Background
Printing Textiles, LLC, doing business as Berger Textiles, imports Canvas Banner Matisse, a woven polyester fabric sold in rolls and coated on one side with polyvinyl acetate/acrylate-type polymers. Berger identified potential uses including stretched art reproductions, banners, display systems, wall coverings, décor, and tents. It asked the Department of Commerce to rule that the product fell outside a 2006 antidumping duty order covering certain artist canvas from China.
Berger argued that the order covered only canvas treated with an acrylic-latex “gesso” coating designed to promote adherence of paint or ink, while its coating served other functions and did not promote ink adherence. Commerce applied the interpretive sources specified in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1) and found the product within the order because it was a primed or coated canvas roll and prepared painting or printing surface receptive to artist materials. The Court of International Trade sustained that ruling, and Berger appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit affirmed. It held that Commerce properly followed the regulatory sequence by first considering the order’s language and then consulting permissible primary and secondary interpretive sources under § 351.225(k)(1), including the International Trade Commission’s determinations and Commerce’s prior scope rulings. Because those materials were dispositive, Commerce was not required to proceed to the product-specific factors in § 351.225(k)(2).
The court also held that substantial evidence supported Commerce’s determination that Berger’s product was covered. The order did not mention gesso, require a particular coating formula, or distinguish between top and bottom coatings. Berger’s own evidence described the product as coated to convert fabric into canvas, showed that the coating stiffened and whitened the fabric, and indicated that it contributed slightly to ink absorption. Commerce reasonably interpreted promoting adherence to encompass allowing or increasing receptivity to artist materials, and that interpretation neither contradicted nor unlawfully expanded the order.
Key Takeaways
- Commerce may resolve a scope inquiry under § 351.225(k)(1) without reaching § 351.225(k)(2) when the order and permissible interpretive sources are dispositive.
- An antidumping order covering primed or coated artist canvas was not limited to canvas treated with a specific acrylic-latex gesso formula.
- Record evidence that a coating converts fabric into canvas and contributes to receptivity or ink absorption can support inclusion within the order’s scope.
Why It Matters
The nonprecedential decision illustrates the substantial evidentiary burden importers face when seeking to narrow an antidumping order through limitations not stated in its text. Product formulas or coating locations will not necessarily remove merchandise from an order when Commerce reasonably finds that the product performs the covered function.
It also confirms that Commerce may rely on prior scope rulings and ITC materials at the first regulatory step, potentially ending the inquiry before examining the ultimate-use, trade-channel, and advertising factors listed in § 351.225(k)(2).