Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Comm. v. United States

Slip Op. No. 23-5

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS FAIR

TRADE COMMITTEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

Before: Stephen Alexander Vaden,

UNITED STATES,

Judge

Defendant,

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253

and

REFLECTION WINDOW + WALL,

LLC,

Defendant-Intervenor.

OPINION AND ORDER

[Affirming Commerce’s final scope ruling.]

Dated: January 18, 2023

Robert E. DeFrancesco, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff Aluminum

Extrusions Fair Trade Committee. With him on the brief were Alan H. Price,

Elizabeth S. Lee, and Claire M. Webster.

Augustus Golden, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.

Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for Defendant United States. With him

on the brief were Ann C. Motto, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Brian

M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy,

Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director,

Commercial Litigation Branch, and Leslie M. Lewis, Of Counsel, Office of the Chief

Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Robert D. Stang, Husch Blackwell LLP, of Washington, DC, for Defendant-Intervenor

Reflection Window + Wall, LLC. With him on the brief was Jeffrey S. Neeley.

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 2

Vaden, Judge: Plaintiff Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (the

Committee) challenges Defendant United States Department of Commerce’s

(Commerce) final scope ruling determining that Defendant-Intervenor Reflection

Window + Wall, LLC’s (Reflection) window wall system kits were outside the scope of

the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from

China. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 9; Final Scope Ruling on Reflection Window + Wall,

LLC’s Window Wall System Kits (Reflection Scope Ruling) at 1, 25, J.A. at 1,584,

1,608, ECF No. 35; see also Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China:

Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,650 (Dep’t of Com. May 26, 2011);

Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Duty

Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,653 (Dep’t of Com. May 26, 2011) (together, the Orders).

Before the Court is the Committee’s Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record,

arguing that Commerce’s determination that certain Reflection products are excluded

from the Orders as finished goods kits is unsupported by substantial evidence and

conflicts with Commerce’s established practice in prior scope rulings. Pl.’s Mot. for J.

on the Agency R. (Pl.’s Mot.) at 1–2, ECF No. 23. For the reasons set forth below, the

Court AFFIRMS Commerce’s decision.

BACKGROUND

Reflection is a designer, importer, and distributor of “non-load bearing

fenestration system[s] provided in combination assemblies and composite units,

including transparent vision panels and/or opaque glass or metal panels, which span

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 3

from the top of a floor slab to the underside of the next higher floor slab.” Request for

Scope Ruling on Certain Window Wall System Kits (Initial Scope Request) at 2–3,

J.A. at 1,001–02, ECF No. 35. In layman’s terms, Reflection produces portions of the

exterior façades of high-rise buildings. Reflection’s products are custom-made to

individual projects; it does not inventory or warehouse its products for later use or

sell the products for generic commercial use as window wall systems. Id. at 2.

At issue here are Reflection’s imports of its series RWW-8000, RWW-9000,

RWW-9500, and RWW-12000 window wall system kits. Reflection Scope Ruling at

6–9, J.A. at 1,589–92, ECF No. 35. The parties agree that Reflection’s products are

covered within the general scope language of the Orders and are not finished

merchandise but disagree about whether Reflection’s products can be excluded as

finished goods kits. Id. at 20; see, e.g., Pl.’s Mot. at 10, ECF No. 23; Def.’s Resp. to

Pl.’s Mot. (Def.’s Resp.) at 19, ECF No. 29. See generally Def.-Int.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot.

(Def.-Int.’s Resp.), ECF No. 27. In its final scope ruling, Commerce found that

Reflection’s products “contain, at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts

to fully assemble a final finished good . . . [and] contain non-aluminum extruded parts

beyond mere fasteners” so that the products are finished goods kits excluded from the

Orders’ scope. Reflection Scope Ruling at 25, J.A. at 1,608, ECF No. 35. The

Committee appeals this decision, asking that the Court hold unlawful Commerce’s

determination as unsupported by substantial evidence. Pl.’s Mot. at 9, ECF No. 23;

see also 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 4

A. Relevant Scope Proceedings

Commerce issued the Orders on aluminum extrusions from China on May 26,

2011. 76 Fed. Reg. 30,650; 76 Fed. Reg. 30,653. The Orders read, in pertinent part:

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 contain 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

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.

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 5

Id. at 30,651. Commerce has explained its interpretation of the Orders’ scope in

several rulings. It discussed seven prior scope rulings in its determination here.

Reflection Scope Ruling at 10–13, J.A. at 1,593–96, ECF No. 35.

Commerce’s prior scope rulings confirm that a product must contain more than

just extruded aluminum, fasteners, and extraneous materials like an instruction

booklet to qualify for the finished goods kit exclusion. In the Geodesic Domes Kits

Scope Ruling, Commerce found that a product that contained only “extruded

aluminum poles and fasteners” was not excludable as a finished goods kit because

the exclusion requires more than “merely . . . including fasteners.” Final Scope

Ruling on J.A. Hancock Co., Inc.’s Geodesic Structures at 7, J.A. at 1,646, ECF No.

35. In the Meridian Trim Kits Scope Ruling, Commerce denied an exclusion for a

product that included only extruded aluminum, fasteners, and an instruction

manual. Final Scope Ruling on Refrigerator/Freezer Trim Kits at 11, J.A. at 1,664,

ECF No. 35; see also Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States, 851 F.3d 1375, 1385 (Fed.

Cir. 2017).

Commerce’s prior scope rulings also evince its interpretation that, although

products must enter the country together to qualify for the finished goods kit

exclusion, this does not mean they must enter in a single container. In the IAP

Enclosure Systems Window Kits Scope Ruling, Commerce excluded window kits from

the scope — even when they enter in multiple containers — as long as the containers

listed on a single 7501 Entry Summary Form contained “all the parts, including the

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 6

glass panels, necessary to assemble a finished window or windows.” Final Scope

Ruling on Window Kits at 4–6, J.A. at 1,651–53, ECF No. 35; see also Final Scope

Ruling on Hand-E-Shutter Kits at 12, J.A. at 1,735, ECF No. 35.

Commerce examined a “window wall kit” in the NR Windows Wall Kit Scope

Ruling. Final Scope Ruling on Finished Window Kits at 1, J.A. at 1,666, ECF No. 35.

There, Commerce decided that window walls were distinct from curtain walls — parts

for which are explicitly included in the Orders’ scope — because window walls “do not

completely cover the façades of buildings.” Id. at 10. NR’s window wall kits entered

the country in “multiple containers and cartons that enter under a single [7501 Entry

Summary Form].” Id. at 9. Thus, Commerce found them to be finished goods kits

excluded from the Orders’ scope. Id. at 9–10. Similarly, in the Ventana Window Wall

Kits Scope Ruling, Commerce excluded from the Orders’ scope certain window wall

kits under the theory that (1) they could be inserted as standalone units unattached

to other window walls and (2) they are distinct from curtain walls because they “leave

significant areas of the building uncovered.” Final Scope Ruling on Ventana’s

Window Wall Kits at 10, J.A. at 1,723, ECF No. 35.

Commerce has considered curtain wall products — a kind of exterior cladding

distinct from window walls — twice before and included them in the Orders’ scope on

both occasions. The first was the Northern California Glass Management Association

curtain wall ruling, where Commerce found that the plain language of the Orders

covered the products at issue as “parts for . . . curtain walls.” Final Scope Ruling on

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 7

Curtain Wall Units and Other Parts of a Curtain Wall System at 9, J.A. at 1,684, ECF

No. 35. The second was when Commerce considered Shenyang Yuanda’s curtain wall

units. Final Scope Ruling on Curtain Wall Units That Are Produced and Imported

Pursuant to a Contract to Supply a Curtain Wall, J.A. at 1,686–713, ECF No. 35; see

Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng’g Co., Ltd. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1351

(Fed. Cir. 2015) (Shenyang Yuanda I); Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng’g

Co., Ltd. v. United States, 918 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Shenyang Yuanda II).

There, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Commerce’s

determination finding the curtain wall units at issue within the Orders’ scope.

Shenyang Yuanda II, 918 F.3d at 1358.

B. The Scope Ruling in Question

On August 7, 2019, Commerce received a scope ruling request from Reflection,

asking that it find Reflection’s window wall system kits outside the Orders’ scope.

Initial Scope Request at 1, J.A. at 1,000, ECF No. 35. On April 26, 2021, after a long

back-and-forth of supplemental questionnaires, comments from Reflection and the

Committee, and an ex parte videoconference, Commerce issued its final scope ruling

finding certain Reflection products excluded from the Orders under the finished goods

kit exclusion. Reflection Scope Ruling at 1–2, J.A. at 1,584–85, ECF No. 35

(documenting Reflection’s four requests for scope rulings, three responses to

supplemental questionnaires, and the Committee’s two sets of comments on the

second and third responses).

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 8

As part of its ruling that Reflection’s products were excluded, Commerce made

several findings. Id. at 20–24. First, Commerce found Reflection’s products to be

aluminum extrusions within the Orders’ general scope. Id. at 20. Next, Commerce

found Reflection’s products were not finished merchandise — a distinct category from

finished goods kits — and declined to consider whether Reflection’s products were

“subassemblies,” finding such a determination was “unnecessary to this ruling.” Id.

Commerce then determined that, although Reflection’s products enter the United

States in separate containers, they appear on a single 7501 Entry Summary Form

and contain “non-aluminum extrusion components beyond mere fasteners.” Id. at

22–23. Finally, Commerce distinguished Reflection’s window wall system kits from

curtain wall units on the bases that (1) the “window wall systems are inserted into

the opening between the top of one floor slab and the underside of the next higher

floor slab,” and (2) Reflection’s window wall systems “do not make up the entirety of

the building’s façade.” Id. at 24. With these conclusions, Commerce found

Reflection’s products to be finished goods kits excluded from the Orders’ scope. Id. at

20–21. Commerce found as a fact that “each of Reflection’s window wall system kits

is a packaged combination of parts that contains, at the time of importation, all the

parts necessary to assemble window wall systems by the end-users in the United

States and requires no further finishing or fabrication.” Id. at 20.

Commerce narrowed the exclusion from that originally requested by

Reflection. Commerce decided to take “a cautious approach” in response to some of

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 9

the Committee’s criticisms and excluded only products that (1) are “designed to fit

into the aperture of a wall,” (2) are designed “not to vertically span a greater distance

than from the top of one floor slab to the underside of the next higher floor slab,” (3)

span no greater than fifteen feet vertically, and (4) contain slab covers. Id. at 21–24.

Commerce also included what amounted to a warning for Reflection before listing the

necessary characteristics of excluded products: “It is incumbent upon Reflection to

define its products with specificity. Hence, this ruling applies to the four products

specifically as they are defined here.” Id. at 21. Commerce then defined what it was

excluding, giving a list of major components, dimensions, and design elements for

each of the four excluded product series. Id. at 21–22. In other words, should future

products deviate in any way from the specification of this ruling, they will not benefit

from the exclusion. See id.

C. The Present Case

The Committee filed its Complaint with the Court on June 25, 2021. Compl. ¶

11, ECF No. 9. The Complaint alleges that Commerce’s determination that

Reflection’s products are finished goods kits outside the Orders’ scope is unsupported

by substantial evidence on the record and otherwise not in accordance with law. Id.

¶¶ 21–22. The Committee argues that Commerce’s determination is unsupported by

substantial evidence because: (1) There is insufficient evidence in the record to find

that Reflection’s window wall system kits are finished goods kits; (2) Commerce failed

to appropriately consider evidence the Committee presented that detracts from

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 10

Commerce’s conclusion; and (3) Commerce’s determination conflicts with its

established practice in previous scope rulings pertaining to the Orders by treating

window wall systems differently from curtain wall units. Id. ¶¶ 21–26. The

Committee filed a Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record on November 11, 2021;

Commerce and Reflection filed responses on March 1, 2022; and the Committee filed

its reply on April 19, 2022. Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 23; Def.’s Resp., ECF No. 29; Def.-

Int.’s Resp., ECF No. 27; Pl.’s Reply, ECF No. 32.

At oral argument, the Court confirmed with the parties that Reflection had not

submitted a 7501 Entry Summary Form for any of the products Commerce had

excluded. Tr. 6:3–7:2, ECF No. 45. Counsel for Reflection offered an explanation for

this seemingly strange state of affairs: Reflection had initially requested a broader

scope exclusion than Commerce granted; and when Commerce requested that

Reflection provide it with the last three entry forms, Reflection complied literally. Id.

64:22–67:18. This resulted in Reflection’s submitting 7501 Entry Summary Forms

that were for products that Commerce did not actually exclude.

Having clarified these facts, the Court ordered the parties to file supplemental

briefs on whether the determination could be sustained without a 7501 Entry

Summary Form for the products at issue. Id. 103:13–105:12. Reflection filed its letter

brief on August 25, 2022, arguing that there is substantial evidence in the record

without considering the 7501 Entry Summary Forms. Def.-Int.’s Letter Br., ECF No.

41. Commerce filed its letter brief on September 8, 2022, arguing that it can and does

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 11

exclude products without 7501 Entry Summary Forms. Def.’s Letter Br. at 10, ECF

No. 42. The Committee filed its letter brief on September 22, 2022, contending that

the lack of 7501 Entry Summary Forms for the excluded products prevents the

decision from being supported by substantial evidence. Pl.’s Letter Br. at 1, ECF No.

44. With supplemental briefing completed, the questions before the Court are ripe

for resolution.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s challenge to the Scope Ruling under

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 scope determinations described in an

antidumping order. The Court must sustain Commerce’s “determinations, findings,

or conclusions” unless they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record,

or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). If they are

unsupported by substantial evidence or not in accordance with the law, the Court

must “hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion found.” Id. “[T]he

question is not whether the Court would have reached the same decision on the same

record[;] rather, it is whether the administrative record as a whole permits

Commerce’s conclusion.” See New American Keg v. United States, No. 20-00008, 2021

WL 1206153, at *6 (CIT Mar. 23, 2021).

Reviewing agency determinations, findings, or conclusions for substantial

evidence, the Court assesses whether the agency action is reasonable given the record

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 12

as a whole. Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir.

2006); see also Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951) (“The

substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly

detracts from its weight.”). The Federal Circuit has described “substantial evidence”

as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support

a conclusion.” DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed.

Cir. 2005) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).

DISCUSSION

I. Summary

A “finished goods kit” is something like IKEA furniture: It ships unassembled

but with all the necessary parts to assemble the finished product without the end

user doing more than putting it together with the included fasteners and adhesives.

The Committee challenges Commerce’s conclusion that Reflection’s submitted

window wall system kits are “finished good kits” entitled to exclusion from the scope

of the Orders. The Committee’s central argument is that Reflection’s products must

be treated like the curtain wall units in prior scope rulings. The Committee asserts

that, had Commerce fairly considered the record, it could not reasonably have found

that each window wall system is a finished good. According to the Committee,

Commerce must find that the only possible finished good is a completed window wall

for an entire building, as is the case with curtain walls. The Committee argues that,

to reach its conclusion, Commerce misunderstood how Reflection’s products are used,

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 13

failed to critically probe how Reflection’s products are packaged, and improperly

ignored record evidence that detracted from its ruling. Finally, the Committee claims

the lack of a 7501 Entry Summary Form for the excluded products precludes

Commerce’s decision from being supported by substantial evidence.

Commerce responds with three primary arguments. First, it properly

considered and weighed the evidence in the record and responded to the Committee’s

arguments in detail. It found that Reflection’s window wall systems are each final

finished goods unlike curtain wall units, and it is inappropriate for the Court to re-

weigh the evidence. Second, Commerce’s decision is consistent with its prior scope

rulings because it found Reflection’s products are distinct from the curtain wall units

at issue in those prior decisions. Third, a 7501 Entry Summary Form is not required

for a scope ruling.

Reflection joins Commerce and supports its argument in three ways. First,

Commerce granted a narrower exclusion than Reflection requested, demonstrating

Commerce listened to and incorporated the Committee’s contentions. Second,

Commerce distinguished Reflection’s products from prior decisions about curtain

walls through detailed use of the record evidence Reflection submitted. Third,

Commerce used the submitted 7501 Entry Summary Forms for other similar products

to show that Reflection’s pattern and practice of business is to ship its products with

all necessary parts as a “packaged combination” to be assembled as-is with no further

finishing or fabrication required.

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 14

The Court begins by analyzing the challenged “finished goods kit” exclusion.

Then the Court discusses each of the Committee’s arguments. The Court finds

Commerce responded to the arguments the Committee made, and the choices

Commerce made are reasonable and supported by the record as a whole. Commerce

distinguished Reflection’s window wall systems from curtain wall units. Thus,

Commerce’s decision is not in conflict with prior scope rulings; and because its

decision aligns with the text of the Orders, it does not modify or contradict them.

Commerce’s use of the 7501 Entry Summary Forms in the record is appropriate, and

a completed 7501 Entry Summary Form for the product at issue is not required for a

scope ruling. Therefore, the Court concludes that Commerce’s determination is

supported by substantial evidence. The Committee’s Motion for Judgment on the

Agency Record will be DENIED, and Commerce’s scope ruling is AFFIRMED.

II. The “Finished Goods Kit” Exclusion

All parties agree that Reflection’s products are within the general language of

the Orders. The heart of this case is instead a disagreement over the “finished goods

kit” exclusion. The Orders define a “finished goods kit” as “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.” 76 Fed. Reg.

at 30,651.

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 15

“[W]hether the unambiguous terms of a scope control the inquiry . . . is a

question of law that [the Court] reviews de novo.” Meridian Prods., 851 F.3d at 1382.

“[W]hether a product meets the unambiguous scope terms presents a question of fact

reviewed for substantial evidence.” Id. The Federal Circuit has held that “in light of

its terms and Commerce’s prior scope rulings, the [finished goods kit] exclusion’s

terms are unambiguous and, therefore, control the inquiry.” Id. at 1384. By the

unambiguous terms of the scope, an excluded kit must (1) be a final finished good

once assembled; (2) be assembled “as is,” without any further finishing, fabrication,

or additional parts; and (3) enter as an unassembled, packaged combination of parts.

These unambiguous terms of the scope — combined with prior scope rulings

interpreting the Orders — control the inquiry and dispute here. 1 See id. The Court

turns next to the question of fact, which is reviewed under the substantial evidence

standard: Whether Reflection’s products meet the unambiguous scope terms.

III. Reflection’s Window Wall Systems Are Finished Goods Unlike

Shenyang Yuanda’s Curtain Wall Units

To qualify as finished goods kits, Reflection’s window wall system kits must be

assembled into a final finished good. The Committee asserts that they are not

because Reflection’s products are principally used in tandem with each other to

provide most of a building’s exterior façade. Pl.’s Mot. at 16, ECF No. 23. The

1 Although this language is sufficient here, other language in the Orders could be relevant in other

disputes over the finished goods kit exclusion. See Meridian Prods., 851 F.3d at 1383 (contemplating

language concerning the inclusion of fasteners not at issue here). Plaintiff does not challenge

Commerce’s interpretation that a “packaged combination” means that all necessary parts enter on a

single 7501 Entry Form — rather than in a single package.

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 16

Committee argues that this makes Reflection’s products akin to curtain walls, for

which the Federal Circuit has held that the only final finished good is the entire

curtain wall. Id.; see Shenyang Yuanda II, 918 F.3d at 1367. Commerce disagrees

and asserts it found that Reflection’s products are distinct from curtain wall products

because a single window wall system has a consumptive use, works independently

from other systems, and a series of window walls cannot cover a building’s entire

façade like a curtain wall does. Def.’s Resp. at 16, ECF No. 29; Def.-Int.’s Resp. at

21, ECF No. 27. Because Reflection’s window wall systems have individual,

consumptive uses and cannot cover a building’s entire façade, Commerce’s

determination that each is a final finished good is supported by substantial evidence.

A. Shenyang Yuanda’s Curtain Wall Units

A final finished good must be useful for something on its own. See Shenyang

Yuanda I, 776 F.3d at 1358; see also Shenyang Yuanda II, 918 F.3d at 1367. In

Shenyang Yuanda I, the Federal Circuit considered whether curtain wall units were

appropriately classed as finished merchandise. 776 F.3d at 1358. Shenyang Yuanda

imported curtain wall units that had to be attached together in order to assemble the

entire exterior curtain wall of a building. Id. Shenyang Yuanda conceded during

litigation that “absolutely no one purchases for consumption a single curtain wall

piece or unit.” Id. The Federal Circuit held that concession meant an individual

curtain wall unit could not be a final finished good, agreeing with the CIT’s finding

that “an individual curtain wall unit ‘has no consumptive or practical use because

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 17

multiple units are required to form the wall of a building.’” Id. (quoting Shenyang

Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng’g Co., Ltd. v. United States, 961 F. Supp. 2d 1291,

1298–99 (CIT 2014)). “A single unit does not a curtain wall make, nor is it a finished

product.” Id. For curtain wall units, the only finished good is the entire curtain wall.

Shenyang Yuanda II, 918 F.3d at 1367.

Shenyang Yuanda returned to the Federal Circuit four years later, presenting

a different argument. Id. It now argued that it was importing an entire curtain wall

— albeit in several shipments linked together by a contract — and that this meant it

was importing a finished goods kit. Id. Commerce determined that the finished goods

kit exclusion required that “all of the necessary curtain wall units are imported at

the same time.” Id. The Federal Circuit agreed that the finished goods kit exclusion

“focuses only on the physical contents of the ‘packaged combination’ at a particular

time, not on contractual obligations that might link one ‘packaged combination’ to

another, later-entering one.” Id. The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed Commerce’s

determination that Shenyang Yuanda’s products were still not finished goods kits

within the Orders’ meaning.

B. Reflection’s Window Wall Systems

The Committee argues that Reflection’s window walls are just like Shenyang

Yuanda’s curtain walls. The Committee claims (1) Reflection’s products, like the

curtain wall units in Shenyang Yuanda I, are useless individually and must be

installed in an interlocking sequence and that (2) as in Shenyang Yuanda II,

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 18

Reflection had multiple shipments destined for the same building project. Thus, the

Committee argues that the same result is required here: Commerce must find that

the only final finished good is the entire window wall. But the Committee is

mistaken. Commerce effectively distinguished Reflection’s products from Shenyang

Yuanda’s curtain wall units. Reflection’s window wall systems have an individual,

consumptive use; they can be installed in no particular order; they cannot cover a

building’s entire façade; and they serve different functions from a curtain wall. As

they do not cover the building’s entire façade, there is no set minimum number of

units to purchase: One unit could theoretically suffice. Because each window wall

system is a finished good, each shipment of window wall systems contains multiple

finished goods.

The Committee argues that one window wall system, like one curtain wall unit,

cannot be a finished good. However, it is possible to purchase just one window wall

system and install it. See Tr. 49:5–8, 19–23, ECF No. 45 (Court: “[I]s it possible to

buy just one, what you term, window system?” Government: “Oh, it certainly is.”);

Reflection Scope Ruling at 24, J.A. at 1,607, ECF No. 35 (noting that the exclusion

was designed to ensure that the window wall systems “cannot connect with other

window wall systems”); Declaration of James White of Reflection, J.A. at 80,414, ECF

No. 34 (“Each window wall system installed in a building is a modular stand-alone

unit.”) Unlike curtain wall units, Reflection’s window wall systems have an

individual, consumptive use. Cf. Shenyang Yuanda I, 776 F.3d at 1358. The Orders

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 19

confirm that “finished merchandise . . . such as finished windows with glass,” are

excluded from the scope if entered “fully and permanently assembled.” 76 Fed. Reg.

at 30,651. A window wall system is a final finished good in the same sense as a

window with glass — they are both inserted into an aperture in a building to provide

insulation and a view. See Reflection Scope Ruling at 21–22, J.A. at 1,604–05, ECF

No. 35. Curtain wall units are attached to the outside of a building and to other

curtain wall units to form a complete curtain wall that envelops the building. One

window wall system — like one standard window — has a function alone; one curtain

wall unit does not.

The Committee argues that Reflection’s window wall systems are like

Shenyang Yuanda’s curtain wall units because they work together by interlocking

and are shipped with an intended installation sequence. Pl.’s Mot. at 16–17, ECF No.

23; see also Shenyang Yuanda I, 776 F.3d at 1358. Commerce found just the opposite,

i.e., that Reflection’s window wall systems do not depend on each other to function.

See Reflection Scope Ruling at 16–24, J.A. at 1,599–607, ECF No. 35. Commerce went

a step further and limited the exclusion to systems spanning less than fifteen vertical

feet, ensuring that Reflection’s products do not interlock to create a building’s entire

façade. Id. at 24. Commerce also found that an intended installation sequence is just

a sensible business practice, not a requirement for the product’s use. Id.; see also Tr.

8:17–20, ECF No. 45 (The Court: “Although it might be inefficient and not make

logical sense to do so, would it be possible to install the window wall systems in any

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 20

order that you wish?” Counsel for Reflection: “The answer is yes, Your Honor.”).

That degree of independence — rather than interdependence, as with Shenyang

Yuanda’s curtain wall units — makes Reflection’s products finished goods.

Commerce further accentuated this distinction by adding requirements to the

exclusion it granted Reflection. Commerce required that excluded products include

slab covers, span no more than fifteen vertical feet, and fit into the space between the

top of one floor slab and the bottom of the next. Commerce added these requirements

to ensure Reflection’s products “cannot connect with other window wall systems to

cover the entirety of a building’s façade and compose a type of curtain wall.”

Reflection Scope Ruling at 24, J.A. at 1,607, ECF No. 35. Because Reflection’s

products do not have to connect to each other, building features not possible with

curtain walls become options. Committee Comments on Reflection’s Scope Ruling

Request at Ex. 1 n.207 (July 13, 2020), J.A. at 1,510, ECF No. 35 (noting in remand

redetermination that “window walls frequently include doors, windows, and

balconies, and are used for store fronts, ‘whereas curtain walls are not’”); see Tr. 18:9–

19:16, ECF No. 45 (discussing the Court’s understanding that window wall systems

allow the creation of balconies or other access to the outside, which is not possible

with curtain walls, and hearing no dispute from the Committee). These added

requirements — requirements that Reflection neither suggested nor wanted and that

disqualified some of their products from the exclusion — emphasize and enhance the

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 21

distinction Commerce drew between curtain wall units and the excluded window wall

systems.

Reflection sent multiple shipments destined for the same building project, each

containing multiple window wall systems. See 7501 Entry Summary Forms, J.A. at

80,023–56, ECF No. 34. The Committee claims that this is further evidence that

Reflection’s products are not each final finished goods, like the curtain wall contract

in Shenyang Yuanda II. The Committee is correct that each shipment was not, alone,

the entire building project. Pl.’s Mot. at 18 n.3, ECF No. 22. But that does not prevent

its constituent parts — individual window wall systems — from each being a final

finished good. Finished windows with glass are specifically referenced by the Orders

as finished merchandise.2 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651 (“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 . . . .”) What Reflection does is akin to taking on a contract to provide one

hundred windows for a building and shipping them in two bundles of fifty windows.

2 Despite internal linguistic variation in the Orders between the words “products,” “goods,” and

“merchandise,” the Orders contemplate that a finished goods kit will be assembled into “merchandise.”

See, e.g., 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651 (“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 Orders also appear to

treat the words “goods” and “merchandise” identically: “Subject extrusions may be identified with

reference to their end use, such as fence posts, electrical conduits, door thresholds, carpet trim, or heat

sinks (that do not meet the finished heat sink exclusionary language below). Such goods are subject

merchandise if they otherwise meet the scope definition, regardless of whether they are ready for use

at the time of importation.” Id.

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 22

Each bundle is fifty finished goods. The two bundles together are not one single

finished good.

The situation in Shenyang Yuanda was different because — continuing the

analogy — fifty curtain wall units are not fifty final finished goods. That shipment

is just half a curtain wall. A curtain wall is like an outer cage that encircles a

building. If a company shipped a dog cage in two shipments of three metal panels

each, those would add up to one finished good: the entire dog cage. There is no

individual, consumptive use for each metal panel; and three of them are no more

useful than one. The metal panels are entirely dependent on one another for their

function. Shenyang Yuanda’s curtain wall units are the same. Until there are

enough of them for an entire curtain wall, they are useless. Window wall systems

are individually useful and work independently from each other. That is sufficient

for Commerce to find each to be a final finished good.

IV. Substantial Evidence Supports Commerce’s Determination That

Reflection’s Products Are Finished Goods Kits

Although each of Reflection’s products — once fully assembled — is a finished

good, to qualify for the exclusion it must also enter as “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.” 76 Fed. Reg.

at 30,651; see Meridian Prods., 851 F.3d at 1383. Commerce found that Reflection’s

products do and thus are finished goods kits excluded from the Orders.

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 23

The Committee argues that Reflection’s products do not qualify as finished

goods kits because (1) Reflection’s products do not contain all the necessary parts to

assemble the window wall system; (2) Commerce’s decision conflicts with its prior

decisions construing the finished goods kit exclusion and contradicts the Orders; (3)

Commerce improperly ignored record evidence the Committee presented that

detracts from Commerce’s conclusion; and (4) Commerce improperly relied on 7501

Entry Summary Forms Reflection submitted for products that are not excluded by

the scope ruling. Pl.’s Mot. at 9–10, ECF No. 23; Pl.’s Letter Br., ECF No. 43.

Commerce responds that (1) it conducted a thorough analysis of the record data,

specifications, and declarations to ensure that Reflection’s products do contain all

necessary parts on entry; (2) its decision is consistent with prior scope rulings and

the Orders because Reflection’s products are not curtain walls or curtain wall units

but window wall systems; (3) it did respond to the Committee’s evidence and

arguments but disagreed; and (4) 7501 Entry Summary Forms are not required for a

scope ruling. Def.’s Resp. at 22–35, ECF No. 29, see Def.’s Letter Br., ECF No. 42.

Reflection responds that (1) it submitted voluminous record information about how

its products are packaged and assembled; (2) Commerce distinguished its products

from both curtain walls and curtain wall units such that this decision is consistent

with prior scope rulings and the Orders; (3) the Committee’s argument is a request

for the Court to impermissibly re-weigh the evidence; and (4) Commerce properly

considered the 7501 Entry Summary Forms in the record as showing Reflection’s

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 24

ordinary business practice of shipping its products with all necessary components.

Def.-Int’s Resp. at 18–28, ECF No. 27; see Def.-Int.’s Letter Br., ECF No. 41. Because

there is substantial evidence on the record that Reflection’s products enter as

unassembled, stand-alone finished goods that contain all necessary parts, the Court

upholds Commerce’s determination.

A. Commerce Found Reflection’s Products Contain All Necessary Parts

and Require No Further Finishing or Fabrication

Each kit “must contain[], at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts

. . . to be assembled ‘as is.’” 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651. The Committee argues that

Reflection failed to demonstrate that its products contain all necessary parts. Pl.’s

Mot. at 13–15, ECF No. 23. Commerce replies that it examined Reflection’s

submissions and found them credible, and it only exempted products that match the

granted exclusion. Def.’s Resp. at 22–35, ECF No. 29. Reflection reiterates the

information it submitted to Commerce, including a sworn statement, detailed

annotated images, and entry documents. Def.-Int.’s Resp. at 24–25, ECF No. 27.

Commerce found “that the evidence on the record shows that each of Reflection’s

window wall system kits is a packaged combination of parts that contains, at the time

of importation, all the parts necessary to assemble window wall systems by the end-

users in the United States and requires no further finishing or fabrication.”

Reflection Scope Ruling at 20, J.A. at 1,604, ECF No. 35. Deciding complex technical

questions about window wall systems is well within Commerce’s expertise so that the

Court provides it appropriate deference on the technical questions involved. See

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 25

Fujitsu Gen. Ltd. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1034, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that

the Court provides greater deference to Commerce’s technical expertise than to its

interpretation of ambiguous statutory language). Reflection submitted sufficient

information to provide substantial evidentiary support for Commerce’s finding. See

19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).

Commerce lists several categories of record evidence it used in reaching its

determination. Reflection Scope Ruling at 20–21, J.A. at 1,604–05, ECF No. 35

(listing narrative statements, product instructions, packing lists, entry summaries,

photographs, schematics, questionnaire responses, and a short video). The narrative

statement Commerce references is a sworn statement by James White of Reflection,

stating that Reflection includes all necessary primary and secondary components in

its shipments. Declaration of James J. White, J.A. at 80,141–42, ECF No. 34.

Commerce cites this declaration in its scope ruling when it finds that “[e]very

component composing the kit, including accessory components (or ‘all primary and

secondary parts and components’), for each unit is shipped to the United States in

the same shipment.” Reflection Scope Ruling at 7, J.A. at 1,591, ECF No. 35. In

response to the Committee’s contentions that the secondary components were not

present on the packing lists, Reflection cited annotated images it submitted. See J.A.

at 1,134–39, ECF No. 35; J.A. at 80,130, 80,141, ECF No. 34. Those images show

that the secondary components are incorporated into Reflection’s products at the

factory before importation. Id.; see also Def.-Int’s Resp. at 25, ECF No. 26.

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 26

The Committee submitted contrary record evidence in a separate declaration.

See Declaration, J.A. at 80,119–21, ECF No. 34. As Commerce summarized,

Reflection and its declarant claimed that the Committee’s declarant (1) improperly

conflated window walls and curtain walls; (2) conceded that Reflection’s window wall

systems could be installed out of order; (3) incorrectly claimed that window walls and

curtain walls could be used interchangeably for the same projects; (4) incorrectly

claimed that both curtain walls and window walls span floor-to-floor, when window

walls span floor-to-ceiling; and (5) made outlandish claims about how the declarant

would provide window walls instead of curtain walls to a buyer after winning a bid to

construct a building using a curtain wall. Reflection Scope Ruling at 16–19, J.A. at

1,600–02, ECF No. 35. Having laid out the conflicting declarations, Commerce sided

with Reflection on each of the issues discussed. See id. at 23–25; see also Fujitsu Gen.,

88 F.3d at 1039 (noting the deference Commerce receives when resolving technical

questions). The Committee presented other contrary arguments; for instance, that a

short video Reflection had submitted showed that Reflection’s products require

further finishing or fabrication. Id. at 21 n.127. Commerce “repeatedly reviewed the

video referenced by the parties and cannot find any support for the petitioner’s

contention that it demonstrates that there is further finishing, but conclude[s] that

it shows the opposite.” Id.

The Committee also contends that Reflection’s submitted technical literature

does not “provide a complete list of the necessary parts and materials or a description

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 27

of the assembly or installation process for these products.” Pl.’s Mot. at 14, ECF No.

23. The Committee argues that Commerce should have asked for technical literature

specific to the custom projects Reflection is seeking to have excluded. Id. at 15. The

included literature is clearly labeled: RWW-8000, J.A. at 1,399–1,416, ECF No. 35;

RWW-9000, J.A. at 1,418–1,433, ECF No. 35; RWW-9500, J.A. at 1,435–1,454, ECF

No. 35; RWW-12000, J.A. at 1,456–1,471, ECF No. 35. The literature contains

detailed images of the listed product series. Those are the product series Commerce

excluded here. Consulting technical, graphical illustrations of the product series at

issue is a reasonable choice by Commerce.

The idea underlying the Committee’s contentions in these arguments is that

Commerce should have believed its evidence and testimony instead of Reflection’s

and that the Committee’s evidence and testimony are stronger and made a better

case. However, “it is not the province of the Court to reweigh the evidence before the

agency.” Comm. for Fair Beam Imports v. United States, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1326

(CIT 2007), aff’d without opinion, 260 F. App’x 302 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Commerce

examined the Committee’s evidence, noted its points of disagreement, and explained

why it chose to credit Reflection’s evidence instead. Substantial evidence supports

Commerce’s conclusion.

B. This Scope Ruling Is Consistent with Prior Rulings and Does Not

Contradict the Orders

Across a decade of scope rulings, Commerce has consistently excluded window

wall systems as finished goods kits but refused to exclude curtain wall units.

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 28

Commerce’s basis for doing so is simple. Window walls do not cover a building’s entire

façade. Curtain walls do. The Committee argues that Commerce “reached a

determination that directly conflicts with its established practice in prior scope

rulings under these orders” and that, because this record contains “significantly more

analysis put forward than before and [is] more probing of the product at issue,”

Commerce could only reasonably find that Reflection’s products are akin to curtain

wall units. Pl.’s Mot. at 2, 27, ECF No. 23. Commerce replies, and Reflection agrees,

that the exclusion is consistent “with prior scope rulings related to similar window

wall products” and with the plain text of the Orders. Def.’s Resp. at 29, ECF No. 29;

Def.-Int.’s Resp. at 3, ECF No. 27. The Court agrees with Commerce that the scope

ruling does not contravene Commerce’s past scope rulings or the Orders.

Although the Orders have spawned much litigation, Commerce has been

consistent in its interpretation of them. Three separate times, Commerce has issued

scope rulings excluding windows and window wall products from the Orders. In the

IAP Enclosures Scope Ruling, Commerce excluded window kits containing a variable

number of panes placed in apertures in building façades. Final Scope Ruling on

Window Kits, J.A. at 1,648–53, ECF No. 35. In the NR Windows Scope Ruling,

Commerce excluded window wall kits and distinguished them from curtain wall units

because NR’s window wall kits did not envelop or enclose a building’s entire façade.

Final Scope Ruling on Finished Window Kits, J.A. at 1,666–75, ECF No. 35. In the

Ventana Scope Ruling, Commerce excluded window wall kits and distinguished them

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 29

from curtain wall units because Ventana’s window wall kits (1) could be inserted as

standalone units and (2) did not cover a building’s entire façade. Final Scope Ruling

on Ventana’s Window Wall Kits, J.A. at 1,714–23, ECF No. 35.

By contrast, Commerce has issued scope rulings including curtain wall units

in the Orders’ scope on two separate occasions. The first time, Commerce included

curtain wall units in the scope because the plain language of the Orders included

“parts for . . . curtain walls,” and that is what Commerce found the curtain wall units

were. Final Scope Ruling on Curtain Wall Units and Other Parts of a Curtain Wall

System, J.A. at 1,676–85, ECF No. 35; accord Shenyang Yuanda I, 776 F.3d at 1356–

58 (affirming the same reasoning for including Shenyang Yuanda’s curtain wall units

in the scope). The second time, Commerce declined to find that Shenyang Yuanda’s

curtain wall units were finished goods kits because (1) they were individually useless

and (2) the finished goods kit exclusion could not be satisfied by contractually linking

one packaged combination to a later-entering one. Final Scope Ruling on Curtain

Wall Units That Are Produced and Imported Pursuant to a Contract to Supply a

Curtain Wall, J.A. at 1,686–713, ECF No. 35; see Shenyang Yuanda II, 918 F.3d at

1367 (affirming Commerce’s scope ruling).

Although the Committee is correct that the record of this proceeding is more

developed than that of prior window wall kit scope rulings, that fact counsels in favor

of the lawfulness of Commerce’s scope ruling. Commerce used the extensive record

to distinguish Reflection’s window wall system kits from the curtain wall units in

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 30

prior rulings, as discussed in Section III of this opinion. Because Commerce

reasonably found that Reflection’s window wall systems each constitute a final

finished good by distinguishing them from curtain wall units, this scope ruling is

consistent with Commerce’s prior scope rulings.

The Committee also argues that Commerce unlawfully modified the Orders.

Commerce has discretion in interpreting the Orders; but it may not change them, and

it did not do so here. See Global Commodity Group LLC v. United States, 709 F.3d

1134, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Shenyang Yuanda II, 918 F.3d at 1362–63

(demonstrating the deference the Court of International Trade owes to Commerce’s

interpretation of the Orders). The plain text of the Orders excludes finished goods

kits. Because Commerce demonstrated with substantial evidence that Reflection’s

window wall systems are finished goods that enter unassembled with all necessary

parts to be assembled “as-is” with no further finishing or fabrication required — the

exact definition of finished goods kits — Commerce has not modified the Orders. See

76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651; see also ante 24–27. Commerce’s scope ruling is consistent

with its prior scope rulings and with the Orders.

C. Commerce Responded Fully to the Committee’s Other Arguments

Commerce responded to the Committee’s detailed critiques of the scope ruling

and specifically limited the ruling to avoid providing an overly broad exclusion. The

Committee contends that Commerce “failed to consider evidence that fairly detracts

from its conclusion and also failed to grapple with all important aspects of the

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 31

problem.” Pl.’s Mot. at 11, ECF No. 23. Commerce replies that it did respond to all

arguments that fairly detracted from its conclusion. See Def.’s Resp. at 22–35, ECF

No. 29. Although Commerce must consider “whatever in the record fairly detracts”

from its conclusion and must grapple with all “important aspect[s] of the problem,” it

is “not required to address every piece of evidence submitted by participating parties

. . . .” CS Wind Vietnam Co. v. United States, 832 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

(citing Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 720 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) (first

quote); Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43

(1983) (second quote); Dong-A Steel Co. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 3d 1317, 1343

(CIT 2020) (third quote). Commerce responded to all the evidence and arguments

that fairly detracted from its conclusion. As such, its determination is supported by

substantial evidence.

The simplest analysis available to the Court is to walk through the

Committee’s contentions and review how Commerce replied. To begin, the

Committee argues that Commerce failed to define the final finished good with

sufficient specificity. See Pl.’s Mot. at 12–13, ECF No. 23. Commerce answered this

critique in two steps in its final ruling. First, Commerce cited the American

Architectural Manufacturing Association’s definition of a window wall system: “[A]

non-load bearing fenestration system provided in combination assemblies and

composite units, including transparent vision panels and/or opaque glass or metal

panels, which span from the top of a floor slab to the underside of the next higher

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 32

floor slab.” Reflection Scope Ruling at 6, J.A. at 1,589, ECF No. 35. Then Commerce

wrote a detailed, bulleted list of exactly what products are excluded. Id. at 21–22.

For the sake of brevity, the Court excerpts the first one:

The Series RWW-8000 window wall system, consisting of

four major components: (1) the window system panels; (2)

the head receptors and sill receptors; (3) the window side

jamb receptors; and (4) the slab cover. It is a thermally

broken, butt glazed system manufactured with a 4 inch

(102 mm) deep structural mullion and a 4.5 inch (114 mm)

deep receptor system. It includes glass, integral louver, or

metal infill. It has a one-piece extrusion slab cover. It

incorporates glass thicknesses ranging from 0.94 inch (24

mm) to 1.77 inches (45mm). It is designed to fit into the

aperture of a wall and does not vertically span a greater

distance than from the top of one floor slab to the underside

of the next higher floor slab, and such distance is no greater

than 15 feet (4.57 m).

Id. at 21. The Committee asserts that this is insufficient to explain what Commerce

“was defining as the ‘window wall system.’” Pl.’s Mot. at 13, ECF No. 23. The Court

recognizes the Committee’s contention as stemming from the custom-designed nature

of Reflection’s product. A custom-designed product is hard to describe with exact

precision; Commerce could not describe the weight of one system, how many panes

come in one system, or whether one system would be used to create a balcony.

Instead, Commerce cited a commonly used industry definition of a window wall

system provided by Reflection in its scope ruling request. Reflection Scope Ruling at

6, J.A. at 1,589, ECF No. 35. Commerce then provided a list of necessary components,

dimensions, and design elements to define the excluded product series. Id. at 21.

These specified details are the kind of product contemplated by the definition of a

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 33

window wall system cited by Commerce in the product description. See id. at 6.

Commerce then added specifics to the definition that Reflection did not want added,

including a cap in the vertical span of fifteen feet and a requirement that the products

must contain slab covers. See Def.-Int’s Letter Br. at 2–6, ECF No. 41. These added

limitations narrowed the exclusion Commerce granted and demonstrate that

Commerce sought to define the excluded products so as not to read the finished goods

kit exclusion too broadly. Cf. Pl.’s Mot. at 10, ECF No. 23 (arguing that scope

exclusions should be construed narrowly). Indeed, the narrowed language prevented

several products Reflection submitted from being excluded from the Orders’ scope.

See 7501 Entry Summary Forms, J.A. at 80,023–56, ECF No. 34.

The Committee repeatedly says that Commerce should have requested further

information about the products Reflection imported. See, e.g., Pl.’s Mot. at 15, ECF

No. 23. But what Reflection sought — and Commerce granted — was an exclusion

that would cover custom-designed products as long as they met various

specifications.3 Reflection Scope Ruling at 21, J.A. at 1,604, ECF No. 35. Commerce

listed the specifications in detail and based its decision on the technical literature for

the different product series that Reflection submitted. Id. If Reflection imports

3Commerce may only exclude from the scope products that are already in commercial production. 19

C.F.R. § 351.225(c)(1). This requirement prevented one of the products Reflection originally requested

a scope ruling for, series RWW-7000, from being considered. Reflection Scope Ruling at 9, J.A. at

1,592, ECF No. 35. Reflection avers that the other excluded products are in commercial production or

have been produced at this time. Id.

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 34

products that deviate from the exclusion’s express terms, then those products are

simply not excluded.

The Committee’s arguments are caught in a contradiction: It seeks to

simultaneously argue that Commerce’s definition is too vague while also

acknowledging that definition has prevented certain products Reflection submitted

from being excluded. Compare Pl.’s Reply at 6–8, ECF No. 33 (arguing that

Commerce’s definition, use of submitted technical literature, and use of 7501 Entry

Summary Forms is too imprecise), with Pl.’s Letter Br. at 6, ECF No. 44 (recognizing

that the Reflection products on the submitted 7501 Entry Summary Forms were

denied exclusion because they lacked slab covers). An argument divided against itself

cannot stand. Because Commerce considered the evidence submitted and responded

to the Committee’s contravening arguments by narrowing the scope of Reflection’s

requested exclusion, Commerce acted according to law; and substantial evidence

supports its determination.

D. Scope Rulings Do Not Require a 7501 Entry Summary Form

Although Reflection placed three 7501 Entry Summary Forms on the record

for its window wall products, none of those forms are for products actually excluded

in this ruling. The submitted forms all involve products that do not have slab covers

so that they do not benefit from Commerce’s scope ruling. Compare Reflection Scope

Ruling at 7–9, J.A. at 1,590–91, ECF No. 35 (limiting the exclusion to window wall

systems incorporating slab covers), with 7501 Entry Summary Forms, J.A. at 80,023–

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 35

56, ECF No. 34 (listing the components of three Reflection imports but noting no slab

covers). The Committee contends that, because there are no 7501 Entry Summary

Forms for the excluded products present in the record, the decision cannot be

supported by substantial evidence. Pl.’s Letter Br. at 1, ECF No. 44. Commerce notes

that (1) Commerce frequently excludes yet-to-be-imported products — for which there

can be no 7501 Entry Summary Forms — in scope rulings; (2) the 7501 Entry

Summary Forms present in the record provide evidence that Reflection’s standard

practice is to import its products with all necessary components; and (3) should

Reflection’s products not enter on a single form, its products will not be excluded.

Def.’s Letter Br. at 10, ECF No. 42; Def.’s Resp. at 35–43, ECF No. 29. Commerce

supported its decision by drawing reasonable conclusions from the submitted 7501

Entry Summary Forms about how Reflection’s products are normally packaged.

Further, Commerce is correct that companies seek scope rulings for products before

importation such that they would have no associated 7501 Entry Summary Forms.

The Committee’s arguments are without merit.

As noted above, Reflection’s initial scope ruling request was distinct from the

final exclusion in that it did not require slab covers. Commerce added that

requirement after it asked for 7501 Entry Summary Forms for “the last three entries

of Reflection’s window wall system kits.” Request for Information Regarding

Reflection Window + Wall, LLC’s Scope Inquiry on Window Wall System Kits (Sept.

23, 2019) at 3, J.A. at 1,098, ECF No. 35. Reflection responded to Commerce’s request

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 36

and submitted the three most recent 7501 Entry Summary Forms for products it was

then seeking to have excluded. Those forms — and supplementary documentation —

provided detailed lists of parts for window wall systems shipped by Reflection in the

ordinary course of business. Request for Scope Ruling on Certain Window Wall

System Kits Qualifying as a Finished Goods Kit (Jan. 9, 20204) (Second Scope

Request) at Exhibit A, J.A. at 80,023–63, ECF No. 34. Commerce reviewed the

information and determined that it was Reflection’s usual practice to ship all

necessary components for one window wall system together. See Reflection Scope

Ruling at 20–21, J.A. at 1,603–04, ECF No. 35; see also Second Scope Request at 14,

J.A. at 80,013, ECF No. 34.

A completed 7501 Entry Summary Form for the exact product excluded is not

required for a scope ruling. Commerce must issue scope rulings on products that

have not yet been imported and therefore have no 7501 Entry Summary Forms. See

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents, Submission

Procedures; APO Procedures: Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 3,634, 3,639 (Jan. 22, 2008)

(providing that Commerce may issue a scope ruling even when “[t]he product [has not

been] imported into the United States so long as the requestor can show evidence that

the product is in production”); see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(d) (requiring Commerce to

4This document appears to be misdated in the record as alternately January 9, 2019, and January 6,

2019. Second Scope Request at 1, 20, J.A. at 80,000, 80,019, ECF No. 34. The signature pages list the

date of January 9, 2020, and the exhibit materials are from December 2019. Id. at 21–23. Given that

the request is responsive to Commerce’s questionnaire of September 23, 2019, the Court presumes

January 6 is a typographical error and that the updated scope request was submitted January 9, 2020.

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 37

issue an official scope ruling if it “can determine, based solely upon the application”

and the sources listed in subsection (k)(1) whether a product is within the scope); 19

C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1) (requiring Commerce to consult the petition, the initial

investigation, and prior determinations but not requiring a 7501 Entry Summary

Form). It is for this reason that Reflection still needs to demonstrate that its imported

products — past and future — meet the express terms of the exclusion. Commerce’s

decision here does not remove that burden. Should Reflection’s products not enter as

a “packaged combination,”5 they would not benefit from the exclusion. Because

Commerce’s use of the submitted 7501 Entry Summary Forms is reasonable, and

because the determination as a whole is supported by substantial evidence, the Court

upholds it.

CONCLUSION

Reflection submitted a broad scope ruling request for its window wall systems.

Commerce took evidence, developed an extensive record, narrowed the requested

exclusion, and responded to the Committee’s arguments to the contrary. The result

is a final scope ruling that is consistent with the record before the agency, with past

scope rulings interpreting the Orders, and with the Orders themselves. Keeping in

mind the deference the Court owes to Commerce when it examines all the evidence

5 Commerce has consistently interpreted this language to mean entrance on a single 7501 Entry

Summary Form. See Final Scope Ruling on Window Kits at 4–6, J.A. at 1,651–53, ECF No. 35; see

also Final Scope Ruling on Hand-E-Shutter Kits at 12, J.A. at 1,735, ECF No. 35. The Committee has

not challenged this longstanding interpretation but only Commerce’s application of it to the facts of

this case.

Court No. 1:21-cv-00253 Page 38

before it, applies its expertise, and follows the procedural requirements of

administrative law, cf. Shenyang Yuanda II, 918 F.3d at 1362–63, the Court

AFFIRMS Commerce’s scope ruling and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment

on the Agency Record.

/s/ Stephen Alexander Vaden

Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge

Dated: January 18, 2023

New York, New York