San Francisco Candle Co., Inc. v. United States

Slip Op. 03-51

United States Court of International Trade

SAN FRANCISCO CANDLE COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Before: Pogue, Judge
UNITED STATES, Court No. 01-00088
Defendant,

and

NATIONAL CANDLE ASSOCIATION,

Defendant-Intervenor.

[Agency determination after remand sustained in part and reversed
in part.]

Decided: May 14, 2003

Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. (Philip S. Gallas, Gregory S.
Menegaz, Mark R. Ludwikowski) for Plaintiff.

Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, David M.
Cohen, Director, Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Senior Trial Counsel,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of
Justice, Glenn R. Butterton, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief
Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Of
Counsel, for Defendant.

Barnes & Thornburg (Randolph J. Stayin) for Defendant-Intervenor.

OPINION

Pogue, Judge: In San Francisco Candle Co. v. United States, 26 CIT

__, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (2002), this Court remanded aspects of the
Court No. 01-00088 Page 2

determination by the United States Department of Commerce

("Commerce") in Final Scope Ruling; Antidumping Duty Order on

Petroleum Wax Candles from the People’s Republic of China (A-570-

504); SFCC, Compl. App. III (Feb. 12, 2001)(“Final Scope Ruling”).

Candles 1, 4, 9, 11, and 12 were remanded to Commerce pursuant to

the agency’s request. Candles 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10 were remanded

with the instruction that the agency should reconsider and clarify

its reasoning as to whether the subject candles fell within the

scope of the Order.1 The Court now reviews the results of the

remand as presented in Commerce’s Final Results of Remand

Redetermination, San Francisco Candle Co., Inc. v. United States

(Aug. 20, 2002) (“Remand Determ.”). This Court has jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2000) and 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi)

(2000).

1
The candles at issue in the Remand Determination are the
following:

1. Christmas Holly Leaf with Berries Candy Cane Pillar (Item
No. 03433)
2. Santa Claus Motif Candy Cane Pillar (Item. No. 13403)
3. Christmas Tree with Star Candy Cane Pillar (Item. No. 73633)
4. Christmas Holly Leaf Pillar (Item No. 83136)
5. Christmas Sock Pillar (Item No. 83036)
8. Santa Claus Candy Cane Column (Item No. 00016)
9. Christmas Holly Leaf with Berries Candy Cane Column (Item
No. 00016)
10. Christmas Tree with Star Candy Cane Column (Item No. 00016)
11. Christmas Holly Leaf with Berries Pillar (Item No. 166406)
12. Christmas Patchwork Pillar and Christmas Patchwork Square
(Item No. 15736)

The opinion will refer to the candles by the assigned numbers
noted above.
Court No. 01-00088 Page 3

Background

The antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the

People’s Republic of China, issued in August 1986, covers “certain

scented or unscented petroleum wax candles made from petroleum wax

and having fiber or paper-cored wicks . . . sold in the following

shapes: tapers, spirals, and straight-sided dinner candles; rounds,

columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled containers.”

Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People’s

Republic of China, 51 Fed. Reg. 30,686, 30,686 (Dep't Commerce Aug.

28, 1986) (“Candles Order” or “Order”). Certain novelty candles,

including Christmas holiday candles, are excluded from the scope of

the Order. In clarifying the scope of the Candles Order, Commerce

stated that

[t]he Department of Commerce has determined that certain
novelty candles, such as Christmas novelty candles, are
not within the scope of the antidumping duty order on
petroleum-wax candles from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC). Christmas novelty candles are candles specially
designed for use only in connection with the Christmas
holiday season. This use is clearly indicated by
Christmas scenes or symbols depicted in the candle
design. Other novelty candles not within the scope of
the order include candles having scenes or symbols of
other occasions (e.g., religious holidays or special
events) depicted in their designs, figurine candles, and
candles shaped in the form of identifiable objects (e.g.,
animals or numerals).

Dep’t of Commerce Scope Clarification Notice, Petroleum-Wax Candles

from the People’s Republic of China - Case Number A-570-504, Pl.’s

Ex. 4 at 1 (“Scope Clarification”); see also Customs Info. Exch.

Notification, Petroleum-Wax Candles from the People’s Republic of
Court No. 01-00088 Page 4

China - Antidumping - A-570-504, CIE N–212/85 (Sept. 21, 1987).

In November 2000, San Francisco Candle Company (“SFCC”)

requested that Commerce issue a scope ruling in connection with

twelve candles. See Letter from Suda Tam, SFCC, to Sean Carey,

Dep’t of Commerce, Int’l Trade Admin., Antidumping and

Countervailing Enforcement Group III, Compl. App. I at 2 (Nov. 17,

2000) (“Scope Ruling Request”). Commerce found eleven of the

twelve candles to be within the scope of the Candles Order. See

Final Scope Ruling, Compl. App. III at 4-7. SFCC challenged the

results of the Final Scope Ruling in this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1581(c), claiming that all of the candles submitted in the

Scope Ruling Request were novelty candles that fell outside the

scope of the Candles Order.

Commerce requested that candles 1, 4, 9, 11, and 12 be

remanded for reconsideration by the agency, but asserted that

candles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 were correctly found to be within the

scope of the Candles Order. SFCC I, 26 CIT at __, 206 F. Supp. 2d

at 1308; Def.’s Resp. Pl.’s Mot. J. Agency R. at 2-3. The Court

affirmed Commerce’s finding with respect to Candle 6 and remanded

candles 1, 4, 9, 11, and 12 for reconsideration by the agency.2

2
The decorative patterns on candles 1, 4, 9, 11, and 12 include
holly leaf and berry designs. Commerce originally determined the
holly designs to be “generic to the winter season” and therefore
ineligible for exclusion from the Candles Order as holiday
novelty candles. Final Scope Ruling, Compl. App. III at 4-7 ¶¶
1, 4, 9, 11, 12. However, this determination was contrary to
Springwater Cookie & Confections, Inc. v. United States, 20 CIT
Court No. 01-00088 Page 5

SFCC I, 26 CIT at __, 206 F. Supp. 2d at 1311, 1317.

The Court also remanded candles 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10, directing

the agency to (1) assess whether the requirement that a design be

visible from multiple angles is properly applied to holiday novelty

candles, SFCC I, 26 CIT at __, __, 206 F. Supp. 2d at 1313-14,

1316-17; (2) refrain from considering whether a design will easily

melt or burn away, id. at 1314, 1316; (3) explain whether its

“minimally decorative” standard requires that a holiday design be

both easily discernable and visible from multiple angles in order

to qualify a candle as a holiday novelty candle, id. at 1315-17;

and (4) consider the combined effects of colors and holiday designs

in determining whether the decorations rendered the candles

“specially designed for use only in connection with the Christmas

holiday season.” Id. at 1316-17 (quoting Scope Clarification,

Pl.’s Ex. 4 at 1). Familiarity with the Court’s earlier opinion is

presumed.

1192, 1195-96 (1996), in which this Court stated that holly
sprigs “are indeed a symbol associated with Christmas,” and
inconsistent with other Candles Order rulings in which Commerce,
following Springwater, concluded that the holly leaf and berry
design is a symbol of Christmas that qualifies a candle for the
holiday novelty exception. See Final Scope Ruling, JCPenney
Purchasing Corp., Pl.’s Ex. 8 at 5-8 (May 21, 2001); Final Scope
Ruling, Avon Products, Inc., Def.-Int.’s Ex. 6 at 4 (May 8,
2001); Final Scope Ruling, Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. at 3-4 (Apr.
9, 1997). The Court granted Defendant’s request for remand, and
further instructed Commerce to consider both the cube and pillar
versions of candle 12, the Christmas Patchwork candle. SFCC I,
26 CIT at __, 206 F. Supp. 2d at 1311.
Court No. 01-00088 Page 6

Standard of Review

This Court will uphold an agency determination unless it is

“unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise

not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).

Discussion

I. Scope Determinations

Commerce has inherent authority to define and clarify the

scope of an antidumping duty investigation. See Koyo Seiko Co. v.

United States, 17 CIT 1076, 1078, 834 F. Supp. 1401, 1403 (1993),

aff’d, 31 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, “while [Commerce]

may interpret those orders, it may not change them.” Ericsson GE

Mobile Communications, Inc. v. United States, 60 F.3d 778, 782

(Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Smith Corona Corp. v. United States, 915

F.2d 683, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).

In determining whether a product falls within the scope of an

order, Commerce looks to “[t]he descriptions of the merchandise

contained in the petition, the initial investigation, and the

determinations of the Secretary (including prior scope

determinations) and the Commission.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1)

(2002). If the descriptions are dispositive, Commerce issues the

scope ruling based on this information alone. See id. at §

351.225(k)(2); Nitta Indus. Corp. v. United States, 997 F.2d 1459,
Court No. 01-00088 Page 7

1461 (Fed. Cir. 1993).3

II. The Candles Order

In making a scope determination under the Candles Order,

Commerce first determines whether the candle is formed in a shape

covered by the Order. If so, Commerce then considers whether the

candle may be excluded from the Order as a novelty candle.4 Among

the excluded novelty candles are holiday candles, including

Christmas candles. Holiday novelty candles fall outside the scope

of the Order when they are “specially designed for use only in

3
If a determination cannot be made using only the descriptions,
Commerce initiates a scope inquiry and considers the following
five factors: “(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.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2);
see also Diversified Prods. Corp. v. United States, 6 CIT 155,
162, 572 F. Supp. 883, 889 (1983). In the instant case, the
criteria of 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1) are dispositive, and no
consideration of the criteria enumerated in 19 C.F.R. §
351.225(k)(2) is required.
4
As noted earlier, the following are excluded from the scope of
the Candles Order as novelty candles:
a) “Christmas novelty candles . . . specially designed for
use only in connection with the Christmas holiday
season. This use is clearly indicated by Christmas
scenes or symbols depicted in the candle design;”
b) “Candles having scenes or symbols of other occasions
(e.g., religious holidays or special events) depicted
in their designs;”
c) “Figurine candles;” and
d) “Candles shaped in the form of identifiable objects,
(e.g., animals or numerals).”

Scope Clarification, Pl.’s Ex. 4 at 1.
Court No. 01-00088 Page 8

connection with the Christmas holiday season,” and this use is

“clearly indicated by Christmas scenes or symbols depicted in the

candle design.” Scope Clarification, Pl.’s Ex. 4 at 1.

The holiday novelty exclusion is narrowly defined, requiring

specific and easily recognizable holiday images. See SFCC I, 26

CIT at __, 206 F. Supp. 2d at 1310; Russ Berrie & Co. v. United

States, 23 CIT 429, 440, 57 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1194-95 (1999);

Springwater Cookie & Confections, Inc. v. United States, 20 CIT at

1197 (“[C]olors per se will not exempt a candle from the scope of

the antidumping duty order.”). In determining whether a candle

falls within the holiday novelty exception, Commerce considers all

of the candle’s characteristics in combination. See, e.g., Remand

Determ. at 7-8.

The Remand Determination contains a discussion of the

standards Commerce applies in determining whether a candle

qualifies as a holiday novelty candle that is excluded from the

scope of the Order. Commerce states that a candle’s “holiday- or

event-specific design must be large enough or proportionately

situated on the candle as to render it easily recognizable from

most perspectives.” Remand Determ. at 7. In response to the

Court’s inquiry in SFCC I, the agency states that its ruling in

Final Scope Ruling, Endar Corp. (Jan. 11, 2000) (“Endar Ruling”)

did not promulgate a two-element standard requiring that a design

be both easily recognizable and visible from multiple angles in
Court No. 01-00088 Page 9

order to qualify a candle for the novelty candle exception. SFCC

I, 26 CIT at __, 206 F. Supp. 2d at 1315-16; Remand Determ. at 7-8

(“[T]he Department does not interpret the ruling on Endar’s alleged

bamboo candle to require per se that the candle meet both standards

discussed in that ruling (whether the design is easily recognizable

and visible from most angles) in order to qualify for the novelty

candle exception.”). Commerce emphasizes in its Remand

Determination that the agency “takes into consideration the

totality of the candle (the combination of the colors, patterns,

and images),” and states that “[the Endar] guidelines were designed

to simply help the Department interpret the exclusion narrowly.”

Remand Determ. at 8.

Neither Commerce’s Remand Determination nor its earlier

Candles Order rulings offer a clear definition of the “minimally

decorative” standard. However, a review of the Remand

Determination and other rulings indicates that in determining

whether a design is “minimally decorative,” the agency considers

whether the design is easily seen or is easily discernable, the

size of the design relative to the size of the candle, the location

of the design on the candle, and whether the design is located in

only one place on the candle. See Endar Ruling at 5 (noting that

the bamboo design on the subject candle was “not easily

discernable”); Remand Determ. at 7 (indicating that a design is

“minimally decorative” when it is not “large enough or
Court No. 01-00088 Page 10

proportionately situated on the candle” that it may be seen

easily); Final Scope Ruling, Interpro International at 7 (Sept. 26,

2002) (holding that a design was “minimally decorative” because it

was “small and/or singularly placed on the candle”) (“Interpro

Ruling”). Additionally, it appears that Commerce may inquire

whether a design is “identifiable from most angles” as part of its

“minimally decorative” standard. See, e.g., Endar Ruling at 5

(finding that the subject candle’s design was “minimal[ly]

decorative” because it was “not easily discernable” and “not

visible from all sides”); but see Remand Determ. at 9 (suggesting

that the “identifiable from most angles” standard is separate from,

rather than a component of, the “minimally decorative” standard);

Interpro Ruling at 7-8 (stating that “[i]f the . . . holiday-

specific design is not identifiable from most angles, or if the

design or characteristic is minimally decorative, the Department

may determine that the candle does not qualify for exclusion from

the Order under the novelty candle exception.”).

In SFCC I, the Court also asked Commerce to clarify whether

the requirement that a design be visible from multiple angles,

which was previously applied only to candles allegedly formed in

the shape of identifiable objects, is also properly applied to

holiday novelty candles. See 26 CIT at __, 206 F. Supp. 2d at

1313-14. In its Remand Determination, the agency states that

“[s]tarting with the SFCC Ruling, the Department recognized that
Court No. 01-00088 Page 11

the ‘identifiable from most angles’ benchmark was appropriately

applied . . . to candles allegedly associated with a recognized

holiday as well as to candles allegedly in the shapes of

identifiable objects.” Remand Determ. at 9. Commerce explains

that application of the standard to both categories of novelty

candles is proper because “these characteristics both fall under

one and the same exception to the scope of the Order: the novelty

candle exception.” Id. at 9-10. The agency also asserts that

examining candles in light of the “identifiable from most angles”

standard helps to “ensure[] that the candles for which the novelty

candle exception is requested truly meet the requirements of this

narrowly-construed exception to the scope of the Order.” Id. at 9.

In summary, it appears that Commerce may find a candle design

to be “minimally decorative” and therefore within the scope of the

Order when the candle’s holiday-specific design cannot easily be

seen or discerned, when the design is very small in relation to the

size of the candle, or when the design is “singularly located” on

the candle. Commerce also may find that a holiday candle is within

the scope of the Order when its design is not easily recognizable

as a holiday-specific image, or when the design is not visible or

identifiable from most angles. Commerce evaluates candles on a

case-by-case basis, and looks at the totality of the candle’s

design characteristics in order to assess the combined effects of

colors and design patterns.
Court No. 01-00088 Page 12

The Court now proceeds to evaluate Commerce’s application of

these standards to the candles at issue. Commerce’s application of

its legal standards will be upheld if the record can be reasonably

interpreted to support the agency’s decisions.

A. Candles 1, 2, and 3

Candles 1, 2, and 3 are pillar candles. Each has diagonal

“candy cane” pattern stripes on the body of the candle and a

holiday image imprinted into the top surface of the candle. Candle

1 has red and white stripes and a holly leaf and berry image

printed on the top surface. Similarly, Candle 2 has red and white

stripes and an image of Santa Claus printed on top. Candle 3 has

red, white, and green stripes and an image of a Christmas tree with

a star printed on top. Upon reconsideration, Commerce determined

that candles 1 and 3 fall outside the scope of the Order, while

candle 2 is covered by the Order.

In its reconsideration of candle 2, Commerce stated that the

image imprinted on the top surface is only “‘minimally decorative’

and can only be viewed when looking down at the top surface of the

candle.” Remand Determ. at 14. Commerce opined that this

“singular image[] [is] not substantial enough to transform” this

candle into an exempt holiday novelty candle. Id. Additionally,

although Commerce acknowledged the red and white “peppermint candy”

color pattern on the candle, id. at 17, the agency concluded that
Court No. 01-00088 Page 13

“even when taking into consideration the combined effect of the

colors, patterns, and images on these candles, the result is not

sufficient to qualify these candles for the holiday novelty

exception.” Id.

In its analysis of candles 1 and 3, Commerce stated as

follows:

Although the small images of the holly leaves and berries
and the Christmas tree with a star, [sic] are, when
viewed in isolation, minimally decorative and not easily
recognizable as holiday images from most angles, the
combination of these images with other designs
characteristic of Christmas, such as the red, green, and
white color combination, indicate that these candles were
“specially designed for use in connection with the
Christmas holiday season.” Unlike candles 2, 8, 9, and
10, candles 1 and 3 have more than a “peppermint candy”
striped effect; candles 1 and 3 also have a green stripe,
which taken in concert with the other colors and images,
more closely identifies these candles as designed for the
Christmas holiday season.

Remand Determ. at 19-20.

The Court agrees that in the case of candle 3, the red, white,

and green stripes and the Christmas tree with star image closely

identify the candle with the Christmas holiday. Therefore, the

Court finds that Commerce’s decision to exclude candle 3 from the

scope of the Candles Order is supported by substantial evidence.

However, candle 1 does not have a green stripe. Rather,

candle 1, like candle 2, has only red and white striping. In

addition to the red and white diagonal stripes, candle 1 bears an

image of holly leaves and berries and candle 2 bears an image of

Santa Claus. Both holly leaves and berries and Santa Claus are
Court No. 01-00088 Page 14

images closely associated with the Christmas holiday. The images,

although present only on the tops of the candles, are easily

identifiable as holiday images and occupy significant portions of

the top surfaces of the candles.5 Moreover, as the candles stand

only 2 7/8 inches to 3 inches tall, the images are distinctly

visible from most angles and appear to be the central design

element of the candle. Finally, the red and white colors and

“candy cane” striping, in combination with the Santa Claus or holly

leaves and berries designs, strengthen the identification of these

candles with the Christmas holiday.

In summary, candles 1 and 2 have clearly identifiable, highly

visible holiday-specific images, as well as color combinations and

patterns that strengthen the identification with the Christmas

holiday. As such, these candles meet the requirements set out in

the Scope Clarification for holiday novelty candles that are

excluded from the scope of the Order. While the Court “may not

substitute its judgment for that of the [agency] when the choice is

between two fairly conflicting views,” Timken Co. v. United States,

5
Candles 1 and 2 measure approximately 2 7/8 inches in diameter.
Approximately 1/8 to 3/16 of the diameter at the outer edge of
the candle’s top surface is occupied by the red and white striped
outer layer, leaving a red center section that measures
approximately 2 3/4 to 2 11/16 inches in diameter, into which the
holiday specific images are set. The holly sprig on the top
surface of candle 1 measures approximately 1 1/2 inches long at
its longest point and 1 7/8 inches wide at its widest point. The
Santa Claus image on the top surface of candle 2 measures
approximately 1 7/8 inches long and 1 5/8 inches wide at its
widest point.
Court No. 01-00088 Page 15

26 CIT __, __, 201 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1319-20 (2002) (internal

citations and quotations omitted), the evidence here supports only

the conclusion that these candles are within the holiday novelty

exception. Consequently, the Court finds that Commerce’s

determination that candle 2 is within the scope of the Order is

neither supported by substantial evidence nor in accordance with

law. The Court therefore reverses Commerce’s determination with

respect to candle 2, and finds candles 1 and 2 to be holiday

novelty candles that are excluded from the scope of the Order.

B. Candles 4 and 5

Candle 4, the Christmas Holly Leaf Pillar, is a dark green

pillar candle with an image of holly leaves and berries sketched in

white on one side of the candle. Candle 5, the Christmas Sock

Pillar, is a white pillar candle with an image of a Christmas

stocking sketched in red on one side of the candle. The sketched

stocking image also contains an image of a Christmas tree with a

star on the top.

Commerce concluded that both of these candles fall within the

scope of the Candles Order. The agency stated that “the images are

only sketches, are relatively small and are singularly imprinted on

only one surface or side of each candle. Therefore, the respective

images are ‘minimally decorative’ and can only be viewed from one

angle.” Remand Determ. at 19.
Court No. 01-00088 Page 16

Upon examination, the Court notes that if the candle is turned

so that the image faces away, it appears to be simply a solid green

or white pillar.6 Thus, while the decorative images are holiday-

specific, they are “singularly placed” on the candles, see Interpro

Ruling at 7, and not easily seen from most angles. Endar Ruling at

5. As the images meet two of the characteristics of “minimally

decorative” designs, the Court upholds Commerce’s determination

that these candles fall within the scope of the Order.

C. Candles 8, 9, and 10

Candles 8, 9, and 10 are column candles approximately twelve

inches tall. Candle 8, the Santa Claus Candy Cane Column, has red

and white “candy cane” striping and a small image of Santa Claus

imprinted in a circle in one side of the candle. Candle 9, the

Christmas Holly Leaf with Berries Candy Cane Column, has red,

white, and green striping and a small image of a holly sprig

imprinted into one side. Candle 10, the Christmas Tree with Star

Candy Cane Column, has red, white, and green striping and a small

image of a Christmas tree with a star on top imprinted into one

6
Commerce also stated that “we do not believe that these
specific designs are easily recognizable as the holly leaves and
berries and stocking, respectively, that they are alleged to be
because they are only abstract outlines.” Remand Determ. at 19.
As the Court affirms Commerce’s determination that the images are
“minimally decorative” on other grounds, we do not reach the
question whether the images are easily recognizable as holiday
images.
Court No. 01-00088 Page 17

side.

Commerce found candles 8, 9, and 10 to be within the scope of

the Order, stating that “although these candles possess images

related to the Christmas season . . . the designs are ‘minimally

decorative’ and are not easily recognizable as holiday images from

most angles.” Remand Determ. at 13.

The holiday images set into the sides of these columns are

very small and located in only one place on the candle, thus

meeting two of the characteristics considered by Commerce to be

“minimally decorative.” See, e.g., Remand Determ. at 7; Interpro

Ruling at 7. The small holiday images also cannot be seen from

most angles.

The columns are covered in red and white or red, white, and

green striped “candy cane” color patterns. Color patterns may link

candles more closely to the Christmas holiday season, and the Court

notes that Commerce has found red, white, and green striping more

closely associated with the Christmas holiday than red and white

striping alone. In its analysis of candle 3, discussed earlier,

Commerce concluded that the green color in addition to the red and

white stripes and the otherwise “minimally decorative” holiday

image was sufficient to qualify the candle as a holiday novelty

candle. Remand Determ. at 19-20.

In this case, however, Commerce stated that

the small images . . . on one small place on the side of
candles 8, 9, and 10, [sic] are not easily seen when
Court No. 01-00088 Page 18

viewing the candles from most perspectives and,
furthermore, the Department has ruled in the past that
the “peppermint candy” striped design does not relate
specifically to the Christmas holiday. Therefore, the
combined effect of colors and designs does not reach a
level that would qualify these candles for the holiday
novelty exception.

Remand Determ. at 17-18. After examining the candles, the Court

finds that due to the inconspicuousness of the holiday-specific

images, it is reasonable to conclude that even those candles

bearing the additional green stripes cannot qualify as holiday

novelty candles. Therefore, the Court upholds Commerce’s

determination that candles 8, 9, and 10 are within the scope of the

Order.

D. Candles 11 and 12

Candle 11 is a red pillar candle covered with a raised holly

leaf and berry design. Commerce determined that candle 11 falls

within the scope of the Order because the design does not “resemble

a holly sprig in the traditional sense.” Remand Determ. at 19.

The agency stated that

[t]he leaves and berries are scattered around the surface
of the candle, rather than grouped together, as a holly
sprig is normally pictured, and could represent another
type of leaf or berry. In this respect, this candle does
not relate specifically to the Christmas holiday season;
rather, it could be used generically throughout the fall
or winter season.

Id. (internal citation omitted).

The Court finds that the agency’s reasoning in connection with
Court No. 01-00088 Page 19

candle 11 is supported by substantial evidence. The agency asserts

that the holly image closely associated with the Christmas holiday

is the holly sprig, showing the holly leaves and berries grouped

together. Remand Determ. at 11 (“[T]he Department also considers

that, in order for holly leaf and berry design [sic] to qualify a

candle for exclusion from the Order, it must be both explicit and

easily identifiable . . . [T]he holly leaf and berry image must be

readily recognizable as the traditional holly leaf and berry, i.e.,

with the holly leaves and berries grouped together.”). This

reasoning is supported by Springwater, which refers to “sprigs” of

holly as a symbol closely associated with the Christmas holiday.

20 CIT at 1196. Here, the leaves and berries are separated, and it

is not clear that the leaves represent holly leaves. As the candle

does not bear a clearly identifiable specific holiday image, as

required by the Scope Clarification, the agency’s decision to

include it within the scope of the Candles Order is supported by

substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

Finally, Commerce determined that both the pillar and square

versions of Candle 12 are holiday novelty candles and are excluded

from the scope of the Candles Order.7 See Remand Determ. at 20.

7
Plaintiff asserts that the Christmas Patchwork Square is
excluded from the scope of the Order because it is not one of the
enumerated shapes. Pl.’s Partial Opp’n to Def.’s Aug. 20, 2002
Remand Results at 21-23; see also Candles Order, 51 Fed. Reg. at
30,686 (stating that the Order covers candles in the shapes of
“tapers, spirals, and straight-sided dinner candles; rounds,
columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled containers”).
Court No. 01-00088 Page 20

These candles are decorated with a variety of images, including

holly leaves and berries, candy canes, evergreen trees, snow-

covered houses, snowflakes, cardinals, stars, reindeer, and

multicolored patterns, arranged in a patchwork design. Commerce

concluded upon reconsideration that the designs and color

combinations of the candles, and particularly the inclusion of a

recognizable holly leaf and berry design and the use of red, white,

and green coloring, provides “identification with the Christmas

holiday.” Id. After examining candle 12, the Court finds that the

agency may reasonably conclude that the combination of designs and

colors indicates that candle 12 is intended for use “only in

connection with the Christmas holiday season.” Scope

Clarification, Pl.’s Ex. 4 at 1. Therefore, the Court affirms

Commerce’s determination that candle 12 is a holiday novelty candle

excluded from the scope of the Order.

Commerce has previously determined that candles in the shapes of
cubes or squares fall within the scope of the Order. See Final
Scope Ruling, Request for Rulings on a Petroleum Wax Candle in
the Shape of a Cube or Square (Mervyn’s, Enesco Corp., and
Midwest of Cannon Falls) (Dec. 9, 1996); see also Final Scope
Ruling, Leader Light Ltd. (Aug. 31, 1998) (finding cube and
square shaped candles to be within the scope of the Order).
Consequently, Plaintiff’s argument is without merit.
 Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing discussion, this Court

reverses Commerce’s determination as to candle 2, and determines

instead that candle 2 is a holiday novelty candle excluded from the

scope of the Candles Order. The Court upholds Commerce’s

determination as to candles 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

___________________________
Donald C. Pogue
Judge

Dated: May 14, 2003
New York, New York