# Its Draft Ad Scope Ruling Request > Produces a Commerce scope ruling request under the applicable scope-analysis framework, accompanied by an internal strategy memorandum that addresses shared manufacturing process vulnerabilities, circumvention inquiry risk, and subsidy disclosure obligations. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/its-draft-ad-scope-ruling-request` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/its-draft-ad-scope-ruling-request` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/its-draft-ad-scope-ruling-request/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/its-draft-ad-scope-ruling-request --- # Skill: Draft Antidumping Duty Scope Ruling Request ## 1. Subject-matter triage - Determine whether the product can be framed as outside the antidumping order based on the written scope, the order’s express exclusions, and the administrative record before turning to engineering facts. - Confirm whether the request concerns a single product configuration or multiple variants; if multiple, separate them analytically and do not merge distinct configurations into one theory. - Verify whether the internal memo must address manufacturing, sourcing, entry data, subsidy disclosure, and circumvention risk from the same fact set; treat each as a distinct workstream. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Starting with physical differences alone instead of the order text and relevant administrative history; scope analysis is text-led, not product-led. - Treating HTSUS classification as dispositive; classification may inform the analysis but does not control it. - Omitting prior scope rulings that support exclusion or failing to distinguish adverse rulings on materially different merchandise. - Ignoring shared manufacturing-process facts that can weaken the exclusion theory if left unexplained. - Failing to surface import-entry inconsistencies, subsidy disclosures, or other record vulnerabilities before filing. - Underdeveloping circumvention risk in the companion memorandum when the product resembles subject merchandise in design, process, or commercial function. - Writing conclusions without grounding them in the governing statute, regulations, and Commerce scope framework. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Commerce scope inquiries are governed by the written scope language, interpreted in light of the petition, investigation record, prior determinations, and relevant scope rulings. - The analytical sequence should track the regulatory scope framework: scope text first, then prior determinations, then product characteristics, then end use, expectations of the ultimate purchaser, channels of trade, and other record evidence as needed. - The governing authorities should be cited by name and section where applicable, including the antidumping statute and Commerce’s scope regulations in 19 C.F.R. Part 351. - A request should not argue from resemblance alone; it should explain why the product falls outside the scope as written, even if some attributes overlap with subject merchandise. - Commerce may look to physical characteristics, expectations of purchasers, ultimate use, channels of trade, and manner of advertising only as part of a holistic scope analysis; these factors should be organized, not treated as independent dispositive tests. - If the filing relies on technical differences, those differences should be tied to commercial significance, not merely described. - If the internal record includes subsidy or government-assistance information that may be relevant elsewhere, it should be handled accurately and consistently rather than omitted. - The memo should anticipate arguments that Commerce could view the request as an attempt to recharacterize subject merchandise, and should frame the business rationale accordingly. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds 1. Start with the order text - Identify the operative scope language, any exclusions, and any defined terms that matter. - Explain how each relevant phrase captures or excludes the product. - If the product has multiple variants, analyze each variant against the text separately. 2. Apply administrative history - Identify the most relevant prior determinations and scope rulings. - Use favorable rulings to support exclusion by analogy. - Distinguish unfavorable rulings on the basis of material differences in design, composition, function, or processing. 3. Move to product-specific characteristics - Describe the product’s construction, components, tolerances, dimensions, composition, and function. - Tie each feature to the legal significance of being outside the order. - Avoid conclusory assertions that the product is “different” without explaining why the difference matters under the scope language. 4. Address process and sourcing vulnerabilities - Review whether the product is made in the same facility, on the same line, or through the same primary process as subject merchandise. - If there is overlap, explain the downstream processing, added operations, or functional changes that break the scope connection. - If a record inconsistency exists, resolve it before filing or flag it as a material risk for revision. 5. Build the internal risk analysis separately - Assess circumvention risk where the product appears close to subject merchandise in design or production pathway. - Address whether the facts could be read as a post-order modification, minor alteration, or commercial substitution. - Identify the strongest opposing theory and explain how the request should preempt it. 6. Handle disclosure and compliance points - Disclose any relevant subsidy or government support information completely and accurately. - Ensure the product description, commercial documents, and entry data are internally consistent. - Confirm that the filing does not overstate the exclusion theory beyond the record support. 7. Support every legal proposition - Cite the controlling statute, regulation, or Commerce practice authority for each legal rule invoked. - Do not state a rule or conclusion in bare form; pair it with the authority and the record fact that supports it. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - The written scope controls over commercial labels and tariff classifications. - Prior scope rulings are persuasive context, but only to the extent the merchandise is materially similar or distinguishable on legally relevant grounds. - Engineering specifications, testing reports, purchase documents, and manufacturing records should be cross-checked for consistency before any filing position is finalized. - The strategy memorandum should be temporally sequenced: pre-filing cleanup, filing-position risks, likely Commerce follow-up, and post-filing response planning. - If the record contains multiple product iterations or production periods, separate pre-change and post-change facts rather than collapsing them into a single description. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce two deliverables: a Commerce-style scope ruling request and a separate internal strategy memorandum. - The scope ruling request should be organized in the conventional Commerce order-text-first sequence, followed by prior rulings, product description, analysis, and conclusion. - The internal strategy memorandum should be candid, risk-focused, and operationally useful, with clear recommendations for filing posture, record cleanup, and response planning. - Use industry-conventional headings and avoid mirroring any hidden checklist language. - Keep the request advocacy-oriented and the memo advisory; do not blend the two tones. - End the memo with concrete next steps that assign responsibility and timing relative to filing. - Before finishing, confirm that both files are drafted as operative documents, not summaries, and that the primary request is complete before the memo is finalized.