Steel Branch Outlets Are Not Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, Manufacturers Argue at CIT
The Court of International Trade should again reject the Commerce Department's determination on remand that the physical characteristics of outlets don't differ from butt-weld pipe fittings for antidumping duty scope purposes, Vandewater International said in Sept. 24 comments at the Court of International Trade (Vandewater International Inc., et al. v. United States, CIT #18-00199).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
In October 2020, CIT issued an opinion striking down a then-two-year-old scope ruling that found that steel branch outlets used in fire protection systems are subject to antidumping duties on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China (see 2010190031). The court found that Commerce failed to adequately explain itself, relying mostly on a previous scope ruling that doesn't fully address the issue. Upon reconsideration, Commerce continued to find that Vandewater's steel branch outlets fall within the scope of the AD order. The agency held that the physical characteristics of the steel branch outlets are similar to the characteristics of the butt-weld pipe fittings (see 2107260042).
According to Vandewater and plaintiff-intervenor SIGMA Corporation, Commerce mischaracterized and disregarded key record evidence in its analysis, leading to three key shortcomings, SIGMA said. The agency's analysis falls short on: its consideration of industry standards, lack of discussion on the expert report of Walter Sperko, and the relevance of the contoured edge of the steel weld outlets, "a fundamental physical characteristic of steel weld outlets," the comments argued.
"Commerce’s discussion cannot be squared with the very nature of industry standards; its practice; or court jurisprudence," SIGMA said. "Industry standards exist to define distinct products; the idea that a product could conform to multiple industry standards, thereby re-categorizing that product, would effectively render those standards meaningless." But this is precisely what Commerce attempted to do, the comments said.
Vandewater added that Commerce's analysis, pointing to caps, lap joint stub ends and saddles as butt-weld pipe fittings is a "red herring," since these fittings have one butt-weld end whereas Vandewater's have no butt-weld ends and are thus distinguishable in physical characteristics.
"Commerce also stated in the same scope memorandum that '[u]nlike butt weld fittings, forged steel fittings can have a variety of end finishes including threaded or socket-welds. This language demonstrates that butt weld fittings can only have butt welded end connections, and as stated above, only butt weld outlets with butt welded end connections are excluded from the scope of the investigations.' This detailed discussion by Commerce should be the end of the matter. Vandewater’s grooved and threaded welded outlets are not butt-weld pipe fittings because their end connections on the run side are grooved or welded, not butt-weld end connections," Vandewater said.