Steel Branch Outlet Importer Argues Against US Procedural Claims in Scope Spat at CAFC
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should disregard the government's procedural arguments in a case on whether Vandewater International's steel branch outlets fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China, importer Smith-Cooper International (SCI) argued in a reply brief (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1093).
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.
The U.S. had said SCI's claim that the Court of International Trade's analysis of the dictionary definitions of the term "butt-weld" ignored substantial evidence is "insufficient to preserve any related issue for review." But SCI countered that it properly raised the issue before the Federal Circuit since "it is relevant to its review of the CIT's disposition" of the claims pertaining to the unambiguous meaning of the scope "that the CIT ignored entirely large volumes of record evidence and arguments related to dictionary definitions of the term 'butt-weld.'" Since past trade court cases have relied on dictionary definitions of terms, it is relevant to the appellate court that CIT failed to address the dictionary definitions of the terms, the brief said.
The government also claimed that SCI made a series of arguments that Vandewater declined to make, adding that since these claims have not been raised on the record of this case, they are unexhausted and waived. SCI said this was untrue since CIT reviewed its, Vandewater's and Sigma Corp.'s cases in parallel but did not divide its opinion into separate parts despite the different records in all three cases.
"Because SCI’s arguments concerning the unambiguous meanings of other scope terms were before the CIT and informed its (k)(0) opinion now on review by this Court, and these arguments have been fully briefed in the instant appeal, those arguments are not waived," the brief said. "Rather, it is the Government that has waived its arguments concerning the meanings of these other scope terms by not substantially addressing SCI’s arguments in its brief to the Court."
SCI along with Sigma Corp. are claiming that the unambiguous meaning of the scope excludes Vandewater's outlets. Failing this, the companies say the (k)(1) sources show that the relevant outlets should be excluded from the order. Sigma most recently filed a reply brief claiming that the government violated key precedent by interpreting the order without any consideration of the way the order's language is used in the relevant industry and identified ambiguity where none exists (see 2305120049).