United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CHINA CUSTOM MANUFACTURING INC., 

GREENTEC ENGINEERING LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS FAIR 

TRADE COMMITTEE,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2022-1345

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:20-cv-00121-SAV, Judge Stephen A. Vaden.

______________________ 

Decided: March 2, 2023

______________________ 

GEORGE REID TUTTLE, III, Law Offices of George R. Tuttle, A Professional Corporation, San Rafael, CA, argued for 

plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by GEORGE R.

TUTTLE. 

 JAMIE SHOOKMAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, New York, 

NY, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also 

represented by REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M.

BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; SAVANNAH MAXWELL, 

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel for Trade 

Case: 22-1345 Document: 67 Page: 1 Filed: 03/02/2023
2 CHINA CUSTOM MANUFACTURING INC. v. US

Enforcement and Compliance, United States Department 

of Commerce, Washington, DC. 

 ROBERT E. DEFRANCESCO, III, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee. Also represented by 

DERICK HOLT, ELIZABETH S. LEE, ALAN H. PRICE, JOHN 

ALLEN RIGGINS, ENBAR TOLEDANO. 

 ______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, CHEN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

CHEN, Circuit Judge. 

China Custom Manufacturing, Inc. and Greentec Engineering, LLC (collectively, CCM) appeal a decision by the 

United States Court of International Trade (trial court) 

sustaining a final scope ruling by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) that found CCM’s solar panel mounts 

are subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders 

covering aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic 

of China. Commerce and the trial court concluded that the 

solar panel mounts are not eligible for the orders’ “finished 

merchandise” exclusion because the mounts are just one 

component of a downstream product—i.e., a solar panel 

mounting system. Because the trial court’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and is in accordance with 

law, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

I 

In 2011, Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering aluminum extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China (Orders). Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping 

Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,650 (May 26, 2011); Aluminum 

Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,653 (May 26, 2011). 

Case: 22-1345 Document: 67 Page: 2 Filed: 03/02/2023
CHINA CUSTOM MANUFACTURING INC. v. US 3

The Orders define as subject merchandise “aluminum extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from” specified aluminum alloys. 

Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,650.1 The Orders further provide:

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.

Id. at 30,650–51. The Orders contain several exclusions 

from their scope, and two are pertinent here. The “finished 

merchandise” exclusion states:

The scope . . . excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are 

fully and permanently assembled and completed at 

the time of entry, such as finished windows with 

1 The Orders recite the same scope, and the language 

of the Orders is materially the same for present purposes. 

See Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng’g Co. v. 

United States, 918 F.3d 1355, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Whirlpool Corp. v. United States, 890 F.3d 1302, 1305 n.1 (Fed. 

Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). Thus, for ease of reference, 

we cite to only the Antidumping Duty Order. 

Case: 22-1345 Document: 67 Page: 3 Filed: 03/02/2023
4 CHINA CUSTOM MANUFACTURING INC. v. US

glass, doors with glass or vinyl, picture frames with 

glass pane and backing material, and solar panels.

Id. at 30,651. The “finished goods kit” exclusion states:

The scope . . . 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. 

Id. 

II

We have interpreted the Orders’ scope on multiple occasions, and two of our prior opinions are relevant here. In 

the first case, we considered the Orders’ scope as to the finished merchandise exclusion. There, the plaintiffs argued 

that their curtain wall units qualified for the finished merchandise exclusion because each unit was fully and permanently assembled and completed upon entry into the 

United States. Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng’g 

Co. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

(Shenyang I). Commerce disagreed, finding that the curtain wall units were not a “complete product upon entry” 

and instead were “designed to be attached to other units to 

eventually form a completed curtain wall.” Id. The trial 

court sustained Commerce’s determination, explaining 

that “[c]urtain wall units are [] undeniably components 

that are fastened together to form a completed curtain 

wall. Thus, they are ‘parts for,’ and ‘subassemblies’ for, 

completed curtain walls.” Id. (alterations in original) (citation omitted). We affirmed, holding that “[a] part or subassembly, here a curtain wall unit, cannot be a finished 

product.” Id. 

Case: 22-1345 Document: 67 Page: 4 Filed: 03/02/2023
CHINA CUSTOM MANUFACTURING INC. v. US 5

In the second case, which again involved curtain wall 

units, we considered the Orders’ scope as to the finished 

goods kit exclusion. There, the “only remaining issue” was 

“whether [the curtain wall units] are excluded when 

viewed (correctly) as subassemblies.” Shenyang Yuanda 

Aluminum Indus. Eng’g Co. v. United States, 918 F.3d 

1355, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Shenyang II). We first agreed 

with Commerce that the Orders only exclude subassemblies when imported as part of a finished goods kit. Id. We 

then agreed with Commerce that the curtain wall units at 

issue were ineligible for the finished goods kit exclusion because they were not a “packaged combination” of all the 

pieces needed to assemble the curtain wall (i.e., the final 

finished good) at the time of importation and were not 

ready for installation “as is.” Id.

Together, these cases explain that (1) parts or subassemblies are not finished products and thus cannot qualify 

for the finished merchandise exclusion, (2) subassemblies 

may be excluded from the Orders’ scope only if they are imported as part of a finished goods kit, and (3) merchandise 

qualifies for the finished goods kit exclusion only if it contains a packaged combination of all of the required components at the time of importation and is ready for 

installation as is. 

III 

On October 4, 2019, CCM requested Commerce determine whether its “Rock-it Mount 3.0” solar panel mounts 

are excluded from the Orders’ scope. J.A. 227; J.A. 495. 

CCM explained that its solar panel mounts are used with 

other parts and components in a downstream structure, 

the “EcoFasten 3.0 Rock-it System,”2 to mount solar panels 

2 CCM’s request also refers to the solar panel mounting system as, for example, the “EcoFasten Rock-it 3.0 solar panel mounting system,” J.A. 228; the “EcoFasten 

Case: 22-1345 Document: 67 Page: 5 Filed: 03/02/2023
6 CHINA CUSTOM MANUFACTURING INC. v. US

on a roof. J.A. 231–35; J.A. 495–97. CCM asserted that its 

mounts qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion because the mounts are “fully and permanently assembled 

and complete at the time of entry [and] ready for installation as EcoFasten Rock-It 3.0 solar panel mounting system, 

a downstream structure.” J.A. 228–31. 

IV

On May 14, 2020, Commerce issued a final scope ruling

that found CCM’s solar panel mounts are composed of aluminum extrusions subject to the Orders’ scope and that the 

mounts are ineligible for the finished merchandise and finished goods kit exclusions. J.A. 36, 50, 54–55. According 

to Commerce, the solar panel mounts “would not constitute 

finished merchandise because, at the time of entry into the 

United States, the solar mounts do not constitute a fully 

and permanently assembled and completed solar panel 

mounting system.” J.A. 52. Instead, the solar mounts “are 

subassemblies comparable to the merchandise at issue in 

[Shenyang I]” because the mounts “are designed to be part 

of a downstream final product, just as curtain wall units 

were designed to be part of the final product, a curtain 

wall.” J.A. 53–54. Thus, Commerce found CCM’s solar 

panel mounts ineligible for the finished merchandise exclusion because “the solar mounts are not themselves finished 

merchandise which perform a function independent of the 

complete solar panel mounting system.” J.A. 54. Separately, Commerce also determined that the solar panel 

mounts “do not constitute finished goods kits because, upon 

entry into the United States, they do not include all parts 

Rock-It System 3.0,” J.A. 230; the “Eco Fasten Rock-it System 3.0,” J.A. 495–96; and the “Rock-It System 3.0,” 

J.A. 496. We understand these terms to be interchangeable references to the same solar panel mounting system. 

Case: 22-1345 Document: 67 Page: 6 Filed: 03/02/2023
CHINA CUSTOM MANUFACTURING INC. v. US 7

necessary to fully assemble a finished solar panel mounting system.” J.A. 52.

V 

CCM sought review by the trial court, arguing that its 

mounts qualify only for the finished merchandise exclusion

and not the finished goods kit exclusion. China Custom 

Mfg., Inc. v. United States, No. 20-cv-00121, 2021 WL 

5822715, at *6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 6, 2021). The trial court 

affirmed Commerce’s final scope ruling, explaining that 

“Commerce correctly applied the litany of Federal Circuit 

precedents interpreting the Orders to the solar mounts presented to it for review.” Id. at *10. Citing CCM’s explanation that its solar panel mounts require other components 

to form the solar panel mounting system, the court concluded that the “solar mounts themselves are not finished 

merchandise but rather [are] a part or subassembly of the 

finished merchandise — the solar panel mounting system

— and as such do not qualify as finished merchandise excluded from the scope of the Orders.” Id. (citing Shenyang I, 776 F.3d at 1358–59). 

CCM timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).

DISCUSSION

We review the trial court’s decisions de novo and apply

anew the same standard it used. Sunpreme Inc. v. United 

States, 946 F.3d 1300, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (en banc) (citations omitted). Under that standard, we “must uphold 

Commerce’s determinations unless they are unsupported 

by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in 

accordance with law.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Although our review repeats much of the 

trial court’s work, we do not ignore the trial court’s informed judgment. Id. (citation omitted). We also give substantial deference to Commerce’s interpretation of its own 

duty orders “because the meaning and scope of those orders 

Case: 22-1345 Document: 67 Page: 7 Filed: 03/02/2023
8 CHINA CUSTOM MANUFACTURING INC. v. US

are issues particularly within the expertise and special 

competence of Commerce.” Id. (cleaned up) (citations omitted). A decision is supported by substantial evidence if “a 

reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Id. (cleaned up) (citation omitted). 

This appeal is governed squarely by our holding in 

Shenyang I that “[a] part or subassembly . . . cannot be a 

finished product.” 776 F.3d at 1358. CCM conceded to the 

trial court that its solar panel mounts are parts or subassemblies of its solar panel mounting system. See J.A. 1064

(“[T]he Eco Fasten mounts are installed with . . . other 

identified components and solar panels to function as the 

downstream solar panel mounting system. . . . The mounts 

are clearly ‘parts’ of this solar panel system . . . .”); 

J.A. 1090 (“[W]hen we refer to the Rocket 3 Solar mounts, 

we were referring to it as a subassembly, that is, as a part 

of a greater whole in which it’s used.”). CCM also conceded 

that the mounts have no use outside of the specific solar 

panel mounting system—i.e., the EcoFasten 3.0 Rock-it 

System. See J.A. 1092 (“THE COURT: Does this mount – 

is it solely for use in the Rocket 3.0 kit? . . . [COUNSEL]: I 

don’t have an answer to that. But I believe that it’s useful 

[in] only the Rocket 3 kit . . . .”). Thus, like the curtain wall 

units in Shenyang I, CCM’s solar panel mounts are “undeniably components that are fastened together to form a 

completed [solar panel mounting system].” 776 F.3d 

at 1358 (citation omitted). CCM’s solar panel mounts are 

parts or subassemblies and thus cannot be a finished product and cannot qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion.

CCM argues that our holding in Shenyang I was limited to the curtain wall units at issue there and cannot be 

applied to the solar panel mounts at issue here. Appellant’s Br. 28; Appellant’s Reply Br. 12–13. We disagree. 

Our holding in Shenyang I was based on the language of 

the Orders. Indeed, the statement that CCM’s argument

relies on—that a “part or subassembly, here a curtain wall 

Case: 22-1345 Document: 67 Page: 8 Filed: 03/02/2023
CHINA CUSTOM MANUFACTURING INC. v. US 9

unit, cannot be a finished product”—is divided into the legal conclusion (“a part or subassembly . . . cannot be a finished product”) and the application of that legal conclusion 

to the facts (“here a curtain wall unit”). 776 F.3d at 1358. 

CCM tries to reinforce its argument that Shenyang I is 

not precedential by pointing to a statement by the trial 

court in an unrelated proceeding that Shenyang I did not 

control the outcome in that specific proceeding. Appellant’s 

Br. 26–28 (citing Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. 

Eng’g Co. v. United States, 279 F. Supp. 3d 1209, 1212 n.3 

(Ct. Int’l Trade 2017)). CCM misunderstands the trial 

court’s statement. In that case, the plaintiffs argued that 

their curtain wall units qualified for the finished goods kit 

exclusion, and defendant-intervenors responded that

Shenyang I controlled the outcome. Shenyang, 279 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1212 & n.3. The court disagreed with the defendant-intervenors because Shenyang I evaluated only 

the Orders’ finished merchandise exclusion and did not address the finished goods kit exclusion. Id. at 1212 n.3. 

Thus, the trial court did not state that Shenyang I is not 

precedential. It stated that the holding of Shenyang I, 

which addressed only the finished merchandise exclusion, 

did not foreclose the finished goods kit exclusion arguments before it. 

Unable to convince us that Shenyang I does not apply, 

CCM asks us to overturn its holding. CCM fails to convince 

us that we should. CCM initially contends that the holding 

of Shenyang I is “contrary to the plain language of the [finished merchandise] exclusion,” which excludes from the 

Orders’ scope “parts” that are “fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of importation.” Appellant’s Br. 18–21, 29; Appellant’s Reply Br. 5. Not only is 

this the same argument that the plaintiffs made and that 

Case: 22-1345 Document: 67 Page: 9 Filed: 03/02/2023
10 CHINA CUSTOM MANUFACTURING INC. v. US

we rejected in Shenyang I, 776 F.3d at 1358, it also misreads the exclusion, which states: 

The scope . . . excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully 

and permanently assembled and completed at the 

time of entry, such as finished windows with glass, 

doors with glass or vinyl, picture frames with glass 

pane and backing material, and solar panels. 

Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,651 (emphases added). CCM focuses on the italicized portion and ignores the underlined portion. The Orders exclude finished 

merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts 

that are fully and permanently assembled, not the parts 

themselves. 

CCM also asserts that Commerce rewrote the Orders’ 

plain language when Commerce found that subassemblies 

cannot be excluded under the finished merchandise exclusion. Appellant’s Br. 25; Appellant’s Reply Br. 11. CCM 

again ignores our precedent and misreads the plain language. In Shenyang I, we held that subassemblies cannot

qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion. 776 F.3d at 

1358. We reiterated that holding in Shenyang II, where we 

agreed with “Commerce’s straightforward reading” that 

subassemblies can be excluded only under the finished 

goods kit exclusion. 918 F.3d at 1367. Further, the Orders’

plain language supports our prior decisions, as it states 

that “[t]he 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 finish goods ‘kit’ defined further below.” Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 

30,651 (emphasis added). A straightforward reading of the 

plain language confirms, contrary to CCM’s argument, that

subassemblies are included in the Orders’ scope and may 

be excluded only if imported as part of a finished goods kit.

Case: 22-1345 Document: 67 Page: 10 Filed: 03/02/2023
CHINA CUSTOM MANUFACTURING INC. v. US 11

CCM next avers that Commerce’s final scope ruling

merged the finished merchandise and finished goods kits 

exclusions by requiring all EcoFasten components to be 

fully and permanently assembled at the time of entry, thus 

requiring a complete “final finished product” for the finished merchandise exclusion rather than a “part.” Appellant’s Br. 23–24; Appellant’s Reply Br. 5–9. First, we fail 

to see how Commerce merged the two exclusions. Commerce explained that CCM’s solar panel mounts (1) were 

not eligible for the finished merchandise exclusion because 

the mounts do not constitute a fully and permanently assembled and completed solar panel mounting system, and 

(2) were not eligible for the finished goods kit exclusion because the mounts do not include, upon entry into the 

United States, all the parts necessary to fully assemble a 

finished solar panel mounting system. J.A. 52–53. Thus, 

Commerce kept the two exclusions separate. Second, Commerce did not err in using the phrase “final finished product” to describe finished merchandise. The Orders use that 

same phrase to explain that “parts for final finished products” are included in the Orders’ scope, Antidumping Duty 

Order, 76 Fed. Reg. at 30,650–51 (emphasis added), and we

used a similar term in Shenyang I when we explained that 

a “part or assembly . . . cannot be a finished product,” 776 

F.3d at 1358 (emphasis added). Thus, Commerce did not 

impermissibly change the word “part” to “final finished 

product” in the finished merchandise exclusion.

Finally, CCM notes that solar panels are explicitly excluded from the Orders’ scope and asserts that Commerce, 

contrary to the facts of record, erred in finding that solar 

panels are added after the mounting system was assembled rather than added in an intermediate step in the assembly of the EcoFasten 3.0 Rock-it System. Appellant’s 

Br. 21–23. First, solar panel mounts are undisputedly not 

solar panels, and thus whatever the Orders may say about 

solar panels is not material to whether solar panel mounts 

are excluded. Second, the sequence in which solar panels 

Case: 22-1345 Document: 67 Page: 11 Filed: 03/02/2023
12 CHINA CUSTOM MANUFACTURING INC. v. US

are added to the mounting system does not affect our analysis. The solar panel mounts at issue are parts or subassemblies for a downstream product—the EcoFasten solar 

panel mounting system—and thus are not a finished product that qualifies for the finished merchandise exclusion. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered CCM’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.3

AFFIRMED

3 Defendant-Appellee Aluminum Extrusions Fair 

Trade Committee (AEFTC) moved to strike portions of 

CCM’s corrected opening brief that AEFTC alleged were 

substantive corrections made without leave of the court. 

AEFTC’s Br. 44–47. At oral argument, AEFTC’s counsel 

stated that the court need not reach the motion to strike if 

it affirms on the merits. Oral Arg. 32:53–33:22. In light of 

our decision, AEFTC’s motion to strike is denied as moot. 

Case: 22-1345 Document: 67 Page: 12 Filed: 03/02/2023