Omg, Inc. v. United States
972 F.3d 1358
Fed. Cir.2020Background
- In 2015 Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty Orders covering “certain steel nails” (nominal shaft ≤12 inches), including nails “constructed of two or more pieces.”
- OMG, Inc. imported zinc masonry anchors from Vietnam composed of a zinc-alloy body and a zinc-plated steel pin; installation requires predrilling a hole then driving the pin to expand the body (not impact-driving through the materials).
- Commerce initially issued a scope ruling finding OMG’s anchors within the Orders by characterizing the steel pin as a “steel nail” and treating the product as a multi-piece nail.
- The Court of International Trade (CIT) held the scope language unambiguous and concluded OMG’s anchors are unitary articles that are not nails (not designed for impact insertion), remanding to Commerce.
- On remand Commerce, under respectful protest, found the anchors outside the Orders; the CIT affirmed; the Government appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the CIT.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OMG) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the scope phrase “nails…constructed of two or more pieces” is ambiguous | Unambiguous; on its plain meaning it excludes OMG’s anchors | Unambiguous; on its plain meaning it includes OMG’s anchors | Unambiguous in context; plain meaning governs |
| Whether OMG’s anchors are “nails…constructed of two or more pieces” | Anchors are unitary and not designed for impact insertion; thus not nails | Anchors have a steel pin that is a nail component, so the product falls within the multi-piece nail description | Anchors are not nails; substantial evidence supports exclusion from the Orders |
| Whether Commerce erred by focusing on the steel pin rather than the product as a unitary article | Commerce improperly analyzed a component instead of the whole article | Focusing on the nail-like pin is reasonable because it functions as a fastener | Commerce erred in its original ruling by focusing on the component; remand determination treating anchors as unitary is supported |
| Proper use of HTSUS subheading and dictionaries in scope analysis | Dictionary consultation is permissible; HTSUS classification reference does not import all products under that heading | HTSUS subheading reference and cataloging support inclusion; CIT should not narrow scope via dictionaries | CIT permissibly used dictionaries; HTSUS subheading reference is not dispositive and does not make all items under that subheading nails |
Key Cases Cited
- ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v. United States, 694 F.3d 82 (Fed. Cir.) (framework for deciding whether scope language is ambiguous)
- Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States, 851 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.) (de novo review for legal scope-ambiguity questions; factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 725 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir.) (sequence of (k)(1) and (k)(2) analysis when scope language is ambiguous)
- Novosteel SA v. United States, 284 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard for factual scope determinations)
- Smith Corona Corp. v. United States, 915 F.2d 683 (Fed. Cir.) (courts may consult dictionaries to determine common meaning of order terms)