CIT Says Commerce Properly Excluded Composite Tile From AD/CVD Orders on Ceramic Tile
The Commerce Department properly excluded importer Elysium Tiles' composite tile from the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on ceramic tile from China, the Court of International Trade held on Oct. 20. After instructing Commerce to consider the (k)(2) scope factors on remand, Judge Jane Restani sustained the agency's (k)(2) analysis as reasonable.
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.
Restani said that while three of the factors, namely the products' ultimate uses, channels of trade and means of advertisement, favored including Elysium's tile in the scope of the orders, these factors were outweighed by the differences between the physical characteristics and user expectations of Elysium's tile and tiles subject to the orders. The judge also held that Commerce properly afforded physical characteristics greater weight in the analysis.
Initially, the agency said Elysium's marble-topped tiles were covered by the orders despite the importer's claim that the marble tops were merely "decorative" (see 2309060036). Restani remanded the scope finding after finding the parties were too focused on whether the marble was decorative, ordering Commerce to instead consider all five (k)(2) factors in its scope analysis.
On remand, the agency said Elysium's tile wasn't covered by the scope of the orders (see 2506090059). Commerce said the first two (k)(2) factors, the differences between the products' physical characteristics and the ultimate users' expectations, compelled a finding that the importer's tile wasn't in the orders' scope.
Restani reviewed Commerce's analysis under all five factors, finding the agency reasonably came to its conclusion. Regarding the products' physical characteristics, Commerce said the composite tile shares "some physical characteristics with ceramic tile, but that it also possesses physical characteristics which ceramic tile does not." For instance, while the porcelain base layer is similar to ceramic tile, the "marble top layer is not."
The petitioner, the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile, argued that the marble top layer is a decorative feature that can't constitute a physical characteristic that removes Elysium's tile from the orders' scope, adding that because the marble top layer can't be separate from the rest of the tile, the comparison should be of the composite tile as a whole to ceramic tile. Restani held that "Commerce acted reasonably when it determined that Elysium’s composite tile shares some but not all of the physical characteristics of ceramic tile."
The composite tile is made of both ceramic and non-ceramic elements, and because the marble layer is "permanently bonded to the ceramic layer," the judge said, Commerce reasonably said the marble layer is a "distinct physical characteristics of the composite tile and a feature that ceramic tiles generally do not possess." Restani again rejected the relevance of the marble layer's status as a decorative feature, finding the scope's "decorative feature" language isn't "dispositve as to whether Elysium's composite tile is covered by the scope."
The court also rejected the coalition's claim that the physical characteristics shouldn't be given more weight than the other (k)(2) factors. While the coalition cited the preamble to Commerce's regulations on this point, which say that there could be cases in which Commerce considers and determines that the physical characteristics factor shouldn't be given greater weight, the rest of the preamble notes Commerce's "consistent practice" of giving greater weight to this factor.
The agency's regulation, 19 C.F.R. Section 351.225(k)(2)(ii) expressly says that "in the event of a conflict between the (k)(2) factors, physical characteristics normally will be allocated greater weight than other factors," the court noted.
The ultimate users' expectations also favor removing Elysium's tile from the orders' scope, the court noted. Commerce said the "end-users of composite tile" are "seeking to buy a product with different physical characteristics from ceramic tile," since the ultimate users of composite tiles "expect to interact with (i.e., see and feel) a marble surface." Restani said that while users of composite tiles may expect "some features of a ceramic tile," the agency reasonably said that "users are not expecting ceramic tile."
The remaining three factors -- ultimate use of the product, channels of trade and advertising and display -- all favored a finding that the composite tile belongs in the orders' scope. But Restani said Commerce found the first two factors to outweigh these three.
David Craven, counsel for Elysium, said the company is "pleased with the decision," adding that it has "believed since the start that the product at issue was outside of the scope of the order."
David Spooner, counsel for the coalition, said the "application of a decorative surface to a ceramic tile does not remove that tile from the scope of the trade remedy orders. The domestic industry will continue to fight such claims vigorously.”
(Elysium Tiles v. United States, Slip Op. 25-138, CIT # 23-00041, dated 10/20/25; Judge: Jane Restani; Attorneys: David Craven of Craven Trade Law for plaintiff Elysium Tiles; Anne Delmare for defendant U.S. government; David Spooner of Barnes & Thornburg for defendant-intervenor The Coalition for Fair Trade in Ceramic Tile)