Solar Panel Mount Exporter Vies for Full CAFC Rehearing Over Finished Merchandise Exclusion
The entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must review a three-judge panel's decision finding that China Custom Manufacturing Inc.'s solar panel mounts do not qualify for the "finished merchandise" exclusion from antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China, CCM argued. The exporter said that full court rehearing is needed to "secure and maintain uniformity" of the appellate court's prior decision regarding the "unambiguous plain language" of the finished merchandise exclusion rule (China Custom Manufacturing v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-1345).
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 previously ruled that CCM's solar panel mounts fall under the aluminum extrusions orders per the terms of the court's 2015 opinion in Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co. v. U.S., which said a "part or subassembly ... cannot be a finished product" (see 2303020037). CCM filed for rehearing, claiming that this decision does not comport with the Federal Circuit's past decisions, namely Whirpool v. U.S., Meridian Prods. v. U.S. and ArcelorMital Stainless Belg. v. U.S.
The exporter cited Whirpool and ArcelorMital, declaring that if the scope is unambiguous, the plain meaning of the orders' language governs, and if the Commerce Department says that the language at issue is not ambiguous, it says what it understands to be the plain meaning of the language, and the proceedings terminate. Solar panels are clearly listed as "the exemplar of the finished merchandise exclusion." CCM said that Judge Raymond Chen "wrongfully determined that 'solar panel mounts are undisputedly not solar panels,'" since solar panel mounts "obviously are akin to 'solar panels.'"
CCM added that full court reconsideration is needed to maintain uniformity of the court's decisions that "a final order may not be interpreted 'in a way contrary to its terms,'" and not in a way that changes the scope of the order. Commerce determined contrary to the order's language that CCM's solar mounts are intermediary goods that require incorporation in a downstream product to function. "Commerce modified the Orders by requiring that the finished merchandise exclusion work in conjunction with other components of the solar panel system," the brief said. "Commerce thus unreasonably and unlawfully modified the plain meaning of the Orders."