[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29845-29846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13479]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-967; C-570-968]


Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Notice 
of Second Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On May 23, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(the CAFC) reversed and vacated, in part, the Court of International 
Trade's (the CIT) earlier decisions, vacated Commerce's remand 
determination, and reinstated Commerce's original scope ruling, in 
part. In Commerce's original scope ruling, Commerce found that 
Whirlpool Corporation's (Whirlpool) kitchen appliance door handles with 
plastic end caps were covered by the general scope language of the 
antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on aluminum 
extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China). On May 1, 2019, 
the CIT granted Whirlpool's request to dismiss the litigation 
concerning its handles. Accordingly, Commerce is issuing a second 
amended final scope ruling.

DATES: Applicable June 25, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-
6071.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 4, 2014, Commerce found that kitchen appliance door 
handles with plastic end caps imported by Whirlpool were subject to the 
Orders.\1\ Specifically, Commerce found that the handles did not fall 
under the finished merchandise or finished goods kit exclusions, based 
on its interpretation of these exclusions, as adopted in prior scope 
rulings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum, ``Final Scope Ruling on Kitchen Appliance 
Door Handles with Plastic End Caps and Kitchen Appliance Door 
Handles without Plastic End Caps,'' dated August 4, 2014 (Final 
Scope Ruling).
    \2\ Id. at 16-21, citing, e.g., Memorandum to Christian Marsh, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, ``Final Scope Ruling on Meridian Kitchen Appliance Door 
Handles,'' dated June 21, 2013, (Kitchen Appliance Door Handles I 
Scope Ruling) and Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 
``Final Scope Ruling on J.A. Hancock, Inc.'s Geodesic Structures,'' 
(July 17, 2012) (Geodesic Domes Scope Ruling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whirlpool filed suit challenging the Final Scope Ruling. In 
Whirlpool I, the CIT held that ``the general scope language is not 
reasonably interpreted to include the kitchen appliance door handles 
described in Whirlpool's first scope ruling request{,{time} '' (i.e., 
the kitchen appliance door handles with plastic end caps).\3\ The CIT 
further held that, even if the general scope language could be 
reasonably interpreted to include the handles, Commerce's determination 
that the handles did not satisfy the finished merchandise exclusion 
based on Commerce's interpretation of the exclusion was in error.\4\ 
Therefore, the CIT remanded the Final Scope Ruling to Commerce for 
reconsideration in light of Whirlpool I.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 144 F. Supp. 3d 
1296, 1303 (CIT 2016) (Whirlpool I). The Court affirmed Commerce's 
determination that the kitchen appliance door handles without end 
caps are within the scope of the Orders. Id. at 1306.
    \4\ Id. at 1304.
    \5\ Id. at 1305-07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Remand Redetermination, under protest, Commerce complied 
with Whirlpool I and found the handles were not covered by the general 
scope language of the Orders.\6\ Commerce did not further address the 
finished merchandise exclusion. The CIT affirmed the Remand 
Redetermination in Whirlpool II.\7\ Pursuant to Whirlpool II, on 
September 27, 2016, Commerce published its First Amended Final Scope 
Ruling, finding that the handles

[[Page 29846]]

were not covered by the scope of the Orders.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 
Remand, Whirlpool Corp. v. United States, Court No. 14-00199, Slip 
Op. 16-08 (CIT February 1, 2016), dated April 15, 2016 (Remand 
Redetermination).
    \7\ See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 182 F. Supp. 3d 
1307 (CIT 2016) (Whirlpool II).
    \8\ See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Scope Ruling and 
Notice of Amended Final Scope Ruling Pursuant to Court Decision, 81 
FR 66259 (September 27, 2016) (First Amended Final Scope Ruling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC), the petitioner 
in the underlying investigations, appealed. In Whirlpool III, the CAFC 
held that:

    {T{time} he CIT erred when it stated that assembly processes 
were absent from the specified post-extrusion processes. The general 
scope language unambiguously includes aluminum extrusions that are 
part of an assembly. The Orders explicitly include aluminum 
extrusions ``that are assembled after importation'' in addition to 
``aluminum extrusion components that are attached (e.g., by welding 
or fasteners) to form subassemblies.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 890 F.3d 1302, 
1309 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Whirlpool III).

    Thus, the CAFC held that Commerce's determination in the Final 
Scope Ruling ``that the general scope language includes Whirlpool's 
assembled handles was supported by substantial evidence.'' \10\ The 
CAFC further held that Commerce's determination that the handles did 
not satisfy the finished merchandise exclusion was based on an 
incorrect interpretation of the exclusion.\11\ Therefore, the CAFC 
reversed Whirlpool II, which affirmed the Remand Redetermination, and 
instructed the CIT to vacate the Remand Redetermination and reinstate 
the Final Scope Ruling, in part, with respect to Commerce's 
determination that the general scope language included the handles.\12\ 
The CAFC further vacated those portions of Whirlpool I that held that 
the general scope language did not cover the handles.\13\ In addition, 
the CAFC affirmed, in part, those portions of Whirlpool I which 
rejected Commerce's interpretation of the finished merchandise 
exclusion and instructed the CIT to vacate the remainder of the Final 
Scope Ruling.\14\ Finally, the CAFC remanded to the CIT for Commerce to 
reconsider its interpretation of the finished merchandise exclusion as 
it pertains to Whirlpool's handles.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id. at 1309-11.
    \12\ Id. at 1311.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id. at 1311-12.
    \15\ Id. at 1312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 14, 2019, in Whirlpool IV, in accordance with Whirlpool 
III, the CIT vacated the Remand Redetermination, reinstated those 
portions of the Final Scope Ruling concluding that Whirlpool's handles 
are within the general scope language of the Orders, vacated the 
remaining portions of the Final Scope Ruling, and remanded for Commerce 
to reconsider whether Whirlpool's handles satisfied the finished 
merchandise exclusion.\16\ The CIT further ordered that 
``{s{time} hould Commerce determine that the assembled handles are 
within the scope of the Orders despite the finished merchandise 
exclusion, it must explain its reasoning and also must clarify whether 
it is concluding that the handles in their entirety, or only the 
extruded aluminum components therein, are within the scope of the 
Orders.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Whirlpool Corporation v. United States, 357 F. Supp. 3d 
1328, 1363-64 (CIT 2019) (Whirlpool IV).
    \17\ Id. at 1363.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 1, 2019, Commerce issued the Draft Second Remand 
Determination in which it found the extruded aluminum components of 
Whirlpool's handles to be within the scope of the Orders and the non-
extruded aluminum components to be outside the scope of the Orders.\18\ 
Before Commerce issued the final remand redetermination and filed it 
with the CIT, Whirlpool requested that the CIT voluntarily dismiss the 
action.\19\ On May 1, 2019, the CIT granted Whirlpool's request to 
voluntarily dismiss the case.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Draft Results of Second Redetermination Pursuant to 
Court Remand, Whirlpool Corp. v. United States, Ct. No. 14-00199, 
Slip Op. 19-6, dated April 1, 2019 (Draft Second Remand 
Determination).
    \19\ See Ct. No. 14-199, ECF Docket No. 75.
    \20\ See Ct. No. 14-199, ECF Docket No. 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Amended Final Scope Ruling

    As noted above, there is now a final and conclusive court decision 
which reinstates those portions of the Final Scope Ruling in which 
Commerce determined that Whirlpool's handles are within the general 
scope language of the Orders. As a result of the dismissal of 
Whirlpool's action, no further action is required. Therefore, we are 
issuing a second amended final scope ruling and find that Whirlpool's 
handles are within the scope of the Orders.
    Accordingly, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to continue to suspend liquidation of Whirlpool's handles 
until appropriate liquidation instructions are sent. As of the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register, the cash deposit 
rate for entries of Whirlpool's handles will be the applicable cash 
deposit rate of the exporters of the merchandise from China to the 
United States.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
516A(c)(1) and (e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Dated: June 18, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-13479 Filed 6-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P