CIT Again Remands Scope Ruling on Flanges Under AD Order on Cast Iron Pipe Fittings
The Commerce Department has to reconsider two scope rulings that found that certain flanges are subject to the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China. In two decisions, the Court of International Trade said that Commerce either misinterpreted evidence or failed to consider all the relevant evidence when deciding that flanges from MCC Holdings, doing business as Crane Resistoflex, and Star Pipe Products are subject to the antidumping duty order.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
In Crane's case, the company sought a scope ruling on nine models of its "Ductile Iron Lap Joint Flanges," with each model being a single disc-shaped piece made of ductile iron with a large, unthreaded center hole. Following an initial remand from Judge Timothy Stanceu, Commerce relied on brochures from the antidumping duty petitioner, Anvil International, along with the petition itself to find that the AD order covers the flanges in question. Stanceu was not convinced, since neither the petition nor the scope language of the AD order touch on flanges.
When making its decision in the second remand results, Commerce also used information from the International Trade Commission's report in the underlying antidumping investigation and prior scope rulings. In its remand, Commerce said that "although the ITC considered all flanged ductile cast iron fittings to be excluded from the scope, it did not exclude ductile iron flanges from the scope or the domestic like product." Stanceu was quick to dub this finding "misleading and erroneous." He wrote: "In discussing the scope, the ITC did not identify flanges as within the scope of either its investigation or the scope of its domestic like product. Because it omits this critical context, the statement that the ITC did not 'exclude' flanges is misleading."
On the use of the prior scope rulings, in the case's first decision, Stanceu said that two of the prior rulings actually support the flange's exclusion from the AD order. Commerce continued to rely on the remaining ruling to back its finding. That ruling "appears to be on point, but the support it provides is limited by an erroneous analysis," Stanceu countered. "The products at issue in the [ruling relied on by Commerce] were flat-faced ductile iron flanges."
Star Pipe's case bears similarities to Crane's, and not just for the fact that they both concern a scope ruling for flanges. Commerce also relied on the original petition when supporting its finding that Star Pipe's flanges are within the scope of the AD order. However, Star Pipe's flanges in particular are made from ductile iron and meet the American Water Works Association Standard C115.
In Star Pipe's case, the scope language of the AD order contained an exclusion which held that "Ductile cast iron fittings with mechanical joint ends (MJ), or push on ends (PO), or flanged ends and produced to the American Water Works Association (AWWA) specifications AWWA C110 or AWWA C153 are not included." Commerce said that this didn't apply to Star Pipe's flanges. Stanceu found that finding to not be backed by substantial evidence.
"Paradoxically, Commerce nevertheless concluded in the Second Remand Redetermination that the 'narrow' scope of the AWWA exclusion effectuated the intent of the petitioners, even though the Petition proposed no exclusion for products made to AWWA standards," the judge said. "The record evidence does not support the Department’s conclusion. ... This evidence must be considered in light of the aforementioned record evidence indicating that the ITC -- in the section setting forth the actual views of the Commission as opposed to the section from the staff report -- considered all ductile iron flanged fittings to be outside the scope of the ITC’s investigation."
(MCC Holdings doing business as Crane Resistoflex v. United States, Slip Op. 21-109, CIT # 18-00248, dated 08/26/21, Judge Stanceu. Attorneys: Peter Koenig of Squire Patton for plaintiff Crane; L. Misha Preheim for defendant U.S. government)
(Star Pipe Products v. United States, Slip Op. 21-110, CIT # 17-00236, dated 08/26/21, Judge Stanceu. Attorneys: Francis Sailer of Grunfeld Desiderio for plaintiff Star Pipe; L. Misha Preheim for defendant U.S. government)