflected in the Masterfoam financial statements
should have been excluded from the calculations of cost of goods sold of the
constructed export price profit and constructed value selling expense rate. PT
Ecos/Grantec’s Br. at 8–17.
The Government seeks a voluntary remand to address PT Ecos/Grantec’s
challenges regarding Commerce’s calculation of constructed value profit, selling
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 30
expenses, and constructed export price ratios using the financial statements of
Masterfoam and KEL, as well as Commerce’s rejection of a ministerial error
allegation. Def.’s Br. at 22–24.
PT Ecos/Grantec agrees with and supports Defendant’s request for remand.
PT Ecos/Grantec’s Reply at 1. Brooklyn Bedding does not oppose the
Government’s request for remand. See Brooklyn Bedding’s Resp.; Brooklyn
Bedding’s Reply.
A. Legal Standard
A reviewing court has discretion over whether to grant a voluntary remand,
and a remand is generally appropriate “if the agency’s concern is substantial and
legitimate,” but may be refused “if the agency’s request is frivolous or in bad
faith.” See SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Vague and unsupported requests for remand are insufficient. Corus Staal BV v.
U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 27 CIT 388, 391–95, 259 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1257–60
(2003); see also Corus Staal BV v. United States, 29 CIT 777, 781–83, 387
F.Supp.2d 1291, 1296–97 (2005) (“The Government must give due regard to
finality and cannot simply ask for a do-over any time it wishes.”).
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 31
B. Commerce’s Use of Masterfoam’s and KEL’s Financial
Statements and Alleged Rejection of Ministerial Error
Commerce determined that Masterfoam’s and KEL’s financial statements
constituted the best source of constructed value and selling expense data on the
record in this proceeding. Final IDM at 11. Commerce calculated the constructed
value profit rate and selling expense rate for each of the two companies, then
calculated the simple average of the two constructed value profit and selling
expense rates to derive PT Ecos/Grantec’s and PT Zinus’ constructed value profit
and selling expenses. Id. Commerce reasoned that because PT Ecos/Grantec and
PT Zinus Indonesia did not have home market or third-country sales, and there
were no other respondents investigated in the proceeding, the only methodology
available to calculate the constructed value profit was “any other reasonable
method” under Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. Id. at 12. Commerce
disagreed that KEL’s business operations and profit experience did not resemble
those of PT Ecos/Grantec, stating that KEL engaged in the production and sales of
identical merchandise, KEL’s sales and marketing activities were not unusual
activities for a company engaged in the manufacturing and sales of mattresses and
bedding products, and KEL’s data met all of the relevant criteria. Id. at 13–14.
PT Ecos/Grantec filed a timely ministerial error allegation identifying
Commerce’s failure to exclude Masterfoam’s “other income” from the cost of
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 32
goods sold denominator as a clerical error, which Commerce disagreed with,
stating that it was not a clerical error, but a methodological issue and declined to
make the requested adjustment. See Final IDM at 15; PT Ecos/Grantec’s
Ministerial Error Allegation, PR 242–43; Commerce’s Ministerial Error Mem., PR
246. Commerce disagreed with PT Ecos/Grantec’s argument that Commerce
should include certain investment expense line items, such as “exceptional item
expense” and “other income, gains on fair valuation of current investments” in
KEL’s financial statement for calculating the constructed value and constructed
export price profit ratio because they were administrative expenses. Final IDM at
15.
The Government requests remand for Commerce to: (1) reconsider its
determination to include “other income” from the surrogate financial statements of
Masterfoam in the cost of goods sold denominator of the constructed value profit
and selling expense calculation; and (2) include the financial statements of KEL in
the constructed value, selling expenses, and constructed export price profit
calculations. See Def.’s Br. at 22–24. Because Commerce seeks to address the
challenges brought by PT Ecos/Grantec and correct issues of “substantial and
legitimate concern” in Commerce’s reconsideration of the Final Results, the Court
concludes that remand is appropriate.
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 33
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court sustains in part and remands in part the
Final Results. The Court sustains Commerce’s determination that PT
Ecos/Grantec’s floor sofas and five of PT Ecos/Grantec’s tri-folding mattresses
(Product Codes 04TM01S, 04TM02S, 04TM02T, 04TM03S, and 04TM04S) were
excluded from the scope of the Order. The Court concludes that Commerce’s
determination that five of PT Ecos/Grantec’s tri-folding mattresses (Product Codes
04TM02X, 04TMB1S, 04TMF01S, 04TM02O, and 04TM02F) were excluded
from the scope of the Order is unsupported by substantial evidence. The Court
remands the issues of Commerce’s use of the financial statements of Masterfoam
and KEL in calculating constructed value and constructed export price profit and
Commerce’s rejection of PT Ecos/Grantec’s allegation of ministerial error.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Government’s request for remand is granted; and it is
further
ORDERED that PT Ecos/Grantec’s Motion, ECF No. 22, is granted in part
and denied in part; and it is further
ORDERED that Brooklyn Bedding’s Motion, ECF No. 22, Court No. 24-
00002, is granted in part and denied in part; and it is further
ORDERED that this case shall proceed according to the following schedule:
Consol. Court No. 24-00001 Page 34
(1) Commerce shall file its remand determination on or before May 7,
2025;
(2) Commerce shall file the administrative record on or before May 21,
2025;
(3) Comments in opposition to the remand determination shall be filed on
or before June 6, 2025;
(4) Comments in support of the remand determination shall be filed on or
before July 7, 2025; and
(5) The joint appendix shall be filed on or before July 10, 2025.
/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: March 7, 2025
New York, New York