CIT Again Holds Commerce to Narrow Interpretation of Wax Candle Duties
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 28 rejected a new interpretation from the Commerce Department on the coverage of antidumping duties on petroleum wax candles from China, again sending a recent scope ruling back to the agency for a redetermination (here). The court held the agency to a strict interpretation of the scope, finding only a limited set of candle shapes subject to antidumping duties.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The court’s opinion, penned by CIT Judge Timothy Stanceu, hewed to the same principles outlined in his 2014 decision in the same case, which was filed by candle importer Trade Associates Group (see 14020402). Commerce had from the 1987 imposition of duties until 2001 interpreted the scope of the petroleum wax candles order to only include the shapes of candles listed in the two sentence scope description: tapers, spirals, and straight-sided dinner candles; rounds, columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled containers. In 2001, Commerce changed tack, finding the shapes listed in the scope to be mere examples, and including under the scope of duties all shapes of candles except certain novelty candles.
In 2011, Commerce issued a scope “clarification” that confirmed its newer, more expansive interpretation of the scope (see 11080221). That same year, Trade Associates filed suit at the Court of International Trade to dispute a scope ruling where Commerce found over 200 novelty holiday candles imported by Trade Associates Group to be subject to AD duties. CIT ruled in 2014 that the scope is clear in limiting the scope of duties to the specific listed candle shapes, invalidating a keystone of the 2011 clarification and Commerce’s scope ruling on Trade Associates’ candles (see 14020402). In its remand redetermination, Commerce adopted an entirely new interpretation, finding the scope covers all “common candle shapes or types” and holding 120 of the 269 Trade Associates candles are covered by the scope.
The court again rejected Commerce’s justification, finding the agency used “the mechanism for adopting a new definition of the scope of an existing antidumping duty order.” The “common candle shapes or types” criteria “is a term or concept that is not found anywhere within the scope language of the Order,” it said. “Instead, the scope language Commerce actually chose when it formulated the Order refutes any contention that Commerce, in formulating the language of the scope in 1986, intended to base the decision as to whether a particular candle is within, or outside of, the scope of the Order on whether that candle is described by the term ‘common candle shape or type.’ The Remand Redetermination, however, would now make individual scope decisions according to that very inquiry. In this way, the Remand Redetermination defines, rather than interprets, the scope of an Order that Commerce formulated nearly three decades ago.”
(Trade Assocs. Grp., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 15-145, dated 12/28/15, Judge Stanceu)