SHENYANG YUANDA ALUMINUM INDUSTRY ENGINEERING CO., LTD., OVERGAARD LIMITED, JANGHO CURTAIN WALL AMERICAS CO. LTD., AND YUANDA USA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, AND BUCHER GLASS, INC., Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES, WALTERS & WOLF, BAGATELOS ARCHITECTURAL GLASS SYSTEMS, INC., AND ARCHITECTURAL GLASS & ALUMINUM COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees
Appeals from the United States Court of International Trade in Nos. 1:12-cv-00420-RKE, 1:12-cv-00423-RKE, and 1:12-cv-00424-RKE, Judge Richard K. Eaton.
THOMAS M. BELINE, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were JAMES R. CANNON, JR. and THOMAS M. BELINE. Of counsel on the brief were KRISTEN SMITH and MARK LUDWIKOWSKI, Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., of Washington, DC.
TARA K. HOGAN, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. With her on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and REGINALD T. BLADES, JR., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was SCOTT MCBRIDE, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, United States Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.
DAVID M. SPOONER, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee Walters & Wolf. With him on the brief was CHRISTINE J. SOHAR HENTER.
Before PROST, Chief Judge, PLAGER and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
Wallach, Circuit Judge.
Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co., Ltd., Jangho Curtain Wall Americas, Co., Ltd. (" Jangho" ), Overgaard Limited, and Bucher Glass, Inc. (collectively, " Yuanda" ) appeal the January
30, 2014, judgment of the United States Court of International Trade (" CIT" ) affirming the Department of Commerce's (" Commerce" ) determination that curtain wall units are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China. Because the CIT's decision is support ed by substantial evidence and is in accordance with law, this court affirms.
The United States International Trade Commission (" ITC" ) initiated an investigation into whether a domestic industry was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of certain aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China on March 31, 2010. See Certain Aluminum Extrusions from China, USITC Pub. 4153, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-475, 731-TA-1177, at 1 (June 2010) (Preliminary) (" ITC's Preliminary Determinations" ). On May 26, 2011, Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China. See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,650 (Dep't of Commerce May 26, 2011); Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,653 (Dep't of Commerce May 26, 2011) (the " Orders" ).
In October 2012, Defendants-Appellees, Walters & Wolf, Bagatelos Architectural Glass Systems, Inc., and Architectural Glass & Aluminum Co., collectively referred to as the Curtain Wall Coalition (the " CWC companies" ), submitted an amended scope request to Commerce pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(c) (2012). The scope request asked Commerce to " issue a scope ruling confirming that curtain wall units and other parts of curtain wall systems are subject to the scope of the [Orders]." J.A. 4. In the scope request, the CWC companies explained that curtain walls are comprised of numerous curtain wall components, which can be categorized into three groups:
(i) an aluminum extruded frame, which includes anchors, overlays, and other devices that attach the unit to the cement structure and adjoining units; (ii) infill material; and (iii) hardware to attach the curtain wall parts to the building, as well as to adjoining units, including fasteners, elastomeric lineal gaskets, anchor assemblies and components, clips, screws, nuts and bolts, steel embeds, splices to adjoin units, sealants used between the frames, infill material, and aluminum extrusion trim to physically attach the suspending curtain wall to the building structure.
Appellee's Br. 10 (citing J.A. 986-93).
Yuanda challenged the standing of the CWC companies, arguing that the CWC companies had not demonstrated they produced aluminum extrusions. Commerce found the CWC companies qualified as interested parties under § 771(9)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, " as manufacturers, producers, or wholesalers of a domestic like product, and thus ha[d] standing to bring the Amended Scope Request." Final Scope Ruling on Curtain Wall Units and Other Parts of a Curtain Wall System from the PRC (Dep't of Commerce, Nov. 30, 2012), ECF Dkt. No. 56-37 (" Final Scope Ruling" ) (J.A. 117-26); see 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9)(C) (2006).
After resolving standing, Commerce initiated a scope investigation of the Orders and determined Yuanda's curtain wall units were within the scope. Since it found the Order language dispositive, Commerce determined it was " unnecessary to consider" the secondary criteria set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2). Final Scope Ruling at 8. The CIT affirmed Commerce's
determination and found Commerce correctly declined to consider the secondary (k)(2) factors. Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co., v. United States, 961 F.Supp.2d 1291 (Ct. Int'l Trade ...