'Rough' Pipe Fittings Aren't 'Unfinished' Pipe Fittings, US and Exporters Say
An antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe didn’t cover an exporter’s “rough” pipe fittings, the U.S. and the exporter said, which are distinguished from “unfinished” pipe fittings that would be subject to the order (NORCA Industrial Company, LLC v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00231).
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 order, which covers “carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings … imported in either finished or unfinished form,” actually was ambiguous -- despite arguments by petitioners led by Tube Forgings of America (see 2403200072) -- because it didn't explicitly define “rough fittings,” the government said in opposition to the petitioners’ motion for judgment May 25. The order also didn't consider them the same as “unfinished fittings,” the government said.
Turning to primary source evidence, the U.S. noted that the order’s original petition described “unfinished fittings” as those that had undergone two out of the product’s three manufacturing steps. It added that the International Trade Commission’s final report regarding the merchandise did something similar.
“Rough” fittings, however, are precursors to unfinished fittings that have only undergone the first manufacturing step, it said, based on both the ITC’s report and the original petition. It argued the second step is when the “essential characteristics of the subject merchandise are imparted.”
“TFA’s challenge to Commerce’s covered merchandise determination is based on a misreading of the governing law and the record evidence, as well as mere disagreement with the weight that Commerce accorded the record evidence,” the government said.
Defendant-intervenors Norca Industrial Company and International Piping and Procurement Group agreed with the U.S. in their own reply. They added that a scope ruling cited by the petitioners found that rough fittings from China finished in Thailand were circumventing that same order. That ruling didn’t find that rough fittings are the same as unfinished fittings, the exporters said; it only held that no substantial transformation had occurred in the final two steps of the manufacturing process. It was finished fittings from Thailand made from Chinese rough fittings that were subsequently found to be circumventing the order, they said.