494 F.Supp.3d 1335
Ct. Int'l Trade2021Background
- Commerce’s PRC Nails antidumping duty order covers “certain steel nails… of one piece construction or constructed of two or more pieces.”
- Midwest Fastener imports strike pin anchors composed of four parts (pin, threaded body, nut, washer); anchors are installed by driving a pin that expands the body to fasten into masonry.
- In 2017 Commerce issued a final scope ruling finding Midwest’s anchors unambiguously within the PRC Nails Order based on the order language and (k)(1) sources; Commerce did not perform a (k)(2) analysis then.
- In Midwest I the Court found the order language ambiguous as applied to these anchors and remanded for a formal scope inquiry and (k)(2) analysis; Commerce maintained the products were within scope and performed a (k)(2) analysis under protest on remand.
- After Commerce’s second remand redetermination, the Federal Circuit decided OMG, which interpreted nearly identical Vietnam nail orders and held the anchors at issue there are not nails and criticized Commerce’s focus on the pin component.
- The Court reconsidered Midwest I in light of OMG and remanded Commerce’s Second Remand Results for reconsideration consistent with the Federal Circuit’s analysis in OMG (ordering a new remand redetermination and briefing schedule).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PRC Nails Order unambiguously covers Midwest’s strike pin anchors | Midwest: Order is ambiguous; anchors are not nails | Commerce: Order unambiguously covers two-or-more-piece nails, including anchors | Court: Reconsidered prior ambiguity finding and remanded for Commerce to decide consistent with OMG, which treated similar anchors as not nails |
| Whether Commerce may focus only on the pin component (making only the pin dutiable) | Midwest: Product must be considered as a whole | Commerce: Previously focused on pin component as dutiable | Court: Agreed with OMG that Commerce erred in isolating the pin; remand to apply product-specific analysis to whole article |
| Whether the Court should revisit its prior Midwest I ruling given OMG | Midwest: Supported prior remand for (k)(2) analysis | Commerce & parties: Asked court to consider OMG’s relevance | Court: Exercised authority to reconsider under Rule 54(b) and remanded for conformity with OMG |
Key Cases Cited
- OMG, Inc. v. United States, 972 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Federal Circuit interpreting near-identical steel-nails order and holding anchors at issue are not nails; rejecting compartmentalized pin-only analysis)
- Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (order language controls scope of antidumping orders)
- Ericsson GE Mobile Commc’ns, Inc. v. United States, 60 F.3d 778 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Commerce authorized to interpret and clarify its orders)
- King Supply Co., LLC v. United States, 674 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Commerce afforded substantial deference interpreting its antidumping orders)
- Eckstrom Indus., Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Commerce cannot interpret an order so as to change its scope or contravene its terms)
- Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (same principle restricting Commerce’s interpretive authority)
- Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (government’s adoption of a position "under protest" preserves right to appeal)