Agilent Techs. v. United States, Slip Op. 18-131
| Decision Date | 01 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | Court No. 16-00183,Slip Op. 18-131 |
| Parties | AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee, Defendant-Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
George R. Tuttle, III, Law Offices of George R. Tuttle, A.P.C., of Larkspur, CA, and Melanie A. Frank, The Global Trade Group, PLLC, of Arlington, VA, for Plaintiff Agilent Technologies.
Aimee Lee, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., for Defendant United States. With her on the brief were Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Jessica R. DiPietro, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.
Alan H. Price, Derick G. Holt, and Robert E. DeFrancesco, III, Wiley Rein, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee. Laura El-Sabaawi also appeared.
Plaintiff Agilent Technologies ("Agilent"), a manufacturer of electronic and bio-analytical measurement instruments, challenges a scope ruling on Agilent's mass filter radiator issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Department" or "Commerce"). Before the court are the results of redetermination on remand filed by Commerce pursuant to the court's prior opinion, Agilent Techs. v. United States, 41 CIT ––––, 256 F.Supp.3d 1338 (2017) (" Agilent I"). See Results Redetermination Pursuant Court Remand, Dec. 15, 2017, ECF No. 40-1 ("Remand Results").
In its initial scope ruling, Commerce determined that the mass filter radiator is covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders (collectively, "Orders") on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China ("China"). See Final Scope Ruling on Agilent Technologies, Inc.'s Mass Filter Radiator, A-570-967 and C-570-968, (Aug. 10, 2016), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/download/prc-ae/scope/97-mass-filter-radiator-10aug16.pdf (last visited Sept. 26, 2018) ("Final Scope Ruling"); see also Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,650 (Dep't Commerce May 26, 2011) (antidumping duty order) ("Antidumping Duty Order"); Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,653 (Dep't Commerce May 26, 2011) (countervailing duty order) ("Countervailing Duty Order"). Plaintiff filed a Rule 56.2 motion for judgment on the agency record, and the court remanded Commerce's Final Scope Ruling with instructions for Commerce to fully address the evidence on the record relating to the applicability of the finished heat sink exclusion. See Agilent I, 41 CIT at ––––, 256 F.Supp.3d at 1345. Commerce issued its Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand on December 15, 2017. See Remand Results. Agilent contests the Remand Results. See Pl.'s Comments Def.'s Redetermination Remand, Jan. 16, 2018, ECF No. 42 ("Pl.'s Comments"). Defendant United States ("Government") and Defendant-Intervenor Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee support Commerce's Remand Results. See Def.'s Resp. Comments Department Commerce's Remand Results, Jan. 29, 2018, ECF No. 43 ("Def.'s Comments"); Def.-Intervenor Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee's Reply Comments Final Results Redetermination Pursuant Ct. Remand, Jan. 30, 2018, ECF No. 46 ("Def.-Intervenor's Comments").
The court considers whether Commerce's scope redetermination on remand regarding Plaintiff's mass filter radiator is supported by substantial evidence.
For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that Commerce's redetermination results are not supported by substantial evidence and remands this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The court presumes familiarity with the facts of this case. See Agilent I, 41 CIT at ––––, 256 F.Supp.3d at 1340–41. Commerce issued two Orders on aluminum extrusions from China on May 26, 2011. See Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,650 ; Countervailing Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,653. Both Orders have identical scope language, which provide the following description of the subject merchandise:
The merchandise covered by this order is aluminum extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from aluminum alloys having metallic elements corresponding to the alloy series designations published by The Aluminum Association commencing with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or proprietary equivalents or other certifying body equivalents).
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,650 ; Countervailing Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,653.
The Orders explicitly exclude "finished heat sinks." See Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651 ; Countervailing Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,654. "Finished heat sinks" are defined as follows:
Finished heat sinks are fabricated heat sinks made from aluminum extrusions the design and production of which are organized around meeting certain specified thermal performance requirements and which have been fully, albeit not necessarily individually, tested to comply with such requirements.
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651 ; Countervailing Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,654.
Plaintiff manufactures a mass filter radiator, which houses the central components of a mass spectrometer and plays an important role in transferring heat from critical components. See Scope Inquiry on Certain Finished Aluminum Components from the People's Republic of China (Case Nos. A-570-967 and C-570-968): Mass Filter Radiator at 5, PD 1, bar code 3245192-01 (Dec. 3, 2014) ("Agilent's Scope Ruling Request"). Agilent asserts that its mass filter radiator should be excluded from the scope of the Orders because it is a finished heat sink designed, produced, and tested to meet specified thermal resistance properties to remove damaging heat from electronic equipment. See id. at 5–12.
The court remanded the Final Scope Ruling after determining that Commerce failed to consider certain record evidence in support of Agilent's position that the mass filter radiator is covered by the finished heat sink exclusion. Agilent I, 41 CIT at ––––, 256 F.Supp.3d at 1345. The court instructed Commerce to consider Agilent's R & D Declaration, scope ruling request, questionnaire response, presentation slides, responses to Petitioner's comments, and two supplemental questionnaire responses. Id.
On December 15, 2017, Commerce issued its Remand Results, finding that Agilent's mass filter radiator is covered by the scope of the Orders and does not qualify for the finished heat sink exclusion. See Remand Results 2. Agilent submitted comments to the court arguing that the Remand Results were not supported by substantial evidence on the record and were contrary to the law. See Pl.'s Comments 6. Defendant argues that Commerce was reasonable in determining that the mass filter radiator does not meet the finished heat sink exclusion. See Def.'s Comments 28. The court held oral argument on June 5, 2018. See Oral Argument, Jun. 5, 2018, ECF No. 53.
The court has jurisdiction to review Commerce's scope determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2012). Commerce's final scope determination will be upheld unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
In determining whether a product is within scope of the Orders, "the scope of a final order may be clarified, [but] it can not be changed in a way contrary to its terms." Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Smith Corona Corp. v. United States, 915 F.2d 683, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ). Because the descriptions of subject merchandise contained in Commerce's determinations must be written in general terms, it is often difficult to determine whether a particular product is included within the scope of an antidumping or countervailing duty order. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(a) (2016) ; Duferco Steel, 296 F.3d at 1096.
Antidumping and countervailing duty orders "may be interpreted as including subject merchandise only if they contain language that specifically includes the subject merchandise or may be reasonably interpreted to include it." Duferco Steel, 296 F.3d at 1089. Generally, Commerce "enjoys substantial freedom to interpret and clarify its antidumping orders." Id. (quoting Novosteel SA v. United States, Bethlehem Steel Corp., 284 F.3d 1261, 1269 (Fed. Cir 2002) ). Commerce is given "substantial deference" to interpret its own antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders. King Supply Co. v. United States, 674 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012). If the Department fails "to consider or discuss record evidence which, on its face, provides significant support for an alternative conclusion[,] [the Department's determination is] unsupported by substantial evidence." Ceramark Tech., Inc. v. United States, 38 CIT ––––, ––––, 11 F.Supp.3d 1317, 1323 (2014) (quoting Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 452, 479, 112 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1165 (2000) ). Although Commerce's "explanations do not have to be perfect, the path of Commerce's decision must be reasonably discernable to a reviewing court." NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 557 F.3d 1316, 1319–20 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) ).
Agilent argues that Commerce's Remand Results are unsupported by substantial evidence and are contrary to the law. See Pl.'s Comments 6. Plaintiff argues that the mass filter radiator meets all of the criteria identified by Commerce to qualify as a finished heat sink and should be excluded from the scope of the Orders. See id...
To continue reading
Request your trial