IKEA Supply AG v. United States , 2017 CIT 8 ( 2017 )

Slip Op. 17-8
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
IKEA SUPPLY AG,
Plaintiff,
Before: Richard W. Goldberg, Senior Judge
v. Court No. 15-00153
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS
FAIR TRADE COMMITTEE,
Defendant-Intervenor.
OPINION AND ORDER
[Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.]
Dated: January 31, 2017
Kristen S. Smith, Arthur K. Purcell, Mark R. Ludwikowski, and Michelle L. Mejia,
Sandler Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., of Washington, DC, for plaintiff.
Douglas G. Edelschick, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With him on the brief were
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director,
and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was James H. Ahrens II,
Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
Alan H. Price, Robert E. DeFrancesco, III, and Derick G. Holt, Wiley Rein LLP, of
Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor.
Goldberg, Senior Judge: On July 5, 2016, this court sustained the determination of the
U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that the scopes of two antidumping and
countervailing duty orders (“the Orders”) include towel racks imported by Plaintiff IKEA Supply
Court No. 15-00153 Page 2
AG (“IKEA”). See IKEA Supply AG v. United States, 40 CIT , 180 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (2016).
On August 4, 2016, IKEA invoked USCIT Rule 59 in moving for reconsideration of IKEA
Supply. Pl. Mot. for Reconsideration of J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 37; Br. in Supp. of Pl.
Mot. for Reconsideration of J. on Agency R., ECF No. 37-1 (“IKEA Br.”). On October 31,
2016, Defendant United States (“the Government”) filed a response in opposition to IKEA’s
motion for reconsideration. Def. Resp. to Pl. Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 45 (“Gov’t
Resp.”). Defendant-Intervenor Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee joined the
Government’s opposition to IKEA’s motion. Def.-Intervenor Resp. to Pl. Mot. for
Reconsideration, ECF No. 46. The court presumes familiarity with the prior proceeding and
IKEA Supply and, for the reasons set forth below, denies IKEA’s motion for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
On January 16, 2014, IKEA requested a scope ruling from Commerce concerning two of
its imported towel racks, which IKEA argued “fall outside the scope of the antidumping and
countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic of China.” IKEA
Letter to Commerce Requesting Scope Ruling 1–2, PD 1 (Jan. 16, 2014) (“IKEA Letter”). IKEA
attached pictures of the two racks to the scope ruling request. IKEA Letter attach. 2.
In its Final Scope Ruling, Commerce described the two IKEA towel racks at issue and
determined that the Orders cover the two towel racks. Commerce explained that the “Model
44640484 towel rack is comprised of an extruded aluminum rack and two steel brackets,” which
constitute fasteners. Final Scope Ruling 12, PD 39 (Apr. 28, 2015). Commerce explained that
the other towel rack, “Model 14639284[,] is comprised of a series 6 aluminum extrusion and a
plastic gasket.” Final Scope Ruling 2. Put differently, Commerce found “that the Model
14639284 towel rack consists of an aluminum extrusion . . . and a fastener (i.e., a plastic
Court No. 15-00153 Page 3
gasket).” Final Scope Ruling 12. In short, Commerce found that each towel rack includes an
aluminum extrusion and fasteners, and does not include any “non-aluminum extrusions beyond
fasteners.” Final Scope Ruling 11–13 (“[T]he IKEA towel racks at issue contain only one piece
of extruded aluminum, aside from fasteners (i.e., plastic gaskets or steel brackets.)”). At the
administrative level, IKEA never disputed the list of parts in the description.
In its motion for judgment on the agency record before this court, IKEA described its
towel racks as “manufactured from aluminum extrusions as a final, finished product ready for
immediate retail sale and use. The towel racks are packaged with all parts necessary for their
installation, including, depending on the model, a plastic gasket or two steel brackets.” Mem. in
Supp. of Pl. Mot. for J. on Agency R. 3, ECF No. 30-1 (citations omitted). IKEA also explained
that “the towel racks simply need to be taken out of the package to be used for their intended use;
no further manufacturing or finishing is necessary. The towel racks include a plastic fastener or
steel brackets and have aluminum extrusions as parts.” Id. at 8 (citation omitted). In summary,
according to IKEA, the subject goods are a “combination of parts—the towel rack and a plastic
gasket or steel brackets.” Id. at 15.
In the Government’s response to IKEA’s motion for judgment on the agency record, it
stated that “Commerce made several important factual findings in the Scope Ruling. Commerce
found that IKEA’s towel racks consist only of a single piece of extruded aluminum along with
one plastic gasket or two steel brackets that are used to hold the towel rack in place.” Def. Resp.
to Pl. Mot. for J. on Agency R. 7, ECF No. 32 (citation omitted). The Government declared that
“[t]here is no dispute that IKEA’s towel racks consist of a single piece of extruded aluminum,
along with one plastic gasket or two steel brackets, which are used to affix the towel rack to a
wall.” Id. at 8. IKEA never disputed the Government’s description until after IKEA Supply.
Court No. 15-00153 Page 4
After IKEA Supply, IKEA moved for reconsideration, citing two alleged problems with
the court’s opinion. First, IKEA argues that the court predicated IKEA Supply on an incorrect
description of its towel racks, making the opinion incorrect. IKEA Br. 2–4. IKEA claims that
Model 14639284 “is comprised of a steel bar and four permanently attached hooks” that are
“fabricated and assembled onto the bar after the extrusion process of the single bar.” IKEA Br.
3. IKEA Supply failed to consider these hooks. IKEA claims that Model 44640484 “is
comprised of five parts: a steel bar, two end caps and two steel disks.” IKEA Br. 3. IKEA
Supply likewise failed to consider all these parts. Second, IKEA argues that an opinion from this
court in a different case, issued after IKEA Supply, constitutes an intervening change in
controlling law that requires reconsideration of IKEA Supply. IKEA Br. 8–9.
DISCUSSION
This court has discretion to grant or to deny a motion for reconsideration. “The major
grounds justifying a grant of a motion to reconsider a judgment are an intervening change in the
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, the need to correct a clear factual or legal error,
or the need to prevent manifest injustice.” Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 30 CIT 1587, 1588
(2006). However, “[t]he purpose of a rehearing is not to relitigate the case.” Asociacion
Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 22 CIT 724, 725, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1116,
1118 (1998). Rather, the purpose is “to direct the Court’s attention to some material matter of
law or fact which it has overlooked in deciding a case, and which, had it been given
consideration, would probably have brought about a different result.” Target Stores, Div. of
Target Corp. v. United States, 31 CIT 154, 159, 471 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1349 (2007) (citation
omitted). Moreover, “arguments raised for the first time on rehearing are not properly before the
court for consideration when prior opportunity existed . . . for the moving party to have
Court No. 15-00153 Page 5
adequately made its position known.” United States v. Matthews, 32 CIT 1087, 1089, 580 F.
Supp. 2d 1347, 1349 (2008) (citation omitted).
As explained above, IKEA maintains (1) that “an inaccurate description” of IKEA’s
towel racks caused this court to incorrectly sustain Commerce’s scope ruling, IKEA Br. 3–8, and
(2) that a “recent decision of this court is inconsistent with” IKEA Supply, IKEA Br. 8. In other
words, IKEA insists that reconsideration is justified on the following grounds: “the need to
correct a clear factual or legal error,” “an intervening change in the controlling law,” and the
“need to prevent manifest injustice.” Ford Motor, 30 CIT at 1588. But there was no error, no
change in controlling law and, as a result, no manifest injustice.
Admittedly, IKEA Supply did not consider the two end caps, the two steel disks, and the
four permanently attached hooks discussed above. Even so, this was not error. The two end
caps, the two steel disks, and the four hooks were not part of the description of the towel racks.
Until the motion under review, neither Commerce, the Government, nor IKEA included either
the caps, the disks, or the hooks in the description of the towel racks. IKEA could have
challenged the accuracy of the towel rack description that Commerce used if IKEA believed that
it could prevail under a towel rack description that, contrary to the description used, included the
caps, disks, and hooks. Yet IKEA raised no such challenges concerning the new parts at either
the administrative level or before this court. The exhaustion doctrine precludes IKEA from
raising any challenges to the description now for the first time, and IKEA’s initial failure to raise
the issue before this court likely also amounts to a waiver of any challenge in a motion for
reconsideration. 1 As a result, the court committed no error in not acknowledging these new parts
in IKEA Supply.
1
The “exhaustion doctrine requires a party to present its claims to the relevant administrative agency for
the agency’s consideration before raising these claims to the Court.” Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States, 39 CIT
Court No. 15-00153 Page 6
IKEA’s second argument regarding an intervening change in controlling law is similarly
unconvincing. IKEA cites Meridian Products, LLC v. United States, 40 CIT , 180 F. Supp. 3d
1283 (2016), as an intervening change in controlling law. However, Meridian is not an
intervening change in controlling law. See Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 865 F.2d 240,
243 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (explaining that an opinion from a judge on this court does not bind the
other judges on this court). For that reason, IKEA’s second basis for requesting reconsideration
also fails, regardless of whether Meridian contradicted IKEA Supply. 2
Accordingly, because IKEA provides no adequate basis for reconsideration, it is hereby
ORDERED that IKEA’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
/s/ Richard W. Goldberg
Richard W. Goldberg
Senior Judge
Dated: January 31, 2017
New York, New York
, , 77 F. Supp. 3d 1307, 1312 (2015) (citation omitted). The reason is simple: “[C]ourts should not topple over
administrative decisions unless the administrative body not only has erred but has erred against objection made at
the time appropriate under its practice.” United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33, 37 (1952).
Accordingly, the exhaustion doctrine furthers two interests: “It allows the administrative agency to perform the
functions within its area of special competence (to develop the factual record and apply its expertise), and—at the
same time—it promotes judicial efficiency and conserves judicial resources, by affording the agency the opportunity
to rectify its own mistakes (and thus to moot controversy and obviate the need for judicial intervention).” Ta Chen
Stainless Steel Pipe, Ltd. v. United States, 28 CIT 627, 644, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1191, 1206 (2004).
Here, IKEA’s failure to raise issues deprived Commerce of the ability to develop the factual record and to
apply its expertise to the developed record. Exhaustion doctrine exists to address precisely this scenario. Further,
no exhaustion exceptions apply here.
2
IKEA raised additional arguments all predicated on the new product description discussed above.
However, IKEA failed to exhaust its administrative remedies on the new product description. Because IKEA
premised the additional arguments on this non-exhausted product description, the court likewise declines to consider
the additional arguments.