King Supply Co., LLC v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6241
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- King Importers sought a scope ruling to exclude its butt-weld pipe fittings from the antidumping duty order; the Commerce Department deemed them within the scope.
- The antidumping duty order covers carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings under 14 inches diameter used to join pipe sections in piping systems.
- King argued the second sentence of the Order functions as an end-use restriction limiting the scope to piping-system uses.
- The Trade Court vacated Commerce's remand scope ruling and held the Order includes an exclusive end-use restriction.
- Commerce on remand concluded King’s fittings are within the scope as they share physical characteristics and uses, rejecting an exclusive end-use interpretation.
- The Federal Circuit reversed, giving deference to Commerce and holding the Order lacks an explicit end-use exclusion, so King’s products can be within scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the AD order contains an end-use restriction. | King argues second sentence is end-use restriction. | Commerce held no end-use restriction; phrase is exemplary. | No end-use restriction; phrase is exemplary and not exclusive. |
| Whether Commerce's scope ruling reasonably interpreted the Order. | King contends ruling conflicts with petition/ITC findings. | Commerce reasonably read language consistent with petition and ITC. | Commerce interpretation reasonably within terms of the Order. |
| Whether substantial evidence supports Commerce's ruling on scope. | King asserts lack of substantial evidence for inclusion. | Record supports inclusion via physical characteristics and prior determinations. | Supported by substantial evidence; Trade Court erred in deference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walgreen Co. v. United States, 620 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (scope rulings require deference to Commerce; order language controls)
- Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (order language governs scope; not every use must be exclusive)
- Eckstrom Indus., Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (excluded cast fittings due to an exclusive text and evidence gap)
- Duferco Steel Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (cannot graft petition language to alter order text)
- Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affords Commerce deference on interpretations of orders)
- Sandvik Steel Co. v. United States, 164 F.3d 596 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (expounds deference to Commerce on scope interpretations)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (broad deference but limits where inconsistent with order terms)
- American Silicon Techs. v. United States, 261 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (supports substantial evidence standard in scope review)