Commerce Says Interchangeable Parts OK for China Aluminum Extrusions AD/CV Duty Exemptions

CIT had ordered Commerce to supply more detailed definitions after it rejected the results of a scope ruling on mop parts imported by Rubbermaid (see 14092420), including mop frames and handles that allow the user to attach interchangeable damp or dry mops and cleaning cloths. The agency had found all the products subject to AD/CV duties, ruling they qualified for neither the finished merchandise exemption nor the finished goods kit exemption because none of the products were imported with the interchangeable mop head necessary for their function.

The scope of the AD/CV duties on aluminum extrusions from China exclude “finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry.” Also exempt from duties are “finished goods containing aluminum extrusions that are entered unassembled in a ‘finished goods kit,’” which the scope defines 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.”

Called into question was Commerce’s reliance on the “finished goods kit” exemption in the scope to inform its interpretation of the “finished merchandise” exemption. Commerce had found finished merchandise must contain “all necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good,” borrowing language from the “finished goods kits” definition in the scope. But CIT in September found the two exemptions to be separate, and said Commerce couldn’t use the “finished goods kits” definition to explain its interpretation of “finished merchandise.”

The court also told Commerce to reconsider whether a product missing an interchangeable part is ineligible for the “finished merchandise exemption, given that the scope itself lists, as examples of "finished merchandise," “finished windows with glass, doors with glass or vinyl, [and] picture frames with glass pane and backing material,” which do not include interchangeable parts like door and window frames and pictures, respectively.

On remand, Commerce continued to hew to its no well-trod definition of finished merchandise as (1) containing both aluminum extrusions and non-extruded aluminum parts that are (2) fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry. Commerce noted that the language of the exemption requires a product contain aluminum extrusions “as parts,” meaning that there must be other parts of the product that do not contain aluminum extrusions. Although it avoided using the description of one of the two exemptions to define the other, it continued to hold that the “finished merchandise” and “finished goods kits” exemptions are basically similar, the only difference being whether the products are already assembled.

However, it reversed course on whether the Rubbermaid mop parts could be considered completed merchandise, finding their use of interchangeable parts do not remove them from consideration under the finished merchandise or finished goods kits exemptions. To find otherwise would lead to “absurd results,” said Commerce, noting that even finished windows with glass are parts of houses.

The court has yet to rule on whether it is satisfied with Commerce’s remand results. The next step is for the parties to the case, including Rubbermaid and the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee, to file comments on Commerce’s findings. The comments are due to the court by Feb. 20.

(Rubbermaid Commercial Products LLC v. United States, CIT #11-00463)

Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of the remand results.