2019 CIT 58
Ct. Int'l Trade2019Background
- Commerce initially ruled (Feb 6, 2017) that OMG, Inc.'s zinc anchors fell within antidumping and countervailing duty Orders covering certain steel nails from Vietnam.
- OMG challenged that scope ruling in the Court of International Trade, arguing its anchors are not nails.
- The court held that the plain language of the Orders excluded OMG's anchors and remanded to Commerce for redetermination consistent with that opinion.
- On remand, Commerce issued a Draft and then Final Remand Redetermination (Aug 27, 2018) finding under respectful protest that OMG's zinc anchors are outside the Orders' scope.
- Mid Continent Steel & Wire (intervenor) challenged the court's use of dictionaries and other aspects of the court's interpretation, arguing potential conflict with Federal Circuit precedent.
- The Court sustained Commerce's Remand Results, rejecting Mid Continent's challenges and reaffirming that the anchors are not nails based on scope language, dictionaries, and trade evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OMG's zinc anchors are within the scope of the "steel nails" Orders | OMG: anchors are not nails and thus outside the Orders | Commerce: (on remand under protest) anchors are outside scope; Mid Continent: court erred in using dictionaries and may conflict with Meridian | Court held anchors are outside the Orders; sustained Commerce's remand finding |
| Proper interpretive method for scope language (use of dictionaries and trade evidence) | OMG: plain meaning excludes anchors; court may consult dictionaries and trade usage | Mid Continent: court should not rely on dictionaries; must consider scope phrase "two or more pieces" and Meridian | Court held use of dictionaries plus consideration of full scope text and trade evidence was proper |
| Whether phrase "may be constructed of two or more pieces" brings OMG anchors within scope | Mid Continent: that phrase could include multi-piece anchors | OMG: anchors do not function as nails despite potential multi-piece construction | Court concluded anchors are not "constructed of two or more pieces" in the operative sense and do not function as nails; phrase does not cover them |
| Whether Federal Circuit's Meridian decision undermines the court's analysis | Mid Continent: Meridian may conflict with the court's approach | OMG: Meridian does not change outcome | Court found Meridian did not undermine its analysis or determination |
Key Cases Cited
- ArcelorMittal Stainless Belg. N.V. v. United States, 694 F.3d 82 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (scope interpretation may consider trade usage and context)
- Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States, 890 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (addressing scope interpretation principles)
- NEC Corp. v. Dep't Commerce, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999) (use of dictionaries in scope interpretation)
- OMG, Inc. v. United States, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1262 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2018) (court's prior opinion holding OMG's anchors are outside the Orders)