CIT Again Remands Exclusion of 'Unfinished' Pipe Fittings From AD Order

Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said two of the (k)(1) sources used by Commerce, namely the International Trade Commission report and underlying AD petition, didn't support the agency's determination. The judge instructed Commerce to consider the (k)(2) sources on remand, including the "applicable industry standards" and "declarations from domestic industry executives," and to revisit its substantial transformation analysis to determine the subject goods' country of origin.

Pipe fittings subject to the AD order at issue go through three stages of production: (1) seamless pipe is converted into the "rough shape of an elbow, tee, reducer, etc., through a cold- or hot-forming (or forging) process"; (2) rough fittings are reformed or sized so that they will match the pipe they are "destined to be welded to"; and (3) the fitting undergoes various finishing processes.

In its initial scope ruling, Commerce excluded from the scope of the order "unfinished" pipe fittings that undergo step one of the production process in China but that undergo the second and third steps in Vietnam. Choe-Groves previously remanded the scope ruling on the basis that Commerce "arbitrarily deviated from its longstanding practice of considering products in the 'rough shape of an elbow, tee, or reducer, which were not headed or formed,' to be butt-weld pipe fittings that fall in the scope of the order" (see 2501020044).

Of particular issue was Commerce's use of the term "rough fitting," which the judge remanded for the agency to answer whether a "rough fitting" is identifiable as a "butt-weld pipe fitting." On remand, the agency acknowledged that its use of the term "rough fitting" created confusion, though it said it used that term to describe goods that underwent the first step of the production process.

To cure this confusion, Commerce identified products as either "rough shapes" for pipe that had undergone the first step of the production process or "unfinished fittings" for rough shapes that had undergone the second step of the production process. The agency ultimately stuck with its initial scope determination, offering additional explanation for its consideration of the (k)(1) sources remanded by Commerce.

Regarding the ITC report and the AD petition, Choe-Groves remained unconvinced that these sources actually support the agency's position.

Where the petition is concerned, the judge initially remanded the scope ruling to let Commerce address the petition's lack of reference to the term "rough fitting" and analyze whether the petition answers whether a carbon steel pipe that has been cut to length in the "rough shape of an elbow, tee, or reducer, is identifiable as a butt-weld pipe fitting." Commerce said that while the petition doesn't reference the term "rough fitting," it does distinguish between merchandise that has undergone the first production stage and that which has undergone the first and second stages of production.

Choe-Groves held that while the petition does discuss the three stages of production, it doesn't "dispositively require that a butt-weld pipe fitting must be heat- or cold-treated and formed before it is in scope." The judge added that the order's plain language doesn't require that a butt-weld pipe fitting must be heat- or cold-treated and formed before it's in scope. The agency also failed to "satisfactorily" address whether the petition addresses the situation where a steel pipe that has been cut into a rough fitting is identifiable as a butt-weld pipe fitting, the court said.

Commerce's analysis of the ITC report didn't fare any better. The report only uses the term "rough" once, when issued in reference to "rough-formed unfinished fittings." Specifically, the report said that specific producers buy or import "rough-formed unfinished fittings which they bevel, bore, taper, grind, shot blast, die stamp, inspect, and paint." Choe-Groves initially said this sentence didn't support Commerce's finding, since it indicates that rough-formed carbon steel pipes are unfinished fittings that are later processed.

On remand, the agency said its use of the term "rough fittings" wasn't meant to be synonymous with the term "rough-formed unfinished fittings," since the latter are within the scope of the order. Commerce also said it relied on another sentence in the report, which says an unfinished pipe fitting is one that has been "advanced after forging" but which requires at least one more processing step to finish the fitting.

Choe-Groves held that it's "unclear" what is meant by the phrase "advanced after forging." While the agency seemingly equates this phrase with the term "formed" used in the petition, which is the second stage of production, the report doesn't describe the forging process and thus "does not dispositively confirm what process applies" after forging to be considered subject pipe. This term also doesn't address "whether heat- or cold-treating and forming are required to be in scope," the judge said.

In all, the judge said the ITC report doesn't clearly establish the first two stages of production or conclude that a product only becomes in-scope after going through the first two production stages.

And while Choe-Groves also remanded Commerce's consideration of a prior AD circumvention ruling regarding Thai pipe, the judge ultimately found that the agency sufficiently explained that this ruling doesn't detract from the present scope ruling, primarily due to the different analytic frameworks that are applied to circumvention cases and scope referrals.

Since the (k)(1) sources ultimately didn't support Commerce's finding, Choe-Groves told the agency to review the (k)(2) criteria. Commerce's (k)(2) analysis could include the industry standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials and American National Standards Institute, which were raised on remand but not considered by the agency, along with declarations from domestic industry executives. In the court's first decision, the judge faulted the agency for failing to account for these declarations.

Choe-Groves added that Commerce should "revisit its substantial transformation analysis" in conjunction with the (k)(2) analysis, since there's "some overlap of criteria."

(Tube Forgings of America v. United States, Slip Op. 25-156, CIT Consol. # 23-00231, dated 12/16/25; Judge: Jennifer Choe-Groves; Attorneys: Lawrence Bogard of Neville Peterson for plaintiffs Tube Forgings of America and Mills Iron Works; Anne Delmare for defendant U.S. government; Jeremy Dutra of Squire Patton for defendant-intervenors Norca Industrial Co. and International Piping & Procurement Group)