Slip Op. 06-10
UNITE D STATES COURT OF I NTERNATI ONAL TRADE

____________________________________ : VERTEX INTERNATIONAL, I NC., :

: Before: Rest ani, C hief J udge Plaintiff, : : v. : Court No. 05-00272 : UNI TED STATE S, : : Defend ant. : ____________________________________: [Scope determination on Vertex International, I nc.’s garden carts from the People ’s Republic of China REMANDED for exclusion of the garden carts.] Dated: January 19, 2006

Nev il le P ete rso n LLP ( Curtis W. Kna uss , John M. Peterson , and Geor ge W. Thompson ) for plaintiff.

Peter D. Keisler , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, David M. Cohen , Director, Patricia M. McCarthy , Assistant Director, Commercial Litiga tion Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice ( Stephen C. Tosini ), Carrie Owens , Office of the Chief Counsel for I mport Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of counsel, for defe ndant

. OPINION Restani, Chief Judge: Plaintiff Vertex International, I nc. (“Vertex”) moves for judgment on the agency

record pursuant to USCIT R. 56.2, claiming that the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) improperly ruled that its “garden carts” we re within the scope of an antidumping duty order

on hand trucks from the People’s Republic of China. See Final Scope Ruling on the Antidumping Duty Or der on Hand Trucks from the People’s Republic of China , U.S. Dep’t of Commerce Inter nal Memorandum from Wendy J. Fra nkel to Barbara E. Tillman (Feb. 15, 2005), P.R. Doc. 3, Def.’s App. Tab 3 [hereinaf ter Final Scope Ruling ].C OURT N O
. 05-00272 P AGE 2

1 Vertex is an importer based in Watertown, Minnesota, and sells garden a nd yard products. On December 27, 2004, Vertex requested a ruling from Commerce to determine whether its garden carts fe ll within the scope of Commerce’s antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the People’s Republic from China. 1 See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China , 69 Fed. Reg. 70,122 (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 2, 2004) (notice of antidumping duty order) [hereinafter Antidumping Duty Orde r or “Order”]. In a

n unpublished ruling, Commerce found that the garde n carts exhibited all of the essential physica l characteristics of hand trucks as outlined by the Antidumping Duty Orde r and were within the scope of the Order. See Final Scope Ruling , Def.’s App. Tab 3, at 7. Vertex contends that
Commerce ’s Final Scope Ruling is not supported by substantia

l evidenc e on the r

ecord a nd is otherwis e not in ac cordanc e with law . This cou rt has jur isdiction p

ursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2000).
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Hand Truck Order

On December 2, 2004, Commerce published an antidumping duty order concerning hand trucks from the People’ s Republic of China. Antidumping Duty Orde r , 69 Fed. Reg. at 70,122. The Order covers ha nd trucks “manufactured from any material, whether assemble d or unass embled, c omplete or incomple te, suitab le for a

ny u se, and c ertain p arts thereof, namely

the vertical frame, the handling ar ea and the projecting edg es or toe plate, and any combination there of.” Id. It sta tes that the cover

ed produ ct is commonly

refer red to as a “h an d t ru ck , c on ve rt ib le ha nd tr uc k, ap pl ia nc e h an d t ru ck , c yli nd er ha nd tr uc k, ba g t ru ck , d ol ly,C OURT N O
. 05-00272 P AGE 3

2 The rele vant par ts of HTSUS subhead

ing 8716provides : 8716 Trailers and semi-trailers; other vehicles, not mechanic ally propelled; and pa rts thereof:
8716.80 Other ve

hicles:

. . . 8716.80.50.10 Industrial hand trucks
8716.80.50.90 Other
8716.90 Parts:

. . . 8716.90.50.60 Other or hand trolley,”

and typically

imported under three subheadings of the Ha rmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”): 8716.80.50.10; 8716.80.50.90; and 8716.90.50.60. 2
Id. The Order gives the following de scription of a hand truck: A complete or fully a ssembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow c onsisting of a vertically

disposed frame having a handle or more than one handle at or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at lea st two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or angled to the ve rtical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe

plate, slides under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load. That the vertical frame can be c onverted from a vertical setting to a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of this petition. That the vertical frame, handling area, whe els, projecting edges or other pa rts of the hand truck can be collapsed or folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, handling area, projecting e dges, or other parts of the hand truck, in addition to the two or mor

e wheel s locate d at or ne ar the lower sec tion of the

vertica l frame, isC OURT N O
. 05-00272 P AGE 4

no t a ba si s f

or ex cl us io n o f t he ha nd tr uc k f ro m t he sc op e o f t he pe ti ti on . F in al ly, that the hand truck may

exhibit physical characte ristics in addition to the vertical frame, the handling area, the pr ojecting edges or toe plate, a nd the two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertica l frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. Id. The language as to the scope of the investigation remained the same from the notice of the initiation of investigation through the preliminary and final determination of sales at less than fair value, and the Antidumping Duty Orde r . See Hand Tru

cks and Ce

rtain Par ts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China , 68 Fed. Reg. 68,591 (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 9, 2003) (in itiation of antidumpin

g duty investig ation); Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China , 69 Fed. Reg. 29,509 (Dep’t of Commerce May 24, 2004) (prelimi nary determ. and postponement of final determ.); Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China , 69 Fed. Reg. 60,980 (Dep’t of Commerce Oct. 14, 2004) (final de term.); Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof fr om the People’s Republic of China , 69 Fed. Reg . 65,410 (Dep’t of Commerce

Nov. 12, 2 004) (amended fi nal dete rm.); Antidumping Duty Order , 69 Fed. Reg. at 70,122.
C. Vertex’s Arguments

Vertex argues that Commerce’s ruling tha t its garden carts are within the scope of the Order because they

exhibited all the physical chara cteristics of hand trucks is unsupported by substantial evidence. Vertex argues that Commerce should not have ended its scope inquiry a t an examination under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1) (2005) but should have conducted an inquiry under the test set forth in Diversified Products Corp. v. United States , 6 CIT 155, 162, 572 F. Supp.C OURT N O
. 05-00272 P AGE 5

3 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k) outlines the procedures that Commerce should follow when interpreting the scope of an antidumping duty order. Id. First, Commerce considers the three factors articulated in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1). Id. If such an inquiry is not dispositive, Commerce considers the additional five factors articula ted in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2). Id. 883, 889 (1983) (codified in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2) (2005)). 3 See Lette r from Ve rtex I nt’l, Inc. to Dep’t of Commerce , Int’l Trade Admin. (Dec . 27, 2004), P.R. Doc. 1, Def.’s App. Tab 1, at 6 [hereinafter Request for Scope Ruling ].

In arguing

that an inquiry under § 351.225( k)(1) is not dispositive in this case, Vertex first claims that the language of the Order is ambiguous and does not specifically include or exclude its garden carts. Vertex arg ues that while the Order covers hand trucks known by other names – “convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cy

linder hand truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley

” – it does not cover products like carts, garden c arts, or caddies. (Pl.’s Br. 9–10.) Additionally, Vertex distinguishes the use of its g arden carts from the use of hand trucks. Vertex claims that unlike hand trucks, its garden carts a re not used primarily to tra nsport objects but are used primarily for organizing, storing, and holding e quipment and supplies. The garden carts’ hollow, plastic wheels a re also designed for use on g rass and soil surfaces, rather than on sid

ewalks, curbs an

d other r ough sur faces. Vertex cl aims that t he tires on its gar

den car ts would deform or break if the gar den carts are used to carry heavy loads or

used to move loads over rough or uneven terra ins. (Pl.’s Br. 10.) Vertex also argues that its garden c arts do not have all of the same character istics as hand trucks. While a garden cart ha s a vertical frame, handle, and two whee ls, Vertex contends that the subject cart’s “stabilizing plate” is not a projecting edge or toe plate as definedC OURT N O
. 05-00272 P AGE 6

4 As this opin

ion must foc

us upon Commerce’ s “interp retation ” of the Order, it i s unnecessary

to examine Vertex’s arguments under § 351.225(k)(2) at this juncture. by the Order . (Pl.’s Br. 15–16.) The Order provides that a hand tr uck has “a horizontal projecting edge or edg es, or toe plate, perpendicular or angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical frame. The pr ojecting edge or edg es, or toe plate, slides under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load.” Antidumping Duty Orde r , 69 Fed. Reg. at 70,122. Whi le the g arden c art’s “s tabilizing plate” is made fr om steel w

ire weld ed into a g

rid pattern that projects out horizontally from the bottom of the ve rtical frame, Vertex argues that this stabilizing plate does not “readily ‘slide unde r’ a load” as the Order require s. Request for Scope Ruling , Def.’s App. T ab 1, a t 6. Ad diti onall y, the sta bili zing p late d oes no t have a large
carry ing cap acity , and the garden c art itsel f has no “ centra lly p ositioned

frame me

mber ag ainst which a stabiliz[ing] plate load can be balanced.” Id. , Def.’s App. Tab 1, at 5.

After arguing that an inquiry under § 351.225(k)(1) is not dispositive, Vertex argues that under a § 351.225(k)(2) inquiry, its garde

n carts are outside the scope of the Order

. 4
D. Industry Re sponse

On January 19, 2005, the petitioners, Glea son Industrial Products, I nc. and Precision Products, Inc., stated their view that Ve rtex’s garden carts were e xcluded from the scope of the Order. See Lette r from Gl eason I

ndus. Prod s., I

nc. & Pre cision Pro ds., I

nc. to Donald L. Evens, Sec’y

of Commerce, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce (Jan. 18, 2005), P.R. Doc. 2, Def.’s A pp. Tab 2, at 2. Altho

ugh the petitione rs did not a

ccept V ertex’s a

rgumen t that its garden carts should be excluded based on their intende d use in gardening beca use the Order specifically state d that hand trucks could be “suitable for any use,” the petitioners did agree thatC OURT N O
. 05-00272 P AGE 7

Vertex’s garden carts do not have a ll of the characteristics of hand trucks as outlined in the Order. The petitioners reasoned that beca use the projecting plate of the subject g arden cart does not “readily ‘ slide under’ a load,” Vertex’s product is excluded from the scope of the Order. Id. In other words, the petitioner advise d Commerce that Vertex’s carts are not within the scope of the Order because they

are unambiguously

excluded by the Order

. The cour t agre es. II. JURISD ICTION AND STANDARDOF REVIEW The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). The court will affirm Commerce’s scope determination if it is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i), 1516a(a) (2)(B)(ii), 1516a(a)(2)( B)(vi) (2000).
III. DISCU SSION
A. Relevant law

In examining whether a pa rticular product is within the scope of an antidumping duty order, Commerc e follows the two-step process set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k). Under § 351.225(k)(1), Commerce examines “[t]he descriptions of the merchandise contained in the petition, the initial investigation, and the determinations of the Secretary [of Commerce] (includin g prior scope de terminat ions) and the [I nternat ional Tra de] Commission.” 19 C.F .R. § 351.225(k)(1). If a

n examination of the three sources in § 351.225(k)(1) is not dispositive of the scope, Commerce then considers the five fac tors found in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2): “(i) [t]he physical ch aracte

ristics of the produ

ct; (ii) [t]he

expectat ions of the

ultimate p

urchase rs; (iii) [t]he ultimate use of the product; (iv) [t]he channels of trade in which the product is sold; and (v) [t]he manner in which the product is advertised and display ed.” Id. Although § 351.225(k) offers the interpretive rule s for scope determinations whenC OURT N O
. 05-00272 P AGE 8

5 As a preliminary ma

tter, Commerce properly

found that the presence of additional features on the garden c art, an upper rack and lower ra ck, does not exclude it from the scope of the Order. The additional features of the g arden cart do not automatically exclude it from the Order because the Order spe cifically provide s that “the hand truck may exhibit physical charac teristic s in addition

to the vertical frame, the handling ar ea, the projecting edge s or toe plate, and the two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame.” Antidumpin g Duty Order , 69 Fed. Reg. at 70,122 (emphasis added). Commerce also correctly

rejected Vertex’s argument that the primar y use of its ga

rden cart automatically

excluded it from the scope of the Order. Commerce noted that the scope of the Order specifically

covers hand trucks “suitable for any use.” Id. Accordingly , the fact that the subje ct cart c an be use d for ga rdening and the st

orage and org anization o f gard ening to ols does not automatically exclude it from the scope of the Order. the description of a product is written in general ter ms, there are “circumstances in which a n order’s relevant terms are unambig uous.” Allegheny

Bradford Corp. v. United States , 342 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1184 (CIT 2004). I n such cases, Commerce may rule based upon the language of the Order itself because “[t]he languag e of an order is the ‘cornerstone’ of a court’s analy sis of an order’s scope.” Id. (quot ing Duferco Steel, Inc . v. United States , 296 F.3d 1087, 1097–98 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Furthermore, Commerce cannot “ma ke a scope determination that conflicts with an order’s terms, nor can it interpret an order in a way that c

hanges the order’s scope.” Id. (citing Duferco , 296 F.3d at 1087, 1094–95).
B. Comm erce’ s final scope ruling is er roneous As indicated, in its unpublished final scope ruling, Commerce found that Vertex’s garden carts were

within the scope of the Antidumping Duty Orde r . Commerce found that the garden carts were

not automatically excluded from the Or der even though they

were equipped with additional parts not mentioned in the Order and even though they were primarily

used for the stora ge and organ ization of t

ools. 5C OURT N O
. 05-00272 P AGE 9

Additionally, Vertex fails to arg ue convincingly

that the Order does not cover its garde n cart simp ly b ecause

the Orde r does not refer explicitly

to it by its name

. First , the s cope l anguage is unambiguous in treating the listed names of the articles as e xamples, not as an exhaustive list. See Antidumping Duty Orde r , 69 Fed. Reg. at

70,122 (“ Examples of

names commonly

used to reference hand trucks ar

e hand truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cy

linder hand truck, ba g truck , dolly , or hand

trolley .”). Sec ond, the c ourt of a ppeals ha s recog

nized that i

t is unnecessary

to “‘circumscribe the entire universe of a rticles’ that might possibly fa ll within the order.” Novosteel SA v. United States , 284 F .3d 12 61, 12 69 (Fed . Cir . 2002 ) (cit ing Nitta I ndus. Corp. v. United States , 997 F.2d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Rather than state ea ch and every product that is covered by an order, Commerce gives a “de scription[] of [the] subject mercha ndise [that

is] written

in gene ral term s.” 19 C.F .R. § 351.2 25(a); Novosteel , 284 F.3d at 1269–70. Thus, even though the Order did not specifically refer to a garden c art, the absence of a direct reference doe s not automatically exclude it from the Orde r. See id.

6 Commerce then found that “it [is] unnecessary to consider the additional factors in 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2).” Final Scope Ruling , Def.’s App. Tab 3, at 5.

In making its scope deter

mination, Commerce claimed to have “evaluated Vertex’s request in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(k)( 1) and [found] that the descriptions of the product contained in the petition, the initial investigation, the determinations by the Secretary . . . and the ITC are . . . dispositive with respec t to Vertex’s Cart.” Final Scope Ruling , Def.’s App. Tab 3, at 5. 6 The government now argue s that the terms of the Order were unambig uous and that further review was unnece ssary. A re view of Commerce’s analysis in its scope ruling shows tha t althoug h it did rev

iew the pe

tition and a

prior sc ope dete

rmination as mentioned in the reg ulation, Commerce b ased its r uling upon the lang

uage o f the Ord

er itself . While Commerce may ba se its ruling on the unambiguous languag e of an order, see Duferco Steel , 296 F.3d at 1096, here, that unambiguous langua ge excludes rather than includes the g arden carts. In the present case , the Antidumping Duty Orde r specifically la

ys out the charac teristic s of a han

d truck a s: consisting

of a ver tically disposed f

rame ha ving a h andle or

more tha n one han dleC OURT N O
. 05-00272 P AGE 10

7 Commerce included this sentence without variation from the initiation of the investigation through the preliminary and final determination of sales at less than fair value and the final Order. at or near the upper section of the vertica l frame; at least two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a horizontal projecting edge or edg es, or toe plate, perpendicular or angle d to the vertical frame, at or near the lowe r section of the vertical frame. Antidumping Duty Orde

r , 69 Fed. Reg. 70, 122. I

n its Final Scope Ruling , Commerc e proper ly identified the four key

characteristics of a hand truck – a ve rtical frame, a handle, at least two wheels, and a projecting edg e or toe plate – and it is uncontested that the subject garde n cart possesses the first three characteristics of a hand truck. Commerce failed, however, to cite r ecord evidence demonstrating that the ga rden cart possessed a toe plate as define d by the Order and ignored contrary

evidence. The Order defines “projecting edge or toe plate” acc ording to its function. Specifically, it states that “[t]he projecting edge or edges, or toe

plate, slides under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load.” 7 Id. Although Commerce specified that a hand truck may be “ suitable for any use ,” the “any use” language is limited by this sentence which requires that a hand truck’s toe plate slide under a load to lift or move it. Commerce must give effect to this sentence, which states an essential phy sical characteristic of the articles included within the

scope an d specif ies the pu rpose for which the horizont al proje cting e dge or

toe plate must be designed.

Havi ng sp ecif ical ly defi ned “toe p late ,” Com

merc e did not pr oper ly anal yz e whether the garden ca

rt’s stabilizing plate is a toe plate that slides under a load to lift or move it. The Final Scope Ruling ’s only consider ation of w

hether t he gar den car t’s “toe p late” fa

lls withinC OURT N O
. 05-00272 P AGE 11

8 In the normal course Commerc e has the authority to re quest further information if the uncontradicted evidence of recor d does not satisfy its concer ns. The court also notes that Commerce

did not find Vertex’ s evidenc e uncre dited. I t simply ignore d it. the terms of the Or der cons ists of the

following

statemen t: Although Vertex asserts that the Cart’s toe plate is “too thick to slide under a load conveniently,” a

nd the Petitioners assert that the toe plate’s inability to “ slide” under a load implies that the Cart does not fit in the definition of the scope of the Order, neither party

provided any r

ecord evidence to determine whether the toe plate can or cannot actually “slide” under a load. Therefore , we have determined that the Cart falls within the definition of the scope of the Order beca use all four scope characte

ristics a re pres ent. Final Scope Ruling , Def.’s App. Tab 3, at 7 (footnotes omitted). Despite being given information as to the operation instructions of the garden ca rt and its dimensions and composition, Commerc e incorr ectly claimed t hat neith er part

y pr ovided an y e vidence as to whether the garden ca

rt slides under a load to lift or move it, and proceeded to find that all of the charac teristic s of a han

d truck w ere pre sent. 8 Id. Contrary to Commerce’ s assertions here, Vertex did offer evidence r egarding whether its garden cart slides under a load to lift or move it, and that evidence indicates that Vertex’s garden cart cannot do so. F irst, evidence shows that the garden ca rt was not designed to, and cannot, slide under a load. I n order to slide under a load, a hand truck must be pushed towards a load before the toe plate ca n slide underneath it. Here, the operation instructions from Vertex warn: “DO NOT PUSH. This product is designed to be PUL LED ONL

Y. Pushing may damage the produ

ct and even cause bodily injury .” Request for Scope Ruling , Def.’s App. Tab 1, at 2 (emphasis original). This warning indicate s that the manufacturer of the subject cart intended for obje cts to be p laced on the stabil izing pla

te by hand and did not des ign the p late toC OURT N O
. 05-00272 P AGE 12

9 The garden cart also has a metal, wire frame that projects out from the top rack of the subject cart and is parallel to the stabilizing plate. This wire frame pr events the cart from sliding under, and carry

ing, a taller load which would bump against the wire frame.

10 In its brief, while the gove rnment argues that the gar den cart’s stabilizing plate can slide under a load, it does not address whether the subject ca rt can lift or move a load. The “lifting and/o r movi ng” requ ireme nt is essen tial to th e Order becaus e it ex plain s why a pro jecti ng edge has to slide under a load and it further explains how a hand truck opera tes.

11 Commerce ’s Final Scope Ruling refers to the petition which describes a hand truck’ s load capacity

as “generally

not exceeding 1000 pounds.” Id. , Def.’s App. Tab 3, at 7. A ltho ugh this description was not found in the Order, it is indicative of the weight that hand trucks a re meant to carry

. slide unde

r a load. Additiona

lly, unlike the

project ing edg e of a ha

nd truck, which is be

veled to facilitate its sliding under a load, the edge of the stabilizing plate is a round steel wire that is not conducive to sliding under a load. 9 Thus, the evidence on the record demonstrates that the garden cart was not desig ned to, and cannot, slide under a load. Second, the garden cart does not lift or move a load like a hand truck. 10 Unlike the garden cart, a hand truc k is designed to carry

heavy loads. Althoug

h the Order does not specify a specific load capacity

for hand trucks, the fact that hand trucks need to slide unde r a load before it can be lifted or moved indicates that hand truc ks are designed to carry

heavy loads. 11 Here, unlike a hand truck which ty pically has a solid metal toe plate that can carry

heavy loads, the garde n cart ha s a metal w

ire stabi lizing pla

te that ca nnot car ry heavy loads. I n fact, Vertex specifically sta

ted that its garden cart cannot car ry a load ove

r 150 pounds. Request for Scope Ruling , Def.’s App. Tab 1, at 2. Moreover, the fa ct that the garden cart’s whe els may shatter if a heavy

load was placed on the cart further suggests that the cart was not designed like a hand truck to carry

heavy loads. Request for Scope Ruling , Def.’s App. Tab 1, at 6. AdditionalC OURT N O
. 05-00272 P AGE 13

evidence indicates that Vertex’s garde n cart may not be

able to lift or move any loa d at all. The garde n cart do es not hav e a cent ral fra me member

agains t which a l oad can be balan ced whe n it is lifted or moved. Request for Scope Ruling , Def.’s App. Tab 1, at 5–6. Even though a ce ntral frame member is not a specific requireme nt of the Order, the absence of an objec t against which a load ca n be bala nced pre vents the secure lifting or moving

of a load . Thus, contrary to Commerce ’s asser

tions, the record does con tain evid ence re gardin

g the g arden c art’s ab ility to slide under a load to lift or carry it, and the only releva

nt evidence in the record indicates that the garden cart does not meet this essential requir ement of the Order. While Commerce may define and clarify

the scope of an antidumping duty order, it cannot “interpret an antidumping order so as to cha nge the scope of that order, nor c an Commerce interpret an order in a manner c ontrary to its terms.” Duferco , 296 F.3d at 1095 (quot ing Eckstrom Indus., I nc. v. United States , 254 F.3d 1068, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2001)) (internal quotation marks omit

ted). Commerce “ interpre ts” an or der cont rary to its terms

if it finds a product within the scope of the order despite the fact that the pr oduct does not exhibit all of the requirements of the order. By finding that Vertex’s garden cart is within the scope of the Order without ev

idence t hat the g arden c art’s sta

bilizing pl ate can

slide unde

r a load t o lift or mo ve it, Commerce has impermissibly broade ned the scope of the Order to include products that have project ing edg es or toe

plates tha

t do not slide

under a l oad for c arry

ing purp oses. III. CONCL USION For the foregoing r

easons, Commerce erred when it did not follow the unambiguous language of the Antidumping Duty Orde r which required that a product slide under a load to lift or move it. Upon remand Commerce shall issue a determination excluding Ver tex’sC OURT N O
. 05-00272 P AGE 14

garden carts from the Orde r.

/s/ Jane A. Restani Jane A. Restani CHIEF JUDGE Dated: New York, New York This 19th day of January , 2006.