Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 825 F. Supp. 2d 1290

This court reviews Commerce's Redetermination following remand on the scope of the antidumping order for certain steel nails from PRC.
Commerce previously determined nails in household tool kits were outside the Final Order's scope, prompting a remand.
On remand, Commerce adopted a four-factor test to decide focus when nails are part of a mixed-media item.
The prior May 17, 2011, remand found Commerce failed to address intent and relied on an improper focus on tool kits.
Commerce asserted authority under 19 U.S.C. § 1673 and its inherent powers to define scope and to treat mixed-media items.
The court holds the Redetermination is not supported by substantial evidence or law and remands again.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce's four-factor test extends beyond interpretation.	Mid Continent Nail argues authority changes scope, not interprets.	Target argues four-factor test valid under Commerce's discretion.	Remand: test impermissibly expands beyond interpretation.
Whether nails in tool kits remain within the Final Order's scope.	Nails described in scope language; included regardless of packaging.	Tool kits analysis determines scope focus outside the order.	Remand: nails remain subject to Final Order; not outside by kit packaging.
Whether Commerce properly relied on Crawfish for substantial transformation.	Crawfish transformation in etouffee supports mixed-media analysis.	Crawfish does not apply; nails did not undergo substantial transformation.	Remand: Crawfish not controlling; nails not substantially transformed.
Whether Walgreen authority allows reinterpretation of order under general terms.	Walgreen permits discretion in focus but not changing order.	Walgreen supports discretionary focus on mixed-media item.	Remand: cannot reinterpret final order; must interpret within its terms.
Whether Commerce correctly rejected predictable permutations of product in final order.	Final Order should cover nails in sets; language broad enough.	General terms permit focusing on components; cannot enumerate all permutations.	Remand: law requires interpreting, not expanding scope.

Ithaca College v. N.L.R.B., 623 F.2d 224 (2d Cir. 1980) (agencies bound to follow circuit law; interpretation not expansion)
Walgreen Co. of Deerfield v. United States, 620 F.3d 1350 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (final order language defines scope; agency may focus inquiry)
Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States, 483 F.3d 1358 (Fed.Cir. 2007) (transformation standard for mixed-media ingredients)
Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed.Cir. 2002) (agency scope rulings and authority context)
Allegheny Bradford Corp. v. United States, 342 F.Supp.2d 1172 (2004) (scope interpretation limits on antidumping orders)
Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. United States, 60 F.3d 778 (Fed.Cir. 1995) (administrative interpretation vs. modification of orders)