91 F.Supp.3d 1341 (CIT. 2015), 13-00403, Kam Kiu Aluminum Products Sdn. Bhd v. United States
|Citation:||91 F.Supp.3d 1341|
|Opinion Judge:||Timothy C. Stanceu, Chief Judge.|
|Party Name:||KAM KIU ALUMINUM PRODUCTS SDN. BHD. AND TAISHAN CITY KAM KIU ALUMINUM EXTRUSION CO. LTD., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS FAIR TRADE COMMITTEE, Defendant-Intervenor|
|Attorney:||No. 13-00403 William E. Perry, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, of Seattle, WA, for plaintiffs Kam Kiu Aluminum Products Sdn. Bhd. and Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminum Extrusion Co. Ltd. With him on the brief was Emily Lawson. Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director, and Tara K. Hogan, Senior Trial Counsel...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Chief Judge.|
|Case Date:||September 03, 2015|
|Court:||Court of International Trade|
Rejecting a challenge to a final scope ruling issued by the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Plaintiffs Kam Kiu Aluminum Products Sdn. Bhd. and Taishan City Kam Kiu Aluminum Extrusion Co. Ltd. (collectively, " Kam Kiu" ) challenge a final determination (" Scope Ruling" ) by the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (" Commerce" or the " Department" ) that certain merchandise exported to the United States by Kam Kiu is within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders (the " Orders" ) on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (" China" ). Kam Kiu is a Chinese producer and exporter of the merchandise at issue in this case, which consists of aluminum-alloy articles intended for use after importation as component parts in the manufacturing of elastomeric aluminum bushings for automotive applications. Before the court is Kam Kiu's motion for judgment on the agency record, in which Kam Kiu seeks a determination that the Scope Ruling is unlawful and an order remanding the matter to Commerce. Defendant United States and defendant-intervenor Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (" AEFTC" ), petitioner in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, oppose Kam Kiu's motion.
Because the Scope Ruling reasonably construed the scope language of the Orders to include the merchandise at issue in this case, and because plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate the reasonableness of a contrary construction, the court denies plaintiff's motion.
Commerce published the Orders on May 26, 2011. See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed.Reg. 30,650 (Int'l Trade Admin. May 26, 2011) (" AD Order " ); Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 Fed.Reg. 30,653 (Int'l Trade Admin. May 26, 2011) (" CVD Order " ).
On June 25, 2013, Kam Kiu filed a request (" Scope Ruling Request" ) advocating its position that the imported articles at issue (to which Kam Kiu refers as the " Subparts" ) are not within the scope of the Orders. See Letter Requesting a Scope Ruling Regarding Subparts for Metal Bushings for Automotive Vehicles (Admin.R.Doc. No. 1) (" Scope Ruling Request " ). Commerce issued the contested Scope Ruling on November 21, 2013, rejecting Kam Kiu's position and ruling that the Subparts are within the scope of the Orders. Final Scope Ruling on Kam Kiu's Subparts for Metal Bushings (Admin.R.Doc. No. 12), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/download/prc-ae/scope/34-Subparts-Metal-Bushings-23nov13.pdf (last visited Aug. 28, 2015) (" Scope Ruling " ).
Kam Kiu commenced this action on December 19, 2013. Summons (Dec. 19, 2013), ECF No. 1; Compl. (Jan. 17, 2014), ECF No. 9. Kam Kiu filed its motion for judgment on the agency record on June 10, 2014. Pls.' R. 56.2 Mot. for J. on the Agency R. and Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 25 (conf.), 26 (public) (" Pl.'s Br." ). Defendant and defendant-intervenor responded on September 12, 2014. Def.'s Resp. Pl.'s R. 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 33 (" Def.'s Opp'n" ); Def.-Int. Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Comm.'s Resp. Pl.'s R. 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 34
(" Def.-intervenor's Opp'n" ). On October 10, 2014, Kam Kiu filed a reply. Reply Br. in Supp. of Pl.'s R. 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 36 (" Pl.'s Reply" ).
The court exercises jurisdiction according to section 201 of the Customs Courts Act of 1980, under which the court has exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action " commenced under section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended." 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c).1 Section 516A provides for judicial review of a " determination . . . as to whether a particular type of merchandise is within the class or kind of merchandise described in an existing . . . antidumping or countervailing duty order." 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi) (2012). In reviewing the contested Scope...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP