SHENYANG YUANDA ALUMINUM INDUSTRY ENGINEERING CO., LTD., YUANDA USA CORP., Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES, ARCHITECTURAL GLASS & ALUMINUM COMPANY, WALTERS & WOLF, BAGATELOS ARCHITECTURAL GLASS SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees JANGHO CURTAIN WALL AMERICAS CO. LTD., PERMASTEELISA NORTH AMERICA CORP., PERMASTEELISA SOUTH CHINA FACTORY, PERMASTEELISA HONG KONG LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellants
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.
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.
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.
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.
Prost, Chief Judge, Newman and Taranto, Circuit Judges.
TARANTO, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Id. at 30, 650-51.
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
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