Slip Op. 07-40 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

GLEASON INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, 

INC. and PRECISION PRODUCTS, 

INC., 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 

 Defendant, 

and 

CENTRAL PURCHASING, LLC, 

 Defendant- 

 Intervenor. 

Before: Richard W. Goldberg, 

 Senior Judge 

Court No. 06-00089 

OPINION

[Commerce’s motion for voluntary remand is granted. Plaintiff’s 

USCIT Rule 56.2 motion denied as moot.] 

Dated: March 16, 2007 

Crowell & Moring, LLP (Matthew P. Jaffe) for Plaintiffs Gleason 

Industrial Products, Inc. and Precision Products, Inc. 

Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP (Louis S. Mastriani, William 

C. Sjoberg) for Defendant-Intervenor Central Purchasing, LLC. 

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Patricia M. 

McCarthy, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Stephen C. Tosini); 

Office of the Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Commerce (Carrie 

Lee Owens), of counsel, for Defendant United States. 

GOLDBERG, Senior Judge: Plaintiffs Gleason Industrial Products, 

Inc. and Precision Products, Inc. (collectively “Gleason”) move 
Court No. 06-0089 Page 2

the Court to enter judgment on the agency record pursuant to 

USCIT Rule 56.2. Defendant U.S. Department of Commerce 

(“Commerce”) moves the Court on its own accord to remand the 

matter back to the agency. Defendant-Intervenor Central 

Purchasing, LLC (“CP”) opposes both motions. For the reasons 

that follow, the Court grants Commerce’s request for a voluntary 

remand. 

I. BACKGROUND

On December 2, 2004, Commerce entered an antidumping duty 

order relating to hand trucks produced in China. See Hand 

Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 Fed. Reg. 70122 (Dep’t Commerce Dec. 2, 2004) (Notice 

of Antidumping Duty Order) (“Antidumping Duty Order”). The 

notice defined the scope of the antidumping duty order as 

follows: 

The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order 

consists of hand trucks manufactured from any 

material, whether assembled or unassembled, complete 

or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts 

thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area, 

and the projecting edges or toe plate, and any 

combination thereof. 

A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a handpropelled barrow consisting of a vertically disposed 

frame having a handle or more than one handle at or 

near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least 

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 

vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the 

vertical frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe 
Court No. 06-0089 Page 3

plate, slides under a load for purposes of lifting 

and/or moving the load. 

That the vertical frame can be converted 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, wheels, projecting edges or other parts 

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 

edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in addition 

to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower 

section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for 

exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the 

petition. Finally, that the hand truck may exhibit 

physical characteristics in addition to the vertical 

frame, the handling area, the projecting edges or toe 

plate, and the two wheels at or near the lower section 

of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of 

the hand truck from the scope of the petition. 

Examples of names commonly used to reference hand 

trucks are hand truck, convertible hand truck, 

appliance hand truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, 

dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported 

under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) although they 

may also be imported under heading 8716.80.50.90. 

Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the vertical 

frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or 

toe plate, or any combination thereof, are typically 

imported under heading 8716.90.50.60 of the HTSUS. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, [Commerce’s] written 

description of the scope is dispositive. 

Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or fourwheel utility carts specifically designed for carrying 

loads like personal bags or luggage in which the frame 

is made from telescoping tubular material measuring 

less than 5/8 inch in diameter; hand trucks that use 

motorized operations either to move the hand truck 

from one location to the next or to assist in the 

lifting of items placed on the hand truck; vertical 
Court No. 06-0089 Page 4

carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags; 

and wheels and tires used in the manufacture of hand 

trucks. 

Id. On December 19, 2005, CP sent a letter to Commerce seeking 

a scope ruling that excluded its welding carts from the scope of 

the antidumping duty order. The letter provided the following 

description of the two models at issue here: 

Both carts are made in China, don’t have projected 

edges and are designed to carry welding machines only. 

. . . Please consider in your ruling that both have a 

specialized purpose which can not be utilized as a 

standard hand truck for which the original order is 

written and neither cart has projecting edges. 

Letter from Heidar Nuristani, Compliance Specialist, Central 

Purchasing, LLC, to Secretary of Commerce at 1, 3 (Dec. 19, 

2005). CP included several photographs of the welding carts at 

issue with their letter. 

Gleason opposed CP’s request on three grounds. First, 

Gleason argued the CP welding carts fell squarely within the 

description of hand carts contained in the antidumping duty 

order. See Letter from Matthew P. Jaffe, Counsel for Gleason, 

to Secretary of Commerce at 2 (Jan. 4, 2006) (“Gleason Letter”). 

Second, Gleason claimed CP’s functional argument (i.e., the 

carts are not covered because they are “designed to carry 

welding machines only”) lacked any relevance to the legal 

question of the applicability vel non of the antidumping duty 

order to the CP carts. See id. at 3. Lastly, Gleason posited 
Court No. 06-0089 Page 5

that because its original antidumping petition included 

pictorial representations of “cylinder hand trucks” similar to 

the CP welding carts, such trucks were, in effect, incorporated 

into the scope of the antidumping order. See id. at 3-4. 

Commerce responded by granting CP’s request. See Final 

Scope Ruling for Central Purchasing, LLC’s Two Models of Welding 

Carts (Feb. 15, 2006). In its scope ruling, Commerce explained 

its rationale: 

From the description and pictures Central Purchasing 

provided, the welding carts do not have a toe plate 

that could slide under a load, an essential 

characteristic as described in the scope of this 

order. Generally, a toe plate is positioned on the 

hand truck perpendicular to the vertical frame and 

flush with the ground to facilitate movement of an 

object onto the cart. The projected edges on the 

welding carts rise at least a half inch above the 

ground. At this height the projected edges on these 

welding carts are not able to slide under a load. In 

addition, the toe plates are supported by two bars 

that restrict the width of objects that can be loaded 

and carried on the carts. Thus, the welding carts 

possess only two of the three key physical 

characteristics as the subject hand trucks defined in 

the scope of the order. Therefore, we determine that 

the welding carts do not possess all of the 

characteristics of a hand truck as described in the 

scope of this order. 

Id. at 5 (citation omitted). In response to Gleason’s third 

argument, Commerce found that “the written description, not the 

pictures, is dispositive of what is included in the scope of the 

order.” Id. Though it acknowledged the importance of pictorial 

representations during the administrative investigation, 
Court No. 06-0089 Page 6

Commerce claimed that they were ultimately assistive and 

illustrative, and that the verbal description controlled. See

id. at 5-6. 

Gleason then timely commenced an action pursuant to 19 

U.S.C. § 1516a, seeking to challenge Commerce’s scope ruling. 

Gleason filed a motion for judgment on the agency record on 

August 25, 2006. Three months later, Commerce shifted gears, 

and requested a voluntary remand so as to “reconsider its 

previous position in light of arguments made by plaintiffs . . . 

.” Def.’s Resp. Pl.’s Mot. J. Agency R. and Req. Vol. Remand 1 

(“Def.’s Mot.”). In its reply brief, Gleason has consented to 

the voluntary remand. CP, however, objects not only to 

Gleason’s motion for judgment on the agency record, but also to 

Commerce’s remand request. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Where an agency requests remand without confessing error in 

order to reconsider its previous position, “the reviewing court 

has discretion over whether to remand.” SKF USA, Inc. v. United 

States, 254 F.3d 1022, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also

Shakeproof Assembly Components Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. 

United States, 29 CIT ___, ___, 412 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1335 

(2005). “The SKF court further noted that remand is generally 

appropriate ‘if the agency’s concern is substantial and 

legitimate[,]’ but may be refused ‘if the agency’s request is 
Court No. 06-0089 Page 7

frivolous or in bad faith.’” Shakeproof, 29 CIT at ___, 412 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1335 (quoting SKF, 254 F.3d at 1029). A reviewing 

court’s function is to screen out those frivolous and bad faith 

remand requests that compromise litigants’ legitimate concerns 

for finality. See Corus Staal, BV v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 27 

CIT 388, 391, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1257 (2003) (suggesting that 

“merely a change in policy” will not justify a voluntary remand 

over an interested party’s objection). When, however, the 

agency requests remand to correct a mistake or address some 

other substantial and legitimate concern, it is far more 

sensible for a court to defer to the agency whose expertise, 

after all, consists of administering the statute. 

III. DISCUSSION

It is first necessary to establish why Commerce is 

acquiescing to remand. In its motion seeking voluntary remand, 

Commerce “respectfully request[s] that the Court issue the 

attached order granting Commerce a voluntary remand to allow it 

to reconsider its determination.” Def.’s Mot. 4. According to 

Commerce, such reconsideration is necessary because “Gleason has 

elaborated upon certain arguments and raises issues that should 

be further reviewed by the agency.” Id. Specifically, Commerce 

claims that two issues require reconsideration: (1) whether the 

CP welding carts have a projecting edge that easily slides under 

a load; and (2) whether CP’s welding carts are “cylinder hand 
Court No. 06-0089 Page 8

trucks,” which are specifically included within the scope of the 

order. Id. 5-6. 

As for the projecting edge of the CP welding carts, 

Commerce was impressed by Gleason’s explanation in its scope 

request of how the carts’ projecting edges can slide under a 

load despite not being flush with the ground. Id. 5. In 

particular, Commerce cited Gleason’s claim that the half-inch 

elevation of the toe plate “can actually ‘assist individuals as 

they slide the toe plate of a hand truck under a cylinder 

especially where the bottom surface of the cylinder is curved.’” 

Def.’s Mot. 6 (quoting Pl.’s Mot. J. Agency R. 12). Thus, 

Commerce’s first reason is to engage in a more searching 

examination of the role played by the elevated toe plate. 

Regarding the inclusion of the pictorial representation of 

cylinder hand trucks, Commerce seeks leave to explore further 

Gleason’s argument that the carts represented in the pictorial 

exhibits are examples of “cylinder hand trucks,” which are 

specifically referenced in the scope description of the 

underlying antidumping duty order. Id. 7 (citing Antidumping 

Duty Order, 69 Fed. Reg. at 70122). 

In response to Commerce’s first reason, CP contends that 

the Vertex International, Inc. v. United States decision 

forecloses any further consideration of the applicability vel 

non of the antidumping duty order to the CP welding carts. See
Court No. 06-0089 Page 9

Def.-Int.’s Mem. Opp. Def.’s Req. Vol. Remand and Pl.’s Mot. J. 

Agency R. 12-14. In response to Commerce’s second reason, CP 

argues that the inclusion of “cylinder hand trucks” as an 

example of a hand truck within the scope of the antidumping 

order is “meaningless,” and that the Court should focus 

exclusively on the “three essential elements” of a hand truck. 

Id. 15. 

Commerce is entitled to a remand on both grounds because 

the concerns raised are substantial and legitimate, and free 

from any semblance of bad faith. The Vertex International court 

was faced with a similar question to that posed in this 

litigation: whether a variety of cart could slide under a load. 

See Vertex Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT ___, ___, Slip 

Op. 06-10 at 10-12 (Jan. 19, 2006). The Vertex International

court found that the Antidumping Duty Order did not apply to a 

specific variety of garden carts. Id. at 12. The projecting 

edge of that garden cart was made of round steel wire. Id. 

Significantly, the operation instructions for the garden carts 

warned that pushing the cart could damage the product or even 

cause bodily injury to the operator. Id. at 11. Since the toe 

plates of the hand trucks covered by the antidumping duty order 

had to be pushed in order to slide under a load, see Antidumping 

Duty Order, 69 Fed. Reg. at 70122, the garden carts fell outside 
Court No. 06-0089 Page 10

the order’s scope. See Vertex Int’l, 30 CIT at ___, Slip Op. 

06-10 at 12-14. 

CP’s reliance on Vertex International is misplaced. CP’s 

welding carts are drastically different than the Vertex 

International plaintiff’s garden carts. Vertex International

does focus the attention of the agency and reviewing courts on 

the requirement that a hand truck must be able to slide under a 

load in order to fall within the purview of the Antidumping Duty 

Order, but it does not purport to answer that question for any 

product other than the garden cart at issue in the case. Vertex 

International frames the issue for this Court, but it hardly 

decides it. In this case, Commerce seeks remand to conduct a 

more searching factual examination of whether the elevated toe 

plates of the CP welding carts help to slide the carts under 

loads. In other words, Commerce is seeking leave to conduct 

precisely the sort of inquiry that the Vertex International

decision demands. 

CP’s second argument is equally unavailing. It is of 

course true that the explicit terms of the Antidumping Duty 

Order must control the agency’s subsequent decisions in scope 

rulings. See Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 

1087, 1096-97 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Commerce’s remand request in no 

way controverts that plain principle. Instead, Commerce is 

seeking to determine if the CP welding carts are 
Court No. 06-0089 Page 11

”cylinder hand trucks.” The designation is crucial to a 

complete and correct resolution to the scope litigation in this 

case because the Antidumping Duty Order specifically lists 

“cylinder hand truck” as a name “commonly used to reference hand 

trucks.” Antidumping Duty Order, 69 Fed. Reg. at 70122. As 

such, if Commerce makes the factual finding that the CP welding 

carts are cylinder hand trucks, then the Antidumping Duty 

Order’s express terms may require an assessment of antidumping 

duties on those carts. Gleason itself did not clearly express 

this argument at the administrative level, and it persuaded 

Commerce only after presenting a more compelling argument in its 

Rule 56.2 brief. Compare Gleason Letter at 3-4 (arguing 

pictorial exhibits to petition necessarily formed part of the 

order’s scope) with Pl.’s Mot. J. Agency R. 14-16 (arguing that 

“the pictorial exhibits that form part of the petition impart 

material substance to the written scope description, 

specifically what is meant by the term ‘cylinder hand truck’”). 

Reconsidering that designation is a substantial and legitimate 

concern that the agency should be permitted to make on its own 

before the judiciary passes its judgment on the matter. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Because Commerce’s request for a voluntary remand aims to 

address substantial and legitimate concerns, and because there 

are no indicia of bad faith, the Court will grant Commerce’s 
Court No. 06-0089 Page 12

motion. In light of the remand, Gleason’s motion for judgment 

on the agency record is denied as moot. 

 /s/ Richard W. Goldberg__

 Richard W. Goldberg 

 Senior Judge 

Dated: March 16, 2007 

 New York, New York 
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

GLEASON INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, 

INC., and PRECISION PRODUCTS, 

INC., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant, 

 and 

CENTRAL PURCHASING, LLC, 

 Defendant-

 Intervenor. 

 

Before: Richard W. Goldberg, 

 Senior Judge 

 

Court No. 06-00089 

 

ORDER

 Upon consideration of defendant’s partial consent motion 

for voluntary remand and all other pertinent papers, and upon 

due deliberation, it is hereby 

ORDERED that defendant’s motion is GRANTED; and it is 

further 

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the agency 

record is DENIED as moot; and it is further 

ORDERED that this case is remanded to defendant for 

reconsideration of (1) whether CP’s welding carts have a 

projecting edge that easily slides under a load and (2) whether 

welding carts are specifically included within the scope of the 

order due to the mention of “cylinder hand trucks”; and it is 

further 

ORDERED that defendant shall file its remand results with 

the Court by June 14, 2007; and it is further 

ORDERED that parties shall have until July 16, 2007 to file 

comments on the remand results; and it is further 
 

ORDERED that parties shall have until July 31, 2007 to file 

any responses to the comments. 

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Richard W. Goldberg 

 Richard W. Goldberg 

 Senior Judge 

Date: March 16, 2007 

 New York, New York