Imported Canvas Banner Matisse Within Scope of Artist Canvas From China, Commerce Rules
Canvas banner matisse imported by Berger Textiles is subject to the antidumping duty order on certain artist canvas from China, the Commerce Department said in a recently released scope ruling.
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 canvas banner matisse is 600 denier 100% polyester fabric woven filament fiber, weighing approximately 270 grams per square meter and coated on one side with polyvinyl acetate/acrylate-type polymers. The textile is packaged as rolls of coated fabric of various lengths. The coated side contains hydrophobic sealing and fireproofing agents. The coating is visible to the naked eye because it is visible in the interstices of the fabric, and the weave is blurred. The canvas banner matisse is used as art canvas, wall covering and in decor applications, according to Berger.
Berger argued in its ruling request that Commerce had impermissibly expanded the scope over the course of several scope rulings since 2015, relying on different new definitions in each successive ruling during the period. The scope language required that subject merchandise have a priming/coating layer that allows artist materials to adhere to it, Berger said, but there was no requirement that the merchandise have an ink-receptive top coat. In the scope rulings, Commerce unlawfully determined that top coatings caused the merchandise to fall under the scope, Berger said.
"As a result of the changes to the interpretation of the scope over time, the scope has become impermissibly vague such that parties are no longer able to anticipate what merchandise the Order covers, resulting in the violation of parties’ Constitutionally protected due process rights," Berger said, according to Commerce.
Commerce was unconvinced by Berger's claim that the scope was unlawfully vague because Commerce isn't required to explicitly define every term used in a scope language. The Tariff Act of 1930 requires that an AD or CVD order include a description of the subject merchandise in as much detail as Commerce deems necessary and that the Federal Circuit has found that the agency has broad authority to interpret the scope of AD/CVD orders.
Contrary to Berger's argument, "past interpretive rulings on whether a product falls within the scope do not result in an increasingly vague scope but instead provide additional clarity," Commerce said. The agency's prior scope rulings didn't unlawfully expand the scope, and the ruling noted that "Neither Berger Textiles nor any other party challenged Commerce’s findings in those scope rulings."
On the issue of whether the canvas banner matisse was in scope, Berger said its canvas banner matisse has different physical characteristics than artist canvas because its priming/coating solution formula is "chemically distinguishable" from the gesso formula in a previous scope ruling and doesn't promote the adherence of artist materials.
Commerce said Berger undercut its own argument by "repeatedly" admitting that art reproduction is a widely known use of canvas banner matisse and Berger itself markets canvas banner matisse this way. The scope language doesn't specify any limitations based on the particular formula of the priming/coating solution, Commerce said. The original petitioner, Tara Materials, admitted it wasn't sure what processes and materials its Chinese manufacturers used to produce print canvases.