Upholstered Furniture Is 'Substantially' Wooden, Commerce Says in AD Scope Ruling
The Commerce Department found upholstered furniture imported by Amini Innovation was within the scope of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China, in a scope ruling issued in April. The agency found that even though the furniture was upholstered, it was still "substantially made of wood" as required by the order.
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.
Amini argued that each of its furniture pieces was “completely upholstered” and lacked exposed wood. Because the ITC did not discuss vinyl or vinyl-wrapped furniture in the context of in-scope furniture in the underlying investigation, Amini argued the furniture should have been out of scope. Commerce disagreed and ruled that "substantially made of wood" did not relate to exposed wooden surfaces. The scope included furniture “with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates," and so did not require an item to be fully covered or require a specific percentage of exposed wood to fall within the scope, Commerce said. Amini filed suit at the Court of International Trade May 25 to challenge the scope ruling (see 2305250043).
Commerce previously considered whether wooden components were significant enough to be considered “substantial” in a separate scope ruling, and determined that a daybed with trundle was "substantially made of wood" because the bed was extensively made of wood products, and that the wood was integral to the composition of the product and its use as a bed. Similarly, Commerce found the structural elements of the furniture at issue now, rather than the veneers, overlays or laminate, determined the "substantial" requirement. Without the wooden structural components, "Amini’s furniture pieces under consideration would not exist," Commerce said.
Amini argued the completely upholstered furniture was outside the scope based on an exclusion for "completely upholstered beds." Commerce said the plain language of the scope excluded only beds and the agency could not extend that logic to exclude any other furniture piece based solely on the fact that it is completely upholstered.