393 F.Supp.3d 1251
Ct. Int'l Trade2019Background
- Commerce initially ruled (Mar. 20, 2017) that Simpson Strong-Tie’s zinc and nylon anchors fell within antidumping/countervailing duty Orders on certain steel nails from China.
- Simpson challenged the scope ruling in the Court of International Trade, arguing its anchors are not "nails," and the court remanded to Commerce after finding the Orders’ plain language excluded Simpson’s products.
- On remand Commerce issued Draft and then Final Remand Results (Dec. 2018), again finding under respectful protest that Simpson’s anchors are outside the Orders’ scope.
- Mid Continent (defendant-intervenor) urged the court to reconsider, citing concerns about the court’s use of dictionary definitions, the scope phrase "constructed of two or more pieces," and Federal Circuit precedent (Meridian).
- The court sustained Commerce’s Remand Results, reiterating its prior analysis that Simpson’s anchors do not function as nails and trade usage treats them as distinct products; Midwest Fastener (different product/record) does not control here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simpson’s zinc and nylon anchors are "nails" within the Orders’ plain language | Anchors are not nails; plain language excludes them | Commerce (on remand) maintains anchors are outside scope per court order; Mid Continent argues they should be within scope | Court held anchors are not nails and sustained Commerce’s remand determination that they are outside the Orders’ scope |
| Whether the phrase "constructed of two or more pieces" brings Simpson’s anchors into scope | Simpson: phrase does not transform anchors into nails; they do not function as nails | Mid Continent: phrase could include multi-piece anchors as nails | Court found anchors are not "constructed of two or more pieces" in the functional sense of nails and excluded them |
| Proper interpretive methods for scope language (dictionaries, trade usage) | Simpson: scope interpretation should consider dictionary definitions and trade usage | Mid Continent: cautioned against overreliance on dictionaries; urged broader reading | Court affirmed reliance on dictionaries plus full scope text and record trade usage evidence |
| Whether Meridian Prods. or Midwest Fastener require a different outcome | Simpson: Meridian does not undermine exclusion; Midwest Fastener is fact-specific and distinct | Mid Continent: cited Meridian and Midwest Fastener to challenge the court’s reasoning | Court held Meridian and Midwest Fastener do not alter its analysis; Midwest Fastener involved a different product/record |
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 record evidence)
- Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States, 890 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Federal Circuit precedent on scope interpretation cited and addressed)
- NEC Corp. v. Dep’t Commerce, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999) (use of dictionary definitions in scope interpretation)
- Midwest Fastener Corp. v. United States, 348 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (remanded different anchor product as ambiguous under the same Orders)
- King Supply Co. v. United States, 674 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (scope rulings are fact-specific)
- Walgreen Co. v. United States, 620 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (each scope inquiry depends on particular facts)
- Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (scope orders interpreted narrowly unless language specifically includes subject merchandise)