Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co., LTD. v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

March 18, 2019


          Appeals from the United States Court of International Trade in Nos. 1:14-cv-00106-LMG, 1:14-cv-00107-LMG, 1:14-cv-00108-LMG, Judge Leo M. Gordon.

          Arthur K. Purcell, Sandler Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant Jangho Curtain Wall Americas Co. Ltd. Also represented by Kristen Smith, Washington, DC; Emi Ito Ortiz, Miami, FL.

          Emily Lawson, Harris Bricken McVay Sliwoski, LLP, Seattle, WA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants Per-masteelisa North America Corp., Permasteelisa South China Factory, Permasteelisa Hong Kong Limited. Also represented by Adams Lee.

          Douglas Glenn Edelschick, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by Reginald Thomas Blades, Jr., Jeanne Davidson, Joseph H. Hunt; Scott Daniel McBride, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

          David Matthew Spooner, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees Architectural Glass & Aluminum Company, Walters & Wolf, Bagatelos Architectural Glass Systems, Inc. Also represented by Christine Juliet Sohar Henter, Clinton Yu.

          Before Prost, Chief Judge, Newman and Taranto, Circuit Judges.


         In 2011, acting under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671, 1673, and related provisions, the United States Department of Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China. Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, 76 Fed. Reg. 30, 650, 30, 650-53 (Dep't of Commerce May 26, 2011) (antidumping duty order) (AD Order); Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, 76 Fed. Reg. 30, 653, 30, 653-55 (May 26, 2011) (countervailing duty order) (CVD Order). Questions arose immediately about the application of the AD & CVD Orders to various imports from the People's Republic of China that involve a "curtain wall"-the non-structural cladding of certain buildings such as office towers, composed of panels having aluminum frames and glass or other sheathing material, with the panels attached to steel, concrete, or other structural building elements. We have addressed that subject once before. In 2012, in a matter involving some of the plaintiffs in the present cases, three domestic companies sought and obtained from Commerce a ruling that certain imports of portions of an overall curtain wall are within the scope of the AD & CVD Orders, and we upheld Commerce's determination. Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng'g Co. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Yuanda CAFC 2015).

         In 2013, while that matter was pending in the Court of International Trade, Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co., Ltd. and Yuanda USA Corp. (collectively, Yuanda) initiated the present matter. Yuanda sought a scope ruling from Commerce that the AD & CVD Orders do not cover curtain wall units when imported under a contract for an entire curtain wall. Commerce initiated a scope inquiry and solicited participation by "interested parties." J.A. 586. Jangho Curtain Wall Americas Co., Ltd. (Jangho) and Permasteelisa North America Corp., Permasteelisa South China Factory, and Per-masteelisa Hong Kong Ltd. (collectively, Permasteelisa) participated, supporting Yuanda's position. In March 2014, Commerce rejected the position of Yuanda, Jangho, and Permasteelisa and ruled that the AD & CVD Orders cover the curtain wall units at issue.

         Yuanda, Jangho, and Permasteelisa challenged that determination, each filing its own complaint in the Court of International Trade, which consolidated the cases with the parties' agreement. After a series of remands and resulting agency rulings, the Court of International Trade ultimately affirmed Commerce's determination that the AD & CVD Orders cover-and do not exclude-the curtain wall units shipped pursuant to a contract for a full wall. The Court of International Trade's judgment ordered liquidation, in accordance with the decision, of entries whose liquidation had been preliminarily enjoined, including entries by Jangho and Permasteelisa. J.A. 26-27.

         Jangho and Permasteelisa have appealed to this court. We undisputedly have statutory jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). We hold that Jangho and Per-masteelisa have constitutional standing, and we affirm the decision of the Court of International Trade.



         The language of the AD & CVD Orders is materially the same for present purposes, so we quote only the AD Order. In defining the "Scope of the Order," the AD Order begins by stating that "[t]he merchandise covered by the order is aluminum extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from" specified aluminum alloys. 76 Fed. Reg. at 30, 650. After some language not pertinent to the present issues, the AD Order then states that it covers aluminum-extrusion "parts for" finished products, but not finished merchandise itself; that parts for curtain walls are among the parts covered; and that the covered parts include "subassemblies" unless "imported as part of" a specified "finished goods 'kit'":

Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, window frames, door frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or furniture.
Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions are included in the scope. The scope includes the aluminum extrusion components that are attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled merchandise unless imported as part of the finished goods 'kit' defined further below. The scope does not include the non-aluminum extrusion components of subassemblies or subject kits.

Id. at 30, 650-51.

         The AD Order goes on to reinforce and elaborate on the above language in several ways. It expressly "excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry." Id. at 30, 651. Relatedly, the AD Order expands on the "finished goods kit" exclusion, applicable to certain finished goods entering in kit form:

The scope also excludes finished goods containing aluminum extrusions that are entered unassembled in a "finished goods kit." A finished goods kit is understood to mean a packaged combination of parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good and requires no further finishing or fabrication, such as cutting or punching, and is assembled "as is" into a finished product. An imported product will not be considered a "finished goods kit" and therefore excluded from the scope of the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.