463 F.Supp.3d 1366
Ct. Int'l Trade2020Background
- Commerce issued a Final Scope Ruling (Aug. 17, 2017) finding Star Pipe’s ductile-iron flanges are within the antidumping duty Order on non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings.
- Star Pipe’s flanges: disc-shaped ductile-iron castings with a threaded hub and bolt-hole pattern; imported as separate flanges intended to be attached to straight-end pipe during fabrication.
- The court in Star Pipe I remanded the Final Scope Ruling, holding Commerce failed to give "thorough and fair consideration" to the petition and the ITC report as required by 19 C.F.R. §351.225(k)(1).
- On remand Commerce placed new factual information on the record and issued a Remand Redetermination again finding the flanges within the Order, relying on (1) the petition (including Anvil/Ward brochures), (2) the ITC report, and (3) prior Commerce scope rulings (UV, Napac, Taco).
- The court now holds Commerce misinterpreted the ITC report (notably conflating flanges with “flanged fittings” and relying on post‑importation uses), finds the ITC report contains evidence detracting from inclusion, and orders a second remand for Commerce to correct the error and reassess the record.
- The court left open whether the petition and the UV ruling (and the AWWA C115/companion‑standard argument) suffice to include or exclude the flanges, directing Commerce to decide in the first instance on second remand and set a 90‑day deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce complied with 19 C.F.R. §351.225(k)(1) on remand | Commerce still failed to fully and fairly consider the petition and ITC report | Commerce considered the petition, ITC report, and prior determinations on remand | Court: Commerce considered the required sources on remand but misanalyzed the ITC report; remand again for corrected determination |
| Whether the ITC report supports treating Star Pipe’s flanges as within the Order | ITC report does not discuss flanges and contains evidence that flanges (as imported) are outside the scope | ITC description of “pipe fittings” covers items like Star Pipe’s flanges | Court: ITC does not support inclusion; Commerce misread the ITC (confused flanges with flanged fittings and relied on post‑importation functions) |
| Whether prior Commerce scope rulings (UV, Napac, Taco) support inclusion | Prior rulings do not address Star Pipe’s specific flanges and thus do not support inclusion | Prior rulings show Commerce has previously treated some flanges/ductile fittings as within scope | Court: UV ruling is somewhat on point (but flawed); Napac and Taco do not reliably cover Star Pipe’s flanges; UV and petition evidence may support inclusion but Commerce must reassess in light of corrected ITC analysis |
| Whether AWWA standard (C115) or companion‑standard argument excludes Star Pipe’s flanges | C115 is a companion standard to C110/C153 (C115 covers flanges) so flanges should fall within the Order’s AWWA exclusions | The Order excludes only AWWA C110 and C153 by name; companion standards are irrelevant | Court: Did not resolve; notes Commerce previously rejected the companion argument and invited Commerce to address the issue on remand (and to consider ProPulse analogy) |
Key Cases Cited
- Star Pipe Prods. v. United States, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1277 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2019) (remanding Final Scope Ruling for failure to give thorough and fair consideration to petition and ITC report)