Slip-Op. 09-122 UNI TED STATES COURT OF I NTERNATI ONAL

TRADE

____________________________________ : W A LG R E EN C O

. O F D E E RF IE LD , IL, : : Plaintiff, : : v . : : UN I TE D ST AT ES, : : Be fo re : J u d i thM

. Barz i l ay , J u d ge Def endant, : Court No. 08-00372 : an d : : SEAMAN PAPER C OMPANY OF : MASSACHUSETTS , I

NC., :

: Def endant- Interve nor. : ____________________________________: OPI NI ON [P laintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Ag ency Record is de nied.] Dated: Oc tober 28, 2009 Br y an Cav eLLP

( J os e ph H. He c k

e nd or n ), for the Plaintiff. Ton yW est , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Jeanne

E. Davidson , D ir e c tor ; Re gin ald T. Blad es, J r. , Assistant Director , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Jus tice (

L. M ish a Pre he im ); Scott McBride , Senior Attorney , U.S. Depar tment of Commerce , fo r t he De fe nd ant. Barzilay, Judge: Plaintiff Walgre en Company of De erf ield, I L(“Walg ree n” or “Plaintiff”) moves pursuant to USCI T Rule 56.2 for judg ment on the ag ency rec ord, cha lleng ing the U.S. Depa

rtment of Commerce ’s (“ Depa rtment” or “ Commerce” ) September 19, 2008 scope ruling , which found that the tissue paper within W alg ree n’s g ift bagsets falls within the scope of the antidumping duty

order cover ing c erta in tissue paper pr oducts from the People ’s Republic ofCourt No. 08- 00372 P age 2

Def endant- Interve nor withdrew from this action on Jul y

16, 2009. 1 China (“PRC”). See Final Scope Ruling: Antidumping Duty Orde r on Certain T issue Paper 1 from the People’

s Republic of China , A -5 70 -8 94 , D e f. B r. Ap p. Ex. 1 (D e p’ t Co mme rc e Se pt. 19, 2008) (“ Scope R uling ” ); Not ic eof A me nd e d F ina l D e te rm ina tio n o

f Sa le s a t Le ss T ha n F air Va luean d A nti du mp ing

Du ty Or de r: Ce rta in T

iss uePa pe r Pro du c ts f

ro m t hePe op le ’s Re

pu bli c of China , 70 Fe d. Reg . 16,223 (De p’t Commerce Mar. 30, 2005) (“ Amende d Final Order ”). Specifica lly , Walgr een c ontests the Depa rtment’s findingthat the tissue paper within the gif

t bag sets unambiguously

falls within the scope of

the Amende d Final Order and the De partment’s conseque nt decision not to employ the cr iteria listed in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)( 2) in its analy sis. SeePl. B r. 2. B e c a

us e the tis su e pa

pe r c omp on e nt o f P la int if f’ s g if t ba gse ts f

a lls un ambi guo us ly within the scope of the Amende d Final Order , Plaintiff’s motion is denied. I. Bac kgr ound On Fe bruar

y 17, 2004, domestic manufa cture rs of tissue pape r produc ts filed an antidumping pe tition wit h respe ct to, inte r a lia , c e rt a in t iss ue pa pe r p ro du c ts f

ro m th e PRC w ith Commerce a

nd the U.S. International Trade Commi ssion (“I TC”). See Noticeof Initiati on of Antidumping Duty Inve

stigati ons: Certain Tis sue Paper Produc ts and Certain C repe Pape r Products from the People ’s Republic of China , 69 Fe d. Reg . 12,128, 12,128 (De p’t Commerce Mar. 15, 2004) (“

Notice of Inve

stigati ons Initiation ”). Commerc e commenc ed its investigation

near ly one month later a

nd there afte r published its preliminary deter mination that certa in tissue pa pe r p ro du c ts f

ro m th e PRC w e re be ing , o r l ike ly to b e , s old

in t he Un ite d St ate s at le ss t

ha n f a ir value. Id. ; Certain Tissue Paper Produc ts and Certain C repe Pape r Products from the People’ s Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary De terminations of Sales at L ess Than Fair Value,Court No. 08- 00372 P age 3

Affirmative Preliminary De termination of Cr itical Ci rcumstance s and Postponement of Final De te rm ina tio n fo r Ce rta in T iss uePa pe r Pro du c ts , 6 9 F e d. Re g . 5 6, 40 7 ( De p’ t Co mme rc e Se pt. 21, 2004) (“

Preliminary De termination ”). It finalized that determination almost five months later. Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less T han Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People ’s Republic of China , 70 Fe d. Reg . 7475 (De p’t Commerce Fe b. 14, 2005) (“ Final Determination ”). The Depa rtment amende d the Final Determination on Marc h 30, 2005. Amende d Final Order , 70 Fe d. Reg . 16,223. On Fe bruar

y 5, 2008, Plaintiff reque sted a scope rulingpursuant to § 351.225(c ) on whether the tissue paper

in its gift bagsets falls within the scope of the Amende d Final Order

. See Letter from Katt en Muc hin Rosenman LLP to Sec’y of Commerce , Pl. Br. App. Ta b 1 at 1-11 (F e b. 5, 20 08 ). In it s p e tit ion , Pl a int if f d e sc ri be d it s g if

t ba gse ts a s f

oll ow s: I t e m N o . 6 4 7 1 5 1 , ( Ex hi bi tA ) , whi c h i s c o m pr is e d o f: – 1 Pe tit e Gi ft

B a gwi th G if

t Ca rd , ( 4. 37 5" X 2 .5 " X 5 .7 5" ), 76 % o f t ota l c os t. – 1 Cr ink le B ow , 1 7% of tot a l c os t. – 1 Sheet of Colored Tissue Pape r, (20" X 24" ), 14 Gra ms per Sq. Meter, 7% of tot a l c os t. I t e m N o . 5 8 8 1 5 0 , ( Ex hi bi tB) , whi c h i s c o m pr is e d o f: – 1 Wine Tote Gift Ba gwith Gift Card, (5.25" X 4.25" X 13.625" ), 73% of total c os t. – 1 Cr ink le B ow , 2 1% of tot a l c os t. – 2 Sheets of Colored Tissue Pape r, (20" X 24" ), 14 Gra ms per Sq. Meter, 6% of tot a l c os t. I t e m N o . 6 4 7 1 5 2 , ( Ex hi bi tC ) , whi c h i s c o m pr is e d o f: – 1 Cub Gi ft

B a gwi th G if

t Ca rd , ( 7. 5" X 4 .5 " X 9 .8 75 " ), 71 % o f t ota l c os t. – 1 Cr ink le B ow , 2 1% of tot a l c os t. – 3 Sheets of Colored Tissue Pape r, (20" X 24" ), 14 Gra ms per Sq. Meter, 8% of tot a l c os t.Court No. 08- 00372 P age 4

I t e m N o . 6 4 7 1 5 3 , ( Ex hi bi tD ) , whi c h i s c o m pr is e d o f: – 1 L arg e Gi ft

B a gwi th G if

t Ca rd , ( 10 " X 4 .5 " X 1 2. 75 " ), 73 % o f t ota l c os t. – 1 Cr ink le B ow , 1 8% of tot a l c os t. – 4 Sheets of Colored Tissue Pape r, (20" X 24" ), 14 Gra ms per Sq. Meter, 9% of tot a l c os t. I t e m N o . 5 9 1 1 6 6 , ( Ex hi bi tE) , whi c h i s c o m pr is e d o f: – 1 Jumbo Gi ft

B a gwi th G if

t Ca rd , ( 12 .7 5" X 7 " X 1 6" ), 74 % o f t ota l c os t. – 1 Cr ink le B ow , 1 5% of tot a l c os t. – 6 Sheets of Colored Tissue Pape r, (20" X 24" ), 14 Gra ms per Sq. Meter, 11% of tot a l c os t. Pl. B r. Ap p. Ta

b 1 at 2. Pla int if

f r e a so ne d th at th e tis su e pa pe r i n it s g if

t ba gse ts d oe s n ot f

a ll within the scope of the Amende d Final Order beca use the tissue pape r for

ms a minor component of the sets. See Sc ope Ruling at 10. On September 19, 2008, the Depa

rtment issued its ruling and found that, pursuant to § 351.225(k)( 1), the scope of the Amende d Final Order encompa sses the tissue paper

in the g ift bagsets. Id. Spe c if ic a lly , Co mme rc e de te rm ine d th at th e g if t ba gse ts

are not “unique item[s] composed of dif fer ent component piec es,” but mer ely consist of subject and non-subjec t mercha

ndise pac kag ed tog ether

for sa le. Id. at 11. Fur

ther, be cause the Preliminary De termination and the issues a nd decision memora

ndum acc ompanying the Final Determ ination state that tissue pape r re mains subject to the Amende d Final Order when packa g ed with non-subjec t mercha ndise, the De partment c oncluded that Plaintiff’s tissue pape r unambiguously

lies within the order’ s scope. See id. ; Issues and De cision Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Inve

stigati on of Certain T

issue Paper Products from the Pe ople’s Re public of China , A-570-894 ( Dep’ t Comm erc e F eb. 3, 2005) ( “ Issues and De cision Memorandum ”), at 5- 6, av ail ab leat htt

p:/ /ia .it a .d oc .g ov/f

rn /summa ry /pr c /E 5- 59 5- 1. pd f. Pla int if f n owc onte sts the seCourt No. 08- 00372 P age 5

In its briefs, Plaintiff asser ts that Comm erc e found that its gift bagsets fall in the scope 2 of the a ntidumping duty

order

. See, e .g. , Pl. Br. 1-2. The rec ord, howe ver, c lear ly demonstrates that only the tissue paper

within the sets lies within t he orde r’s scope

. Scope R uling at 1. Th is means no a

ntidumping duties should be imposed on the value of the c omponents other than tissue paper

. See Def

. Br . 13. fi nd ing s. 2 II. Jurisd iction & Standard of Review Plaintiff bring s this action pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a) (2)( B) (vi), and the Court has jur isd ic tio n p ur su ant t o 2 8 U .S. C. § 15 81 (c ). Th is C ourt g ra nts “ signif

ic ant d e fe re nc e ” to Commerce’ s scope r

ulings, Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. United States , Sl ip

. O p . 0 8

- 7 9 , 2 0 0 8 WL 27 64 98 2, at *2 (C I T July 16 , 2 00 8) (q

uo tatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) , a

nd wi ll u ph old a ru lin gun le ss i t is “unsupported by

substantial evidence on the re cord, or otherwise not in ac corda nce w ith law.” § 1516a(b) (1)( B) (i). Substantial evidenc e on the r ecor d constitutes “less than a pr eponder ance , but more than a

scintilla.” Novosteel SA v . United States , 25 CI T 2, 6, 128 F. Supp. 2d 720, 725 (2001) ( quotation marks & citation omitted), aff’d , 284 F.3d 1261 ( Fe d. Cir. 2002). It is “such rele vant evidenc e as a

rea sonable mind might a cce pt as ade quate to support a c onclusion” in light of the e ntire re cord, inc luding “ whateve r fa irly detra cts from the substantiality of the e vidence .” Atl. Sugar, Ltd. v. United States , 744 F.2d 1556, 1562 ( Fe d. Cir. 1984) (quotation marks omi tte d) ; see Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States , 483 F.3d 1358, 1361 ( Fe d. Cir. 2007). That the c ourt may drawtwo inconsistent conclusions from the e vidence does not prec lude Commerce ’s rulingfrom beingsupported by substantial evidence

. Novosteel SA , 25 CI T at 12, 128 F . Supp. 2d at 730. L ikewise, the c ourt will find a scope rulingnot in accor danceCourt No. 08- 00372 P age 6

with law if the ruling“cha ng es the scope of an or der or interpre ts an order

in a manner

contra ry to the order ’s terms.” Allegheny Bradford Corp. v. United States , 28 CI T 830, 842, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1183 (2004). III. Discussion A. Applicabl e Law Be cause the Depa

rtment nec essar ily

must couch the de scriptions of merc handise subjec t to i ts a nti dumpi ngde te rm inatio ns in g e ne ra l te rm s, the Court e mpl oy s inte rp re tiv e ru le s to resolve disputes ove r a de termination’s scope

. Id. at 84 2- 43 , 3 42 F . Su pp . 2 d at 11 83 -8 4; see § 351.225(a) . First, the c ourt examines “[t] he desc riptions of the merc handise c ontained in the petition, the initi al investig ation, and the de terminations of [Com merc e] (including pr ior scope deter minations) and the [I TC] .” § 351.225(k) (1). Amongthese doc uments, howeve r, the languag e in the antidumpingorder rema ins paramount. See Duferco Ste el, Inc . v. United States , 29 6 F .3 d 1 08 7, 10 97 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 2) ; Toys “R” Us, Inc. , 2 00 8 WL 27 64 98 2, at *4 ; Allegheny Bradford Corp. , 28 CI T at 843, 342 F . Supp. 2d at 1184 (“The languag e of a n order is the ‘cor nerstone’ of a c ourt’s ana ly sis of an orde r’s scope .”). I f these c riteria a re not dispositive, the court then turns to the f

actor s listed in § 351.225(k)(2): “( i) The phy sical cha rac teristics of the pr od uc t; ( ii) Th e e xpe c tatio ns of the ult imate purc ha se rs ; ( iii ) T he ult imate us e of the pr od uc t; (iv) The channe ls of trade in which the produc t is sold; and (v) The manne r in which the pr oduct is a dv e rt ise d a

nd dis pla y e d. ” § 3 52 .2 25 (k)( 2) ; accord Crawfish Processors Alliance , 483 F.3d at 1362. These f

actor s permit the cour

t to determine whe ther a

product is “suff

iciently simil ar a sCourt No. 08- 00372 P age 7

me rc ha nd ise un ambi guo us ly

wi thi n th e sc op e of

an o rd e r a s to c on c lud e the tw o a re me rc ha nd ise of the same class or kind.” Novosteel SA , 25 CI T at 15, 128 F . Supp. 2d at 732 (quotation marks & c itation omit ted). Th e ini tia l pe tit ion

re fe rr e d to the su

bje c t me rc ha

nd ise a s: The tissue pape r produc ts subject to this i nvestig ation are produce d from pape r havinga basis we ight less than 29 grams per square meter. Tissue pa

per pr oducts subject to this investigation may or may not be bleac hed, dye-c olored, surf ace -colore d, g lazed, surfa ce de c or ate d o r p ri nte d, se qu ine d, c ri nk le d, e mbo sse d, and /or die -c ut. The tissue pape r subject to this investigation is i n the form of cut-to-length sheets of tissue pape r with a width equa l to or g reater than one- half (0.5) inch and a leng th not ex cee ding 25 f eet. Subject tissue paper

may be rolled, f

lat or folded, a

nd may be pac kag ed by bandingor wra

pping w ith paper or

film, by placingin plastic or film bag s, and/or by

placingin box es for

distribution and use by the ult imate c on sume r. Pa c ka g e s o f t iss ue pa pe r s ub je c t to thi s investigation may

consist solely

of tissue pape r of one color a nd/or sty le , o r m ay c onta in m

ult ipl e c olo rs and

/or sty le s. * * * Ex cluded f

rom the scope of this investigation are the following tis su e pa pe r p ro du c ts: (1 ) t iss ue pa pe r p ro du c ts t

hat are c oate d in wax, paraf

fin, or poly

mers for use in flora l and food ser vice applications; (2) tissue pa per pr oducts that have been pe rfor ated, e mbo sse d, or

die -c ut t o th e sh a

pe of a toi le t se at, i .e ., dis po sa

ble sanitary cover s for toilet seats; (3) toilet or fac ial tissue stock, tow e l, o r n a

pk in p a pe r s toc k, pa

pe r o f a kin d u se d f

or ho us e ho ld sanit ary purp os e s, c e llu los e wa dd ing , a nd we bs of c e llu los e fibers.... P l

. Br

. 7 -8 (c i t i n g Antidumping Duty Petition, Certain T issue Paper Products and CrepePaper Products from the People ’s Republic of China (De p’t Commerce Fe b. 17, 2004), at 6-7 ( ellipses in orig inal)). The scope in the Notice of Inve stigati ons Initiation , Preliminary De termination , Final Determination , and Amende d Final Order rema ined identical, e x cept f or the omission of “and a leng th not ex cee ding 25 f eet” and “r olled” in the desc ription – chang es immaterial to theCourt No. 08- 00372 P age 8

The De partment inser

ted this languag e in re sponse to inquires by a PRC company

that 3 sold mercha

ndise pac kag es in the United States conta ining mulber ry paper , mylar film, iridesce nt film, oriented poly

propylene, a

nd cre pe pape r alongwith tissue paper. Se ePre lim ina ry Determ ination , 69 Fe d. Reg . at 56,415. Pla int if f s ug g e sts that a

sc op e c lari fi c atio n r e qu e st b y the pe tit ion e rs wh ic h s ou g ht t o 4 clar ify that the Am e nd

e d F ina l O rd e r a pp lie s to imp or

te d ti ssu e pa

pe r w ith in k its or

se ts demonstrates the ambiguity of the orde r’s scope as applied to Plaintiff’s g ift bagsets. SeePl. Br. 9-10. This argument has no merit. When per formingits analy sis, Com merc e examines only “the petition, the initi al investig ation, and the de terminations of [Com merc e].” § 351.225(k)( 1). Scope cla rification requests have no bear ing on the inquiry . In any event, in see king c larification, Plaintiff expl icitly

argued, inte r a lia , that the desc riptions of the subject mer chandise contained in the petition, the initi al investig ation, and the de terminations of the De partment a nd of the I TC are dispositi ve of this scope clar ification re quest. SeePl. Br. App. Ta b 1 Ex . H at 2. The court ag ree s. prese nt action. Notice of Inve stigati ons Initiation , 6 9 F e d. Re g . at 12 ,1 29 ; Pre lim ina ry Determ ination , 6 9 F e d. Re g . at 56 ,4 10 ; Final Determination , 7 0 F e d. Re g . at 74 76 ; Amende d Final Order , 70 Fe d. Reg . at 16,223-24. In addition, the Preliminary De termination noted that “[p] acka g ing the subject merc handise with non-subjec t mercha ndise does not transf

orm the subject merc handise into merc handise outside the sc ope of the investigation.” 69 Fe d. Reg . at 3 56,415. In the Issues and De cision Memorandum , Commerce a lso stated that “all subjec t

me rc ha nd ise – c ut- to- le ng th t iss ue pa pe r – is s ub je c t to thi s p ro c e e din g , whe the r o r n ot i t is so ld or shipped with non-subjec t mercha ndise.” Issues and De cision Memorandum at 5. B. T he P ar ti e s’ Co nt e nt ion s Plaintiff claims that the Am e nd e d F ina l O rd e r does not ac count for “ tissue paper incorpora ted into mix ed media se ts” or “imports of tissue pa per pa ckag es in sets with unrelate d

merc handise,” rende ringthe orde r’s scope ambiguous with respec t to tis sue pape r in g ift bag sets. Pl. Br. 7, 9. Plaintiff dismisses the expl icit languag e of the Preliminary De termination and 4 Issues and De cision Memorandum , which states that tissue pape r re mains under the sc ope of theCourt No. 08- 00372 P age 9

order irrespe ctive of whether

it is packag ed, shipped, or sold with non-subjec t mercha ndise, as non-dispositive beca

use its tissue paper f

orms a “minor or

insignifica

nt component” of

a “unique mix ed media se t[ ],” i.e. the g ift bagset. Pl. Br. 13. In other wor ds, Plainti ff avers that the particula r combination of its tissue paper with the non-subject mer chandise is so unique that the subject tissue pape r does not fa ll within t he scope of the orde r. Pl. Br. 10- 13. Plaintiff argues that the Depa

rtment conseque ntly

should have turne d to § 351.225(k)(2) in the Scope R uling

. SeePl. Br. 9. To bolster its argument, Plaintiff relies upon a stringof Commerce scope de terminations

conce rningcer

tain case d pencils fr om the PRC . For example, in one such scope deter mination, the De pa rtme nt f ound that ot he rw ise un ambi guo us ly

su bje c t pe nc ils , o nc e pla c e d in an a rt kit wi th o the r a

rt su pp lie s, did

no t f a ll unambi guo us ly

wi thi n th e or de r’ s sc op e be c a us e the or de r d id not addre ss “mix ed media” sets. Fi na l Sc op eRu ling – An tid um ping D uty

Or de r o n Ce rta in Cased Penc ils from the People’s Re public of China (PRC) – Reque st by Target Corporat ion , A570-827 (De p’t Commerce Mar. 4, 2005) , Pl. Br. App. Ta b 1 Ex . K at 4. The Depa rtment proce eded to a

pply the § 351.225(k)( 2) criter ia and f ound the penc ils in t he ar t kit to fall outsi de of the orde r’s scope

. Id. at 4-9. Commerc e adhe red to similar re asoningwhen it found that pencils sold as compone nts of compasses did not fa ll unambiguously within the scope of the antidumping or der. Se ege ne ra lly Fi na l Sc op eRu ling –

An tid um ping D uty

Or de r o n Ce rta in Cased Penc ils from the People’s Re public of China (PRC) – Reque st by Fiskars Brands, Inc. , A570-827 (De p’t Commerce J une 3, 2005), Pl. Br . App. Tab 1 Ex. L . Plaintiff believes that the De pa rtme nt s ho uld

have pr ov ide d th e tis su e pa pe r i n it s g if

t ba gse ts w iththe same tr e atme nt.Court No. 08- 00372 P age 10

By contra st, in the Scope R uling , Commerce f ound – and now r easse rts – that the Pe nc ils deter minations are inapplica

ble to the pre sent ca se. It maintains that Pl aintiff’s g ift bagsets do not constitute “unique item[s] composed of dif fer ent component piec es,” but rather a g roupingof ind e pe nd e nt i te ms u se d in the same mann e r t og e the r a s whe n s old se pa rate ly . D e f. B r. 13 . T hu s, Comme rc e be lie ve s th at th e tis su e pa pe r i n g if t ba gse ts m or e c los e ly

pa ra lle ls the fa c t patte rn

in Rec ommendation Me mo – Final Scope Ruling on the Re quest by Tex sport for C larifi cation of the Scope of the A ntidumping Duty Order on Porce lain-on-Steel Cooking W are from the Pe ople’s Republic of China , Def

. Br . App. Tab 2 Ex. J (“ Texsport Mem o ”). Scope R uling at 11. In that

ru lin g , Co mme rc e de te rm ine d th at su bje c t po rc e la in- on -s te e l c oo kw are so ld i n c ampi ngse ts w ith non-subject por cela in-on-stee l mercha ndise rema ined under

the orde r’s scope

. Texsport Mem o at 4. L ike wi se , th e De pa

rtme nt r e a so ne d th at, a lth ou g h th e ite ms w ith in t he c ampi ngse ts w e re so ld toge ther, the non- subject merc handise wa s “a f undamentally

differ ent class or

kind of

merc handise fr om the items addresse d in the investigation” and so should not fall under the order ’s purview

. Id. Comme rc e be lie ve s th at th e su bje c t ti ssu e pa

pe r a nd no n- su bje c t c ri nk le bow and g ift bagsold toge ther in a se t in the present c ase ha ve a similar r elationship. SeeDef

. Br . 13. C. Ana lys is Both pa rties’ a rguments miss t he point. The salient issue be fore the cour t is not whether the Depa rtment should have c hara cter ized the gif t bagsets as compilations of subject and nonsubject merc handise or mixed media sets; it is whether substantial evidenc e in the re cord supports the Scope R uling ’s conc lusion. See A tl. Sugar, L td. , 7 44 F .2 d at 15 62 ; Cra wfis h Processors Alliance , 4 83 F .3 d at 13 61 ; see also Novostee l SA , 25 CI T at 12, 128 F . Supp. 2d atCourt No. 08- 00372 P age 11

730. In light of the languag e of the Amende d Final Order and other rele vant Depa

rtment pu bli c atio ns , Co mme rc e re a so na bly de te rm ine d th at th e tis su e pa pe r i n Pl a int if

f’ s g if t ba gse ts falls within the order ’s scope . Plaintiff’s tissue paper has all of the c hara cter istics of tissue paper set forth in the Amende d Final Order , seePl. B r. Ap p. Ta b 1 at 2- 3, Exs. A- D, and do e s n ot f

a ll within the order’ s enumerated exceptions. See D uferco Stee l, Inc. , 296 F.3d at 1089 (“Scope order s may

be interpr eted a s including subjec t mercha ndise only

if they contain languag e that specific ally

includes the subjec t mercha ndise or may

be re asonably

interpre ted to include it.”). Moreove r, the Preliminary De termination and Issues and De cision Memorandum expli citly note that tissue paper

rema ins within t he AD or der’ s scope e ven if a ccompa nied by non-subject mer chandise

. See Preliminary Dete rmination , 69 F e d. Re g . at 56 ,4 15 ; Issues and Dec ision Memorandum at 5. The Scope R uling mere ly reiter ated this consistent position: “[ T]he Depa rtment deter

mines that tissue paper pa ckag ed tog ether with other g ift bag s and g ift wrap items is not a component of a unique set but merely subject merc handise pa ckag ed with nonsubject merc handise.” Scope R uling at 11. Althoug h Plaintiff believes that its tissue paper more closely rese mbles the merc handise de scribed in the note d pencil dete rminations, Comm erc e

rea sonably

conclude d from the r ecor d that its prior scope r uling on por cela in-on-stee l cookwar e from the PRC provides the best guidance as to whethe r the Amende d Final Order a pp lie s to Plaintiff’s tissue paper . Fr om its own ex amination of the re cord, the court re cognizes that para llels betwee n the tissue paper and penc ils undoubtedly

exis t. Howeve r, substantial evidenc e on the re cord suppor

ts the Depa

rtment’s findingof equa l, or eve n g reater, pa rallels betwe en the tis su e pa pe r a nd po rc e la in- on -s te e l c oo kw are . T he Depa rtme nt f ound that, l ike the c amp s e ts discussed pre viously , the components of the g ift bagsets “could be used indepe ndently of oneCourt No. 08- 00372 P age 12

Be cause the cour

t finds the § 351.225(k)( 1) fa ctors dispositive of whethe r Plaintiff’s 5 tissue paper

lies within the scope of the Amende d Final Order , the cour t need not addr ess the § 351.225(k)( 2) fa ctors. See § 351.225(k). another and at diff

ere nt times” and that the “ tissue paper was a separ ate dutiable c omponent, not a piec e of a

n otherwise unique set.” Id. Commerce, the ref ore, ha s “ar

ticulate[d] a satisfa ctory explanation for its action includinga rational connec tion between the fac ts found and the c hoice made.” Motor VehicleMfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc . v. State Farm M ut. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1 98 3) (q uo tatio n ma

rk s & c itatio n o mitte d) ; ac c or d Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. United States , 16 CI T 133, 136, 787 F. Supp. 224, 227 (1992) . Given the a pplicable standa

rd of r eview, the court c ould not re-we igh this re cord e vidence even if it so desired. See FCC v. Fox Telev ision Stations, Inc. , 129 S. Ct . 1800, 1810 (2009) ( “[A] court is not t o substitut e its judgme nt for that of the a g e nc y

. . . . ” ) ( qu otatio n ma

rk s & int e rn a l c itatio n o mitte d) ; Novosteel SA , 25 CI T at 12, 128 F. Supp. 2d at 730. Rather , it mustsustain any deter mination supported by

“such r eleva

nt

e vid e nc e a s a

re a so na ble min d mi g ht a c c e pt a s a de qu ate to s up po rt a conclusion,” a nd the De pa rtme nt h a s me t th at r e qu ir e me nt. Atl. Sugar, Ltd. , 7 44 F .2 d at 15 62 (e mph a sis a dd e d) ; see 5 also Novosteel SA , 25 CI T at 12, 128 F . Supp. 2d at 730 (noting that administrative deter mination is supported by

substantial evidence even if court c ould draw inc onsistent conclusions from r ecor d).Court No. 08- 00372 P age 13 IV. Conclusion B e c a us e the c ourt

fi nd s th e De pa

rtme nt’ s Scope R uling

supported by

substantial evidence

and oth e rw ise in a c c or da

nc e wi th l aw, Pla int if

f’ s mo tio n f

or jud g me nt o n th e a g e nc y

re c or d is denied.

Dated:__Oc tober 28, 2009______________ /s/ J udith M. Barzil ay

______ Ne w Y o rk , NY J u d ge