from the United States Court of International Trade in No.
1:16-cv-00275-JCG, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves.
Mohan, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silver-man &
Klestadt LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
Also represented by Jordan Charles Kahn, Andrew Thomas
Schutz; Ned H. Marshak, New York, NY.
K. Hogan, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued
for defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by
Margaret Jantzen, Joseph H. Hunt, Jeanne Davidson, Loren
Misha Preheim; Christopher Hyner, Brendan Saslow, United
States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
R. Shane, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for
defendant-appellee Rebar Trade Action Coalition. Also
represented by Alan H. Price, Jeffrey Owen Frank, Maureen E.
Reyna, Wallach, and Taranto, Circuit Judges.
TARANTO, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Company is an importer of agricultural stakes produced in the
People's Republic of China. It imports the stakes for use
in training grape vines and other plants. Each stake is made
of steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) by cutting rebar to
a length of four to five feet followed by sharpening one end
to a point to ease driving the stake into the ground. The
United States Department of Commerce concluded that
Quiedan's stakes are clearly within the scope of an
antidumping duty order covering rebar from China. We see no
substantive or procedural error in that ruling or in
Commerce's continuation of a suspension of liquidation
for Quiedan's stakes. Because the Court of International
Trade drew the same conclusions, we affirm.
6, 2016, Quiedan applied to Commerce, under 19 C.F.R. §
351.225, for a ruling on the scope of an antidumping duty
order that covers rebar products from China-an order first
issued in 2001 based on the required determinations by
Commerce and the International Trade Commission. See
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, Indonesia,
Latvia, Moldova, People's Republic of China, Poland,
Republic of Korea and Ukraine, 66 Fed. Reg. 46, 777
(Sept. 7, 2001) (Rebar Order); see also Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova,
People's Republic of China, Poland and Ukraine:
Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 Fed. Reg.
44, 830 (Aug. 9, 2007) (Continuation). Under the antidumping
duty order (ADD Order), i.e., the Rebar Order as
modified by the 2007 Continuation, the "product covered
is all steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) sold in
straight lengths," but "[s]pecifically excluded are
plain rounds (i.e., non-deformed or smooth bars) and
rebar that has been further processed through bending or
coating." Rebar Order, 66 Fed. Reg. at 46, 777;
see also Continuation, 72 Fed. Reg. at 46, 831. In
its application for a scope ruling, Quiedan asked Commerce to
determine that its stakes are outside the scope of that
definition because, it contended, they are not straight, are
further processed through bending, or are so-called merchant
bar. The Rebar Trade Action Coalition (RTAC), the sole filer
of the petition that led to issuance of the ADD Order,
opposed Quiedan's position.
rejected Quiedan's position. Commerce considered whether
the merchandise is within the ADD Order's scope by
examining Quiedan's application for the scope ruling and
the factors specified in subsection (k)(1)- "[t]he
descriptions of the merchandise contained in the petition,
the initial investigation, and the determinations of the
Secretary (including prior scope determinations) and the
Commission." 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1). Where
analysis based on those considerations answers the scope
question, Commerce is to issue "a final ruling" as
to scope. 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(d). In this case, Commerce
determined that the (k)(1) analysis makes clear that
Quiedan's stakes are "within the plain language of
the" ADD Order and "not subject to any
exclusion." J.A. 145. Commerce therefore issued a scope
ruling so stating. J.A. 139-46.
undisputed that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had
already been suspending liquidation-the final calculation of
duties owed, 19 C.F.R. § 159.1-of entries of
Quiedan's stakes, which were facially subject to the ADD
Order here. See Am. Power Pull Corp. v. United
States, 121 F.Supp.3d 1296, 1300-01 (Ct. Int'l Trade
2015) (describing process of cash deposits and suspension of
entries under an antidumping duty order pending
administrative review under 19 U.S.C. § 1675). After
Commerce issued its scope ruling confirming coverage of the
stakes by the ADD Order, it instructed CBP to continue such
suspension, including for entries made before the scope
ruling was issued. J.A. 191; see 19 C.F.R. §
351.225(l) (providing for continuation of suspension
of liquidations during and after scope rulings).
challenged the scope ruling in the Court of International
Trade under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi) (2012) and 28
U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2012), adding an invocation of 28
U.S.C. § 1581(i) (2012) to challenge Commerce's
instructions regarding suspension of liquidation. The Court
of International Trade rejected Quiedan's challenges and
affirmed Commerce's scope ruling and instructions.
Quiedan Co. v. United States, 294 F.Supp.3d 1345
(Ct. Int'l Trade 2018). Quiedan timely appealed. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(5), 2107,
review the Commerce decisions at issue de novo, using the
same standard of review applied by the Court of International
Trade, see Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal. v. United
States, 866 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2017), while
giving "great weight" to the informed view of the
Court of International Trade, Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Ltd.
v. United States, 810 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In reviewing the scope ruling, we ask if the decision is
"unsupported by substantial evidence on the record or
otherwise not in accordance with law." 19 U.S.C. §
1516a(b)(1)(B)(i); see Diamond Sawblades, 866 F.3d
at 1310; Dupont Teijin Films USA, LP v. United
States, 407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In
reviewing the continued-suspension instructions challenged in
the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. §
1581(i), we apply the standard of review of 5 U.S.C. §
706, which, as relevant ...