OPINION and ORDER
Pogue, Senior Judge:
In this action, Plaintiffs Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co., Ltd. and Yuanda USA Corporation (collectively "Yuanda"); Jango Curtain Wall Americas Co. ("Jangho"); and Permasteelisa North America Corp., Permasteelisa South China Factory, and Permasteelisa Hong Kong Ltd. (collectively "Permasteelisa"), challenge the decision,2 made by Defendant, the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce"), that Yuanda's unitized curtain wall, i.e., a complete curtain wall, unitized and imported in phases pursuant to a sales contract, is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders (the "AD & CVD Orders" or the "Orders") on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China ("PRC").3
Currently before the court are Plaintiffs' renewed motions for judgment on the agency record pursuant to USCIT Rule 56.2, arguing that Commerce's affirmative scope ruling is not in accordance with law, unsupported by substantial evidence, and arbitrary and capricious.4 Defendant opposes Plaintiffs' motions.5 Defendant-Intervenors, Walters & Wolf, Architectural Glass & Aluminum Company, and Bagatelos Architectural Glass Systems, Inc. (collectively the "Curtain Wall Coalition" or "CWC") join in opposition to the motions.6
The court has jurisdiction pursuant to § 516A(a)(2)(B)(vi) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2012).7
Because Commerce's scope ruling redefines key terms contrary to the plain language of the AD & CVD Orders, it is not in accordance with law; because it does not reasonably consider the characteristics of Plaintiffs' merchandise and the evidence that weighs against the agency's determination, it is unsupported by substantial evidence; because it offers insufficient reasons for treating similar products differently, it is arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court remands to Commerce for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.
BACKGROUND
I. The Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Aluminum Extrusions
The issues presented here arise from Commerce's AD & CVD Orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC.8 The AD & CVD Orders followed a March 31, 2010, petition by the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (collectively, "Petitioners"), alleging that "[certain] aluminum extrusions imported from the [PRC] are being subsidized and sold at less than normal value."9 Commerce made final affirmative determinations of subsidization and sales at less than fair value10; the International Trade Commission similarly made a final affirmative determination of material injury to U.S. industry.11 Commerce then issued the AD & CVD Orders.12
II. The Language of the Order
The AD & CVD Orders on aluminum extrusions were "written in general terms,"13 to cover "aluminum extrusions," which are defined as "shapes and forms,14 produced by an extrusion process, made from [certain] aluminum alloys."15 They may have a variety of finishes, "both coatings and surface treatments,"16 and may be "fabricated, i.e., prepared for assembly."17
Aluminum extrusions "described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products" such as "window frames, door frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or furniture," to be "assembled after importation," are subject to the order if such parts "otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions,"18 that is, they are shapes or forms made from the covered aluminum alloys and made by an extrusion process.19 The AD & CVD Orders also cover "aluminum extrusion components that are attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled merchandise."20
The AD & CVD Orders exclude "finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts" so long as such merchandise is "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."21 The AD & CVD Orders also exclude "finished goods containing aluminum extrusions that are entered unassembled in a `finished goods kit.'"22 A finished goods kit is "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."23 Subassemblies may be excluded as well, provided that they enter the United States as part of or as "finished goods" or "finished goods kits."24
III. Interpreting the Scope of an Order
Where, as here, there is a question as to "whether a particular product is included within the scope of an antidumping or countervailing duty order," Commerce follows an interpretive framework, provided in the agency's regulations, to determine the answer.25 First, relying on the description of the product contained in the scope-ruling request, Commerce looks to the plain language of the underlying order.26 If the terms of the order are dispositive, then the order governs.27
Second, if the order is ambiguous, Commerce "consider[s] the regulatory history, as contained in the so-called `(k)(1) materials'" — named for the regulatory subsection in which they appear.28 Specifically, Commerce considers "[t]he descriptions of the merchandise contained in the petition, the initial investigation, and the determinations of [Commerce] (including prior scope determinations) and the [International Trade] Commission."29 If the (k)(1) materials disambiguate the language of the order, then Commerce will issue its scope ruling.30
Third, if the (k)(1) materials "are not dispositive," Commerce will initiate a scope inquiry.31 Specifically, Commerce "will further consider: (i) [t]he physical characteristics of the product; (ii) [t]he expectations of the ultimate purchasers; (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 displayed."32
Commerce's interpretations of its own scope rulings are given "significant deference,"33 however, "Commerce cannot `interpret' an antidumping order so as to change the scope of that order, nor can Commerce interpret an order in a manner contrary to its terms."34
IV. The Scope Ruling on Curtain Wall Units and Other Parts of a Curtain Wall System from the PRC
The Yuanda Scope Ruling challenged in this case is the second scope ruling Commerce has issued relevant to unitized curtain wall.35 Prior to the Yuanda Scope Ruling, on October 11, 2012, Defendant-Intervenors, the CWC, applied for a ruling from Commerce, pursuant 19 C.F.R. § 351.225, to confirm that "parts of curtain wall[s],"36 defined as "curtain wall sections, falling short of the final finished curtain wall that envelopes an entire building structure," including, but not limited to individual curtain wall units (i.e., "unitized... modules that are designed to be interlocked with each other, like pieces of a puzzle").37 Both Yuanda and Jangho submitted comments in opposition.38
In the CWC Scope Ruling, Commerce determined, based on the description of the product in CWC's application,39 that the language of the AD & CVD Orders and the "descriptions of the merchandise in the investigation" are "dispositive": curtain wall parts, as defined in the CWC's Scope Request, fell within the scope of the Orders.40 While Yuanda and Jangho argued that "a complete curtain wall unit" could be excluded from the scope of the AD & CVD Orders under the "finished goods kit" exclusion, Commerce declined to rule on the application of this exclusion because the CWC's scope request "[did] not seek a scope ruling on complete curtain walls units, but rather `parts of curtain walls,' and [its] scope ruling [was] limited to the products discussed in the CWC's Amended Scope Request."41
Yuanda and Jango challenged the CWC Scope Ruling before the Court of International Trade ("CIT"), but the CIT affirmed Commerce's finding that "curtain wall units and other parts of curtain wall systems fall within the scope of the [AD & CVD] Orders."42 The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit, but the Federal Circuit affirmed.43
V. The Scope Ruling on Curtain Wall Units that are Produced and Imported Pursuant to a Contract to Supply Curtain Wall
On March 26, 2013, while Yuanda I was still pending before the CIT, Yuanda filed its own scope ruling request, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.225, to confirm that complete curtain wall units sold "pursuant to [a] contract[] to supply [a] complete curtain wall [system]" were excluded from the scope of the AD & CVD Orders.44 Jangho and Permasteelisa submitted comments in support of Yuanda's application; the CWC submitted comments in opposition.45 Commerce found that "the description of the products [in Yuanda's application] and the scope language, as well as the descriptions of the merchandise in prior scope rulings and determinations of [Commerce] and the [International Trade Commission ("ITC")] [were] dispositive."46 Relying on these sources, Commerce determined that Yuanda's products are subject to the AD & CVD Orders.47
Yuanda, Jangho, and Permasteelisa appealed the ruling to this Court. In their initial motions for summary judgment in this action, Plaintiffs brought attention to the fact that Commerce had not considered the "description of the merchandise contained in the [P]etition,"48 in particular, an exhibit from that Petition that listed "unassembled unitized curtain walls" as non-subject merchandise under the "finished goods kit" exclusion.49 Commerce requested a remand to consider this evidence and argument.50 The court granted the Defendant's motion for voluntary remand.51
In the resulting redetermination, Commerce found that Yuanda's unassembled curtain wall units were within the scope of the AD & CVD Orders unless all necessary parts for an entire curtain wall were present "at the time of importation," i.e., in the same entry, on a single Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") 7501 Entry Summary form.52 Plaintiffs' renewed motions for judgment on the agency record are now before the court.53 On December 10, 2015 the court heard oral argument on Plaintiffs' motions.54
VI. The Product at Issue as Described in Yuanda's Scope Ruling Request
Yuanda requested a scope ruling to confirm that "complete, finished unitized curtain wall units ... sold to building developers, general contractors and/or glazing companies pursuant to contracts to supply them with curtain wall systems," were excluded from the scope of the AD & CVD Orders.55 This product is also referred to as "complete curtain wall units"56 to be assembled into a curtain wall (curtain wall and curtain wall system being used interchangeably) and "unassembled unitized curtain walls."57
A curtain wall, according to Yuanda, is a set of interlocking "curtain wall units that form a non-load bearing wall on a floor or part of a building."58 Each curtain wall unit is "produced to the exacting architectural specifications of the building on which it is to be installed."59 A "`complete and finished' unitized curtain wall unit is produced by fabricating a frame (generally from extruded aluminum), adding to it thermal insulation, filling it (generally with glass), sealing the infill, drilling holes, attaching additional metal or plastics, and shipping to the job site for installation."60
Because "complete curtain wall units form part of a larger curtain wall system specifically designed for a building," unassembled curtain wall units "are sold and delivered to the job site in segments pursuant to the schedule stipulated in the contract to supply the larger system."61 If that system is "for a multi-story skyscraper," then it may require shipments of curtain wall units and installation hardware "over a period of months," with "[e]ach entry dovetail[ing] with the contractor's construction schedule so that complete curtain wall units can be immediately installed onto the building when the container arrives at the job site."62
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court will sustain Commerce's determinations unless they are "unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law."63 The court will set aside agency actions found to be arbitrary and capricious.64
DISCUSSION
I. Individual Curtain Wall Units Are Within the Scope of the AD & CVD Orders as "Parts of ... Curtain Walls"
The AD & CVD Orders on aluminum extrusions cover, as the name indicates, "aluminum extrusions," that is, "shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from [certain] aluminum alloys."65 Aluminum extrusions "described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products" such as "curtain walls," to be "assembled after importation," are subject to the AD & CVD Orders as long as they "otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions."66 "A single [curtain wall] unit" is not a whole "curtain wall," and as such, is a "part" or "subassembly" of a curtain wall.67
At issue here is whether "curtain wall units ... produced and imported pursuant to a contract to supply a complete curtain wall,"68 — may be properly excluded from the scope of the AD & CVD Orders under one of the pertinent exclusions, that is, either as a "finished good" or as a "finished goods kit."69
II. Finished Goods Exclusion
The finished goods exclusion provides that "finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry" are excluded from the scope of the AD & CVD Orders.70
Following the Federal Circuit's statement that a single curtain wall unit is a part for a final finished good (a curtain wall), and therefore not a finished good in and of itself,71 Plaintiffs here withdrew their arguments that a complete, unitized curtain wall imported pursuant to a sales contract was a finished good,72 even though the Federal Circuit's holding was for a different product (i.e., curtain wall parts and individual curtain wall units) than that at issue here,73 and arguably outside the jurisdiction conferred for review of the underlying CWC Scope Ruling.74
III. Finished Goods Kit Exclusion
The AD & CVD Orders provide that "finished goods" that contain aluminum extrusions and are entered "unassembled in a `finished goods kit'" are excluded from the scope of the order.75 A product may be excluded as a finished goods kit if it is "[1] a packaged combination of parts that [2] contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good and [3] requires no further finishing or fabrication, such as cutting or punching, and [4] is assembled `as is' into a finished product."76
Initially, Commerce's analysis of the "finished goods kit" exclusion focused on whether all the parts to assemble a complete downstream product were present "at the time of importation."77 Commerce subsequently "identified a concern with this analysis."78 Namely, if a product was "designed to work with other parts to form a larger structure,"79 or "system,"80 then requiring all of the necessary parts for a final finished good at the time of importation could "lead to unreasonable" or even "absurd results" that unduly "expand the scope of the [AD & CVD Orders]" outside the "intended ... aluminum extrusions."81
"[U]pon further reflection of the language in the scope of the [AD & CVD Orders]," Commerce "revis[ed] the manner in which it determines whether a given product is a `finished good' or `finished goods kit.'"82 Specifically, the AD & CVD Orders expressly exclude "subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled merchandise" when "imported as part of [a] finished goods kit."83 Reliance on whether all the parts for complete downstream product are present at the time of importation84 "fails to account" for this language "allow[ing] for the exclusion of `subassemblies,' i.e., merchandise that is `partially assembled' and inherently part of a larger whole."85 Instead, this language indicates that, when a product is a subassembly, it "may be excluded from the scope"86 provided that "[1] [it] require[s] no further `finishing' or `fabrication' prior to assembly, [2] contain[s] all the necessary hardware and components for assembly, and [3] [is] ready for installation at the time of entry."87
Thus, while Commerce's initial test for the finished goods kit exclusion remains the general rule,88 when subassemblies are at issue, Commerce's "finished goods" and "finished goods kit" analysis no longer focuses on whether all the parts for the ultimate downstream product (e.g., the fire truck, the building) are present "at the time of importation"; rather the emphasis is on how finished and ready for installation in the ultimate downstream product the subassembly is.89
Here, Commerce has determined that, based on the plain language of the AD & CVD Orders and the (k)(1) materials, "a unitized curtain wall shipped as curtain wall units can be excluded as a `finished goods kit,' but only if all of the necessary curtain wall units are imported at the same time in a manner that they can be assembled into a finished curtain wall upon importation."90 Commerce makes this determination on the basis that a finished goods kit must include "all of the necessary parts" to assemble a final finished good at the time of importation, i.e. "at the same time, as part of the same entry," listed on the same CBP 7501 form.91 Because "[t]he evidence on the record indicate[d] that many curtain walls are constructed in stages," and Yuanda "in particular does not import all the necessary curtain wall units to assemble a curtain wall at one time," Commerce reasoned that the finished goods kit exclusion could not apply.92 Commerce declined to consider the subassemblies test because it believes curtain wall units are not, by definition, subassemblies.93
Commerce's determination is unreasonable because (1) it is contrary to the terms of the AD & CVD Orders, having defined "subassembly" contrary to the plain language of the Orders; (2) it fails to adequately consider or address the description of the merchandise at issue and the (k)(1) materials, making the determination unsupported by substantial evidence; and (3) it draws distinctions between small and large unitized curtain wall systems, and between unitized curtain wall systems and similar products in a way that is arbitrary and capricious.
A. Commerce Has Interpreted the AD & CVD Orders Contrary to Their Terms
"[A] scope determination is not in accordance with the law if it changes the scope of an order or interprets an order in a manner contrary to the order's terms."94
The AD & CVD Orders define "subassembl[y]" as "partially assembled merchandise."95 This definition is important because a subassembly may be excluded from the scope of the AD & CVD Orders "provided that they enter the United States as `finished goods' or `finished goods kits.'"96 Subassemblies may be finished goods or a finished goods kit (and therefore excluded) if they satisfy the subassemblies test: "[1] they require no further `finishing' or `fabrication' prior to assembly,97 [2] contain all the necessary hardware and components for assembly, and [3] are ready for installation at the time of entry."98
Here, Commerce defines subassembly, without reference to the language of the AD & CVD Orders, as a "unique subsidiary component of a larger finished product,"99 and determines that, based on this definition, unitized curtain wall cannot be a subassembly because curtain wall units "ha[ve] no identity of [their] own other than as a part of a curtain wall."100 But Commerce's analysis is contrary to the plain language of the AD & CVD Orders. There is nothing in the language of the Orders that requires "uniqueness" or "individual identity" from a subassembly. A subassembly is defined as "partially assembled merchandise."101 Indeed, Commerce's own application of the subassemblies test contradicts this "uniqueness" requirement.102
Commerce also asserts that the subassemblies test need not be considered here because "there is specific scope language identifying parts for curtain walls as subject to the [AD & CVD Orders]" and "both the CIT and [Federal Circuit] have affirmed [Commerce's] conclusion that curtain wall units are `parts of curtain walls.'"103
"[P]arts for ... curtain walls," however, are included within the scope of the AD & CVD Orders only insofar as they "otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions."104 The exclusions are part of the definition of aluminum extrusions, i.e, in the same way that parts for curtain walls made with non-PRC aluminum are excluded, parts for curtain walls that are a finished good kit or a subassembly finished good kit are excluded.105 That parts for curtain walls are within the scope does not prevent Yuanda's unitized curtain wall from being excluded.106 "Words are not pebbles in alien juxtaposition; they have only a communal existence; and not only does the meaning of each interpenetrate the other, but all in their aggregate take their purport from the setting in which they are used [...]."107
Further, the decisions to which Commerce cites do not, as Commerce suggests, support the proposition that the inclusion of "parts for ... curtain walls" precludes consideration of any exclusion.108 In the CWC Scope Ruling, Commerce found that "the products described in CWC's Amended Scope Request are within the scope of the Orders."109 The CWC's Amended Scope Request covered "parts of curtain walls,"110 defined as "curtain wall sections, falling short of the final finished curtain wall," including, but not limited to, curtain wall units, i.e., "modules that are designed to be interlocked with each other, like pieces of a puzzle."111 The CIT and Federal Circuit affirmed this ruling.112 However, because the "scope ruling was limited to the products discussed" in the CWC's scope request, Commerce did not consider, indeed expressly declined to consider, whether the specific products of any interested party could be properly excluded under any of the AD & CVD Orders' enumerated exclusions.113 This Court sustained that decision.114 At no point did Commerce consider the products at issue here,115 nor the applicability of any scope exclusions thereto.116 The CWC Scope Ruling, and the cases affirming it, cannot be cited for an interpretation and finding that was not considered or discussed.
If anything, Yuanda I and Yuanda II may be cited for the opposite proposition, as both found that individual curtain wall units were subject merchandise at least in part because curtain wall units were subassemblies of curtain walls,117 and declined, expressly or impliedly, to consider the subassembly exclusion as applied to any specific product, including Plaintiff's, because that would go "far beyond the [underlying] CWC's [Scope Ruling] Request," and therefore the scope of Commerce's determination and the courts' jurisdiction.118 That is, the courts affirmatively answered the threshold question as to whether a curtain wall unit was a subassembly,119 but left to Commerce the question of how the subassembly exclusion affected the status of any specific unitized curtain wall product. The court in Yuanda I indicated that "[i]f [P]laintiffs wished treatment for their specific products under the `finished goods kit' exception," whether general or subassembly-specific, "their route was to file a petition of their own seeking the benefit of the exclusion" for their specific product, making the finished good kit exclusion a question "for another day."120 This is that day.
While Commerce "enjoys substantial freedom to interpret and clarify its antidumping duty orders, it can neither change them, nor interpret them in a way contrary to their terms."121 Here, Commerce has changed and expanded the terms of the AD & CVD Orders by redefining "subassembly" and ignoring the scope language that limits products covered. Accordingly, Commerce's Redetermination is not in accordance with law.
B. Commerce's Ruling is Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
"[T]he substantial evidence standard requires review of the entire administrative record" and asks, in light of that evidence, whether that determination was reasonable.122 "The substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight."123
In the scope ruling at issue here, the administrative record includes the (k)(1) materials — "[t]he descriptions of the merchandise contained in the petition, [Commerce's] initial investigation, and the [prior] determinations of [Commerce] (including prior scope determinations) and the [International Trade] Commission,"124 — which provide the regulatory history, to aid in the interpretation of the language of the AD & CVD Orders.125
Here, Commerce was confronted with the fact that a(k)(1) material, the previously neglected Petition, expressly lists "unassembled unitized curtain walls" as excluded merchandise under the "finished goods kit" exclusion.126
Commerce tries to construe this statement as evidence for its conclusion that "a unitized curtain wall shipped as curtain wall units can be excluded as a `finished goods kit,' ... only if all of the necessary curtain wall units" to make a complete curtain wall are "imported at the same time," i.e., entered on the same 7501 form.127 However, as Commerce points out, the Petition "provides no further clarification on what [`at the time of importation'] [means] in relation to `unassembled unitized curtain walls' or any other product."128
Commerce looks to other documents of varying relevance and reliability for confirmation of its interpretation. First, Commerce relies on another (k)(1) material, a preliminary scope memorandum from the investigation, in which Commerce found that "unitized curtain wall and its assorted parts" (i.e., "the separately packaged assorted component parts (an aluminum frame and aluminum bracket)") were within the scope of the AD & CVD Orders as parts for curtain walls.129 This determination is of limited relevance because it was made before the final determination in which Commerce amended the scope of the AD & CVD Orders to clarify that subassemblies could fall within the finished goods kit exclusion.130 Further, the product described in this preliminary determination ("separately packaged assorted parts" of curtain walls) is parallel to that discussed in the CWC Scope Ruling (curtain wall units and parts),131 in contrast to the complete curtain wall units imported pursuant to a sales contract.132 Commerce does not account for these differences in its evaluation of the determination.
Second, Commerce argues that its finding that complete curtain wall units imported pursuant to a sales contract are not excluded as a finished goods kit unless "all of the necessary parts to assemble the finished good ... [are] imported at the same time, as part of the same entry,"133 is in keeping with its prior scope determinations.134 Commerce cites to three final scope rulings discussing the finished goods kit exclusion.135 While all three rulings do emphasize the "at the time of importation" requirement,136 all three were decided before Commerce revised its interpretation of the AD & CVD Orders to provide for situations where it was unreasonable to require all necessary parts "at the time of importation," i.e., the subassemblies exclusion.137 What is perhaps more telling is that Commerce does not address the other prior scope rulings that go against its determination here, i.e., that did not require all parts for the complete downstream product "at the time of importation" because the products at issue were subassemblies.138
Third, Commerce offers a letter, written by Petitioners specifically for this scope proceeding, supporting Commerce's position,139 and a news article quoting Petitioner's counsel as having said that a curtain wall system would have to "contain all of the window glass at the time of entry to be excluded."140 Neither of these documents is appropriate support, as they are not (k)(1) materials.141 The former is a post hoc rationalization made for the purposes of litigation; the latter Commerce itself has previously dismissed as irrelevant.142
In contrast, Commerce does not consider the ample evidence on the administrative record defining and explaining the product at issue here. Commerce does not consider whether a single-entry, unitized curtain wall is a real product, outside the realm of its own ungainly semantic gymnastics, that is imported with any regularity into the United States.143 This makes Commerce's interpretation unreasonable.144 Indeed, Petitioners themselves provided in other (k)(1) materials that "it is simply not possible for a complete curtain wall to enter as a `kit'" — i.e., all at once.145 Petitioners could not have intended to use a product as an example in their petition that, by Petitioners' own admission, does not exist. "An exclusion from a scope determination must ... encompass merchandise which is or may be imported into the United States in order to act as a meaningful exclusion; anything less renders the exclusion hollow and improperly changes the meaning of the exclusion."146 Even if such a product existed but was rarely imported, insisting upon such an interpretation would render the exclusion "insignificant, if not wholly superfluous."147
Commerce has therefore "entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,"148 i.e., the actual nature of the products it is considering. "The substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight."149 Commerce has not done so here, leaving its ruling unreasonable.
C. Commerce Has Made Arbitrary Distinctions Between Subject and Non-Subject Products
An agency determination is arbitrary and capricious if the agency has treated similarly situated parties or products differently "without reasonable explanation."150
Here, in finding that only unitized curtain walls entered with all parts on a single 7501 form are excluded from the scope of the AD & CVD Orders, Commerce makes several distinctions between similar products without reasonable explanation. First, Commerce has drawn a distinction between (hypothetical) small (i.e., capable of being entered on a single 7501 form) and all other curtain wall systems. This distinction is not based on any quality or aspect of the constituent units, indeed the units could be identical in all but number, and thereby treats products that are effectively the same differently under the AD & CVD Orders.
Similarly, Commerce's ruling draws an arbitrary distinction between window walls and curtain walls. Window walls are excluded from the scope of the AD & CVD Orders under the finished goods kit exclusion.151 Under Commerce's interpretation, unitized curtain walls, largely, if not entirely, are not.152 While Commerce acknowledges that the Plaintiffs allege similarities between window walls and curtain walls, Commerce considers these similarities irrelevant, finding the differences dispositive.153
Commerce finds two differences: First, "unlike parts for curtain walls, such as curtain wall units, window walls are not specifically identified as subject merchandise in the scope of the [AD & CVD Orders]."154 However, this distinction has no real meaning. That parts for curtain walls are within the scope does not prevent unassembled unitized curtain wall from being excluded.155 Moreover, industry publications on the record show that window walls are a type of curtain wall156 — such that "parts for ... curtain walls" means parts for window walls as well, making both listed as subject merchandise. Second, Commerce finds that curtain walls and window walls "are not comparable for purposes of [Commerce's] analysis," because "[w]indow walls, once assembled, are each a finished good" whereas curtain wall units "which attach to other curtain wall units, are parts for the finished good, the curtain wall itself."157 This is again, a meaningless distinction that does not consider the definition of the product at issue here and belies the similarities between the two products, namely, that both are interlocking, aluminum-framed, widow-like products shipped in phases and installed in sections.158 Indeed, Commerce makes no effort to account for the evidence on the record indicating that window walls and curtain walls are substantially similar products.
Accordingly, Commerce has treated similarly situated products differently without reasonable explanation.
CONCLUSION
As Commerce anticipated elsewhere, an interpretation of "finished goods kit" that requires "all parts to assemble the ultimate downstream product" to enter at the same time, on the same 7501 Form, "where the ultimate downstream product" is "a fire truck" or "a larger structure, such as a house" or an entire building façade, has led to an "unreasonable," if not "absurd" result.159
Accordingly, the court remands to Commerce for further consideration in accordance with this opinion. Commerce shall have until March 22, 2016 to complete and file its remand redetermination. Plaintiffs shall have until April 5, 2016 to file comments. Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor shall have until April 15, 2016 to file any reply.160
IT IS SO ORDERED.