SlipȱOp.ȱ24Ȭ30ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ
MCCȱHOLDINGSȱdoingȱbusinessȱasȱ CRANEȱRESISTOFLEX,ȱ
Plaintiff,ȱ
v.ȱ
ȱȱBefore:ȱȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ
ȱȱCourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ
Defendant,ȱ
andȱ
ASCȱENGINEEREDȱSOLUTIONS,ȱLLC,ȱ DefendantȬIntervenor.ȱ
OPINIONȱ
[Sustainingȱaȱremandȱredeterminationȱsubmittedȱinȱresponseȱtoȱcourtȱorderȱinȱ litigationȱcontestingȱaȱscopeȱruling]ȱ
Dated:ȱMarch 11, 2024
PeterȱJ.ȱKoenig,ȱSquireȱPattonȱBoggsȱ(US)ȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱplaintiff.ȱȱ WithȱhimȱonȱtheȱsubmissionȱwereȱJeremyȱW.ȱDutraȱandȱChristopherȱD.ȱClark.ȱ
JoshuaȱE.ȱKurland,ȱTrialȱCounsel,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱ forȱdefendant.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱsubmissionȱwereȱBrianȱM.ȱBoynton,ȱPrincipalȱDeputyȱ AssistantȱAttorneyȱGeneral,ȱPatriciaȱM.ȱMcCarthy,ȱDirector,ȱandȱL.ȱMishaȱPreheim,ȱ AssistantȱDirector.ȱȱOfȱcounselȱwasȱW.ȱMitchellȱPurdy,ȱAttorney,ȱOfficeȱofȱtheȱChiefȱ CounselȱforȱTradeȱEnforcementȱ&ȱCompliance,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱCommerce,ȱofȱ Washington,ȱD.C.ȱ ȱ DanielȱL.ȱSchneiderman,ȱKingȱ&ȱSpaldingȱLLP,ȱofȱWashingtonȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendantȬ intervenor.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱsubmissionȱwasȱJ.ȱMichaelȱTaylor.ȱ ȱ Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱȱPlaintiffȱMCCȱHoldingsȱdbaȱCraneȱResistoflexȱ(“Crane”),ȱanȱ
importerȱofȱcertainȱductileȱironȱlapȱjointȱflangesȱ(“Crane’sȱflanges”),ȱbroughtȱthisȱactionȱ toȱcontestȱanȱadministrativeȱdecisionȱbyȱtheȱInternationalȱTradeȱAdministration,ȱU.S.ȱ DepartmentȱofȱCommerceȱ(“Commerce”ȱorȱtheȱ“Department”)ȱthatȱitsȱimportedȱ merchandiseȱisȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorderȱonȱcertainȱpipeȱfittingsȱ fromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱ(theȱ“Order”).ȱȱNoticeȱofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱOrder:ȱ NonȬMalleableȱCastȱIronȱPipeȱ[Fittings]ȱFromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱChina,ȱ68ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ 16,765ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱApr.ȱ7,ȱ2003)ȱ(theȱ“Order”).ȱ Beforeȱtheȱcourtȱisȱaȱredeterminationȱuponȱremandȱ(theȱ“ThirdȱRemandȱ Redetermination”),ȱwhichȱCommerceȱsubmittedȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱopinionȱandȱ orderȱinȱMCCȱHoldingsȱdbaȱCraneȱResistoflexȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ 1201ȱ(2022)ȱ(“CraneȱII”).ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCourtȱOrderȱ (Dec.ȱ19,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ64ȱ(“ThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination”).ȱ CommerceȱdeterminedȱinȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱunderȱprotest,ȱ thatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱnotȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱPlaintiffȱhasȱcommentedȱinȱfavorȱofȱ theȱThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱPl.ȱMCCȱHoldingsȱDBAȱCraneȱResistoflex’sȱ CommentsȱonȱCommerceȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Jan.ȱ3,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ66ȱ (“Crane’sȱComments”).ȱȱDefendantȬintervenor,ȱASCȱEngineeredȱSolutions,ȱLLCȱ ȱ (“ASC”),ȱhasȱcommentedȱinȱopposition.ȱȱDef.ȬIntervenor’sȱCommentsȱonȱtheȱFinalȱ
ResultsȱofȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ1ȱ(Jan.ȱ3,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ67ȱ(“ASC’sȱ2023ȱ Comments”)ȱ(incorporatingȱbyȱreferenceȱDef.ȬIntervenor’sȱCommentsȱonȱtheȱFinalȱ ResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱ(Jan.ȱ20,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ60ȱ(“ASC’sȱ2022ȱComments”)).ȱȱȱȱ DefendantȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱshouldȱenterȱjudgmentȱforȱtheȱGovernment,ȱ maintainingȱthatȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱisȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱ evidenceȱandȱotherwiseȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlaw.ȱ TheȱcourtȱsustainsȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱ I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ
Backgroundȱonȱthisȱcaseȱisȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱcourt’sȱpriorȱopinionsȱandȱisȱ summarizedȱandȱsupplementedȱherein.ȱȱCraneȱII,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1202—03;ȱ MCCȱHoldingsȱdbaȱCraneȱResistoflexȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ45ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1350,ȱ 1353—55ȱ(2021)ȱ(“CraneȱI”).ȱ OnȱAugustȱ29,ȱ2018,ȱCraneȱfiledȱaȱrequestȱwithȱCommerceȱforȱaȱscopeȱrulingȱ(theȱ “ScopeȱRulingȱRequest”),ȱwhichȱadvocatedȱthatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱ theȱOrder.ȱȱNonȬMalleableȱCastȱIronȱPipeȱFittingsȱfromȱChina:ȱDuctileȱIronȱLapȱJointȱFlanges,ȱ ScopeȱRequestȱ(P.R.ȱDoc.ȱ1)ȱ(“ScopeȱRulingȱRequest”).1ȱȱInȱtheȱdecisionȱcontestedȱinȱthisȱ
ȱ
ȱAllȱcitationsȱtoȱdocumentsȱfromȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱareȱtoȱpublicȱ 1
documents.ȱȱTheseȱdocumentsȱareȱcitedȱasȱ“P.R.ȱDoc.ȱ__.”ȱ ȱ litigation,ȱtheȱ“FinalȱScopeȱRuling,”ȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱCrane’sȱflangesȱtoȱbeȱwithinȱ
theȱscope.ȱȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱonȱtheȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱOrderȱonȱNonȬMalleableȱCastȱIronȱ PipeȱFittingsȱfromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱMCCȱHoldingsȱdbaȱCraneȱResistoflexȱ(P.R.ȱ Doc.ȱ16)ȱ(“FinalȱScopeȱRuling”).ȱȱCraneȱcommencedȱthisȱactionȱtoȱcontestȱtheȱFinalȱScopeȱ RulingȱonȱDecemberȱ19,ȱ2018.ȱȱSummons,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ1;ȱCompl.,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ2.ȱ CraneȱmovedȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱagencyȱrecordȱunderȱUSCITȱRuleȱ56.2.ȱȱ Pl.ȱMCCȱHoldingsȱdbaȱCraneȱResistoflex’sȱRuleȱ56.2ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱonȱtheȱAgencyȱR.ȱ (Aug.ȱ23,ȱ2019),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ27.ȱȱInȱresponseȱtoȱCrane’sȱmotion,ȱdefendantȱfiledȱanȱ unopposedȱmotionȱforȱthisȱcaseȱtoȱbeȱremandedȱtoȱCommerceȱinȱlightȱofȱthisȱCourt’sȱ decisionȱinȱStarȱPipeȱProds.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ43ȱCITȱ__,ȱ365ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1277ȱ(2019)ȱ(“Starȱ PipeȱI”).ȱȱDef.’sȱUnopposedȱMot.ȱtoȱStayȱBriefingȱScheduleȱandȱtoȱGrantȱVoluntaryȱ Remand,ȱ(Dec.ȱ30,ȱ2019),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ32.ȱȱStarȱPipeȱIȱaroseȱfromȱlitigationȱinȱwhichȱaȱ plaintiffȱcontestedȱaȱscopeȱrulingȱonȱductileȱironȱflangesȱthatȱinȱmanyȱrespectsȱwereȱ similarȱtoȱCrane’sȱflanges.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱconcludedȱinȱStarȱPipeȱIȱthatȱtheȱfinalȱscopeȱrulingȱ atȱissueȱinȱthatȱcaseȱdidȱnotȱreflectȱconsiderationȱofȱallȱofȱtheȱfactorsȱ(theȱ“(k)(1)ȱfactors”)ȱ Commerceȱwasȱrequiredȱtoȱconsiderȱaccordingȱtoȱitsȱregulation,ȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ §ȱ351.225(k)(1).ȱȱTheȱcourtȱgrantedȱdefendant’sȱmotionȱinȱpartȱand,ȱconsideringȱtheȱ ȱ Department’sȱrequestedȱremandȱtooȱnarrow,ȱdirectedȱCommerceȱtoȱreconsiderȱtheȱFinalȱ
ScopeȱRulingȱinȱtheȱentirety.2ȱȱOrderȱ2ȱ(Jan.ȱ7,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ33.ȱ Commerceȱsubmittedȱtheȱfirstȱredeterminationȱuponȱremandȱ(“FirstȱRemandȱ Redetermination”)ȱonȱAprilȱ3,ȱ2020,ȱinȱwhichȱitȱagainȱconcludedȱthatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱ wereȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCt.ȱ Order,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ39Ȭ1ȱ(“FirstȱRemandȱRedetermination”).ȱȱInȱCraneȱI,ȱtheȱcourtȱremandedȱ theȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱtoȱCommerce,ȱrulingȱthatȱCommerceȱhadȱfailedȱtoȱ considerȱcertainȱmaterialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecordȱthatȱdetractedȱfromȱitsȱdeterminationȱ andȱreachedȱsomeȱconclusionsȱthatȱwereȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱrecordȱevidence.ȱȱ CraneȱI,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1353.ȱ Commerceȱfiledȱaȱredeterminationȱ(theȱ“SecondȱRemandȱRedetermination”)ȱinȱ responseȱtoȱCraneȱIȱonȱDecemberȱ21,ȱ2021,ȱinȱwhichȱCommerceȱruled,ȱunderȱprotest,ȱthatȱ Crane’sȱflangesȱwereȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱ PursuantȱtoȱCourtȱOrder,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ58Ȭ1.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱconcludedȱinȱCraneȱIIȱthatȱtheȱSecondȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱwasȱpreliminaryȱtoȱanȱactualȱscopeȱdeterminationȱand,ȱ therefore,ȱnotȱinȱaȱformȱinȱwhichȱitȱcouldȱgoȱintoȱeffectȱifȱsustainedȱuponȱjudicialȱreview.ȱȱ
ȱ
2ȱTheȱcourtȱrecentlyȱsustainedȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdetermination,ȱsubmittedȱunderȱ
protestȱfollowingȱthisȱcourt’sȱdecisionȱinȱStarȱPipeȱProds.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ607ȱ F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1192ȱ(2022)ȱ(“StarȱPipeȱIV”),ȱthatȱStarȱPipe’sȱflangesȱareȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱ theȱOrder.ȱȱStarȱPipeȱProds.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ48ȱCITȱ__,ȱSlipȱOp.ȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ28ȱ(Mar.ȱ6,ȱ2024)ȱ (“StarȱPipeȱV”).ȱ ȱ CraneȱII,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1209ȱ(2022).ȱȱConcludingȱthatȱtheȱSecondȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱ“doesȱnotȱallowȱtheȱcourtȱtoȱperformȱitsȱessentialȱjudicialȱ reviewȱfunction,”ȱCraneȱIIȱorderedȱCommerceȱtoȱissueȱaȱdeterminationȱthatȱwouldȱgoȱ intoȱeffectȱifȱsustainedȱuponȱjudicialȱreview.ȱȱId.ȱȱCraneȱIIȱheld,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱtheȱSecondȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱ“misconstruesȱCraneȱIȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱmadeȱ ‘findings’ȱandȱimpliesȱthatȱCommerceȱisȱreachingȱtheȱdecisionȱtoȱexcludeȱCrane’sȱ flangesȱfromȱtheȱOrderȱoutȱofȱaȱneedȱtoȱimplementȱthoseȱ‘findings.’”ȱȱId.ȱȱCraneȱIIȱ clarifiedȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱdidȱnotȱmakeȱfindingsȱinȱCraneȱIȱnorȱdidȱitȱdirectȱtheȱresult.ȱȱId.ȱȱ TheȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱCraneȱIIȱaddedȱthatȱaȱdecisionȱonȱwhetherȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱ withinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrderȱ“isȱaȱdeterminationȱforȱCommerceȱtoȱmakeȱuponȱ remand.”ȱȱId.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1208.ȱ II.ȱȱDISCUSSIONȱ
A.ȱȱJurisdictionȱandȱStandardȱofȱReviewȱ Theȱcourtȱexercisesȱsubjectȱmatterȱjurisdictionȱunderȱsectionȱ201ȱofȱtheȱCustomsȱ CourtsȱActȱofȱ1980,ȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1581(c),ȱwhichȱgrantsȱjurisdictionȱoverȱcivilȱactionsȱ broughtȱunderȱsectionȱ516AȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱofȱ1930,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1516a.3ȱȱAmongȱtheȱ decisionsȱthatȱmayȱbeȱcontestedȱaccordingȱtoȱsectionȱ516Aȱisȱaȱdeterminationȱofȱ
ȱ
3ȱCitationsȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱCodeȱandȱtoȱtheȱCodeȱofȱFederalȱRegulationsȱareȱ toȱtheȱ2018ȱeditions.ȱ ȱ “whetherȱaȱparticularȱtypeȱofȱmerchandiseȱisȱwithinȱtheȱclassȱorȱkindȱofȱmerchandiseȱ
describedȱinȱanȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱantidumpingȱorȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorder.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi).ȱȱ Inȱreviewingȱanȱagencyȱdetermination,ȱtheȱcourtȱmustȱsetȱasideȱanyȱdetermination,ȱ finding,ȱorȱconclusionȱfoundȱ“toȱbeȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱ orȱotherwiseȱnotȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlaw.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).ȱ B.ȱȱTheȱScopeȱLanguageȱofȱtheȱOrderȱ TheȱOrderȱcontainsȱlanguageȱ(theȱ“scopeȱlanguage”)ȱdefiningȱtheȱmerchandiseȱ thatȱisȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder,ȱasȱfollows:ȱ
[F]inishedȱandȱunfinishedȱnonȬmalleableȱcastȱironȱpipeȱfittingsȱwithȱanȱ insideȱdiameterȱrangingȱfromȱ1/4ȱinchȱtoȱ6ȱinches,ȱwhetherȱthreadedȱorȱ unthreaded,ȱregardlessȱofȱindustryȱorȱproprietaryȱspecifications.ȱȱTheȱ subjectȱfittingsȱincludeȱelbows,ȱells,ȱtees,ȱcrosses,ȱandȱreducersȱasȱwellȱasȱ flangedȱfittings.ȱȱTheseȱpipeȱfittingsȱareȱalsoȱknownȱasȱ“castȱironȱpipeȱ fittings”ȱorȱ“grayȱironȱpipeȱfittings.”ȱȱTheseȱcastȱironȱpipeȱfittingsȱareȱ normallyȱproducedȱtoȱASTMȱAȬ126ȱandȱASMEȱB.16.4ȱspecificationsȱandȱ areȱthreadedȱtoȱASMEȱB1.20.1ȱspecifications.ȱȱMostȱbuildingȱcodesȱrequireȱ thatȱtheseȱproductsȱareȱUnderwritersȱLaboratoriesȱ(UL)ȱcertified.ȱȱTheȱ scopeȱdoesȱnotȱincludeȱcastȱironȱsoilȱpipeȱfittingsȱorȱgroovedȱfittingsȱorȱ groovedȱcouplings.ȱ ȱ Fittingsȱthatȱareȱmadeȱoutȱofȱductileȱironȱthatȱhaveȱtheȱsameȱ physicalȱcharacteristicsȱasȱtheȱgrayȱorȱcastȱironȱfittingsȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱscopeȱ aboveȱorȱwhichȱhaveȱtheȱsameȱphysicalȱcharacteristicsȱandȱareȱproducedȱ toȱASMEȱB.16.3,ȱASMEȱB.16.4,ȱorȱASTMȱAȬ395ȱspecifications,ȱthreadedȱtoȱ ASMEȱB1.20.1ȱspecificationsȱandȱULȱcertified,ȱregardlessȱofȱmetallurgicalȱ differencesȱbetweenȱgrayȱandȱductileȱiron,ȱareȱalsoȱincludedȱinȱtheȱscopeȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ8ȱ ȱ ofȱthisȱpetition.[4]ȱȱTheseȱductileȱfittingsȱdoȱnotȱincludeȱgroovedȱfittingsȱorȱ groovedȱcouplings.ȱȱDuctileȱcastȱironȱfittingsȱwithȱmechanicalȱjointȱendsȱ (MJ),ȱorȱpushȱonȱendsȱ(PO),ȱorȱflangedȱendsȱandȱproducedȱtoȱtheȱ AmericanȱWaterȱWorksȱAssociationȱ(AWWA)ȱspecificationsȱAWWAȱC110ȱ orȱAWWAȱC153ȱareȱnotȱincluded.ȱ ȱ Order,ȱ68ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ16,765.ȱ
C.ȱȱTheȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱandȱtheȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱ TheȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱdescribedȱnineȱmodelsȱofȱductileȱironȱ“lapȱjoint”ȱ flanges.ȱȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱatȱ1.ȱȱEachȱmodelȱisȱaȱsingleȱdiscȬshapedȱarticleȱmadeȱofȱ ductileȱironȱwithȱanȱunthreadedȱcenterȱhole.ȱȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱatȱEx.ȱ1.ȱȱSurroundingȱ theȱcenterȱholeȱareȱsmaller,ȱequallyȱspaced,ȱunthreadedȱholesȱthatȱareȱpresentȱtoȱ accommodateȱboltsȱusedȱinȱassemblingȱaȱjointȱbetweenȱtheȱendsȱofȱtwoȱplasticȬlinedȱ pipes.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ2,ȱEx.ȱ1.ȱȱTheȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱstatesȱthatȱCrane’sȱFlangesȱ“areȱforȱaȱ lineȱofȱplasticȱlinedȱpipingȱatȱCraneȱResistoflexȱinȱMarion,ȱNC,ȱUSAȱforȱuseȱinȱprocessȱ pipingȱprimarilyȱforȱtheȱchemicalȱprocessȱindustry.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ2.ȱ TheȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱdescribedȱanȱassembledȱ“lapȱjoint”ȱasȱconsistingȱofȱ twoȱflanges,ȱaȱgasketȱplacedȱbetweenȱtheȱflanges,ȱandȱaȱsetȱofȱboltsȱandȱnutsȱthatȱareȱ usedȱasȱtheȱmeansȱofȱclampingȱtheȱtwoȱflangesȱtogether.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ3,ȱEx.ȱ1.ȱȱTheȱScopeȱ
ȱ
4ȱTheȱwordȱ“petition”ȱisȱincorrectlyȱincludedȱinȱtheȱscopeȱlanguageȱasȱitȱappearsȱ
inȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱNoticeȱofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱOrder:ȱNonȬMalleableȱCastȱIronȱPipeȱFittingsȱ FromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱChina,ȱ68ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ16,765ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱApr.ȱ7,ȱ2003).ȱȱ Theȱapparentȱintentȱwasȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorderȱinstead.ȱ ȱ RulingȱRequestȱaddedȱthatȱ“[t]hereȱisȱnoȱpipeȱfittingȱattachedȱtoȱtheȱsubjectȱFlanges.”ȱȱ
Id.ȱatȱ3.ȱȱȱ TheȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱstatedȱthatȱCrane’sȱFlangesȱareȱdescribedȱbyȱindustryȱ standardȱASMEȱB16.42,ȱpointingȱoutȱthatȱthisȱindustryȱstandardȱdoesȱnotȱconsiderȱ flangesȱtoȱbeȱ“fittings.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ4.ȱȱItȱstatedȱthatȱ“theȱstandardȱB16.42ȱbyȱitsȱtitleȱcoversȱ ‘DuctileȱIronȱPipeȱFlangesȱandȱFlangedȱFittingsȱClassesȱ150ȱandȱflangeȱ300.’”ȱId.ȱatȱ4.ȱȱ TheȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱconcludedȱthatȱfiveȱofȱtheȱnineȱflangesȱdescribedȱinȱtheȱ ScopeȱRulingȱRequest—thoseȱwithȱinnerȱdiametersȱofȱ1.938ȱinchesȱtoȱ4.615ȱinches,ȱ inclusive—areȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱOrderȱandȱthatȱtheȱremainingȱfourȱflanges,ȱhavingȱinnerȱ diametersȱgreaterȱthanȱ6ȱinches,ȱareȱnot.ȱȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱatȱ1.ȱȱCommerceȱreasonedȱ thatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱdescribedȱbyȱtheȱtermȱ“fittings”ȱ(orȱtheȱsynonymousȱtermȱ“pipeȱ fittings”)ȱasȱusedȱinȱtheȱscopeȱlanguageȱinȱtheȱOrderȱand,ȱbecauseȱtheyȱareȱmadeȱofȱ ductileȱiron,ȱratherȱthanȱnonȬmalleableȱcastȱiron,ȱareȱdescribedȱbyȱtheȱfirstȱsentenceȱofȱ theȱsecondȱparagraphȱofȱtheȱscopeȱlanguage.ȱȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱatȱ10—12.ȱȱInȱpertinentȱ part,ȱtheȱsentenceȱisȱasȱfollows:ȱ“Fittingsȱthatȱareȱmadeȱoutȱofȱductileȱironȱthatȱhaveȱtheȱ sameȱphysicalȱcharacteristicsȱasȱtheȱgrayȱorȱcastȱironȱfittingsȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱscopeȱ aboveȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱareȱalsoȱincludedȱinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱthisȱpetition.”ȱȱOrder,ȱ68ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ16,765.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ10ȱ ȱ D.ȱȱTheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ
InȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱasȱitȱdidȱinȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱ Redetermination,ȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱunderȱprotestȱthatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱoutsideȱ theȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱInȱreachingȱthisȱconclusion,ȱCommerceȱreasonedȱthatȱitȱ“mustȱ takeȱintoȱaccount”ȱtheȱ(k)(1)ȱfactorsȱasȱsetȱforthȱinȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.225(k)(1).ȱȱThirdȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ8.ȱȱTheȱ(k)(1)ȱfactorsȱareȱ“[t]heȱdescriptionsȱofȱtheȱ merchandiseȱcontainedȱinȱtheȱpetition,ȱtheȱinitialȱinvestigation,ȱandȱtheȱdeterminationsȱ ofȱtheȱSecretaryȱ(includingȱpriorȱscopeȱdeterminations)ȱandȱtheȱ[U.S.ȱInternationalȱ Trade]ȱCommissionȱ[‘ITC’ȱorȱtheȱ‘Commission’].”ȱȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.225(k)(1).ȱȱTheȱThirdȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱstatesȱthatȱ“inȱconsiderationȱofȱCraneȱIȱandȱCraneȱIIȱandȱ furtherȱreviewȱofȱtheȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱunderȱrespectfulȱprotest,ȱweȱfindȱthatȱtheȱ sourcesȱidentifiedȱinȱ19ȱCFRȱ351.225(k)(1)ȱdoȱnotȱsupportȱaȱfindingȱthatȱtheȱductileȱironȱ flangesȱareȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.”ȱȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ7ȱ(footnoteȱ omitted).ȱ Inȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱobjectionȱinȱCraneȱII,ȱCommerceȱstatedȱinȱtheȱThirdȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱthatȱ“shouldȱtheȱCourtȱaffirmȱtheseȱfinalȱresultsȱofȱ redetermination,ȱaȱFederalȱRegisterȱnoticeȱwillȱbeȱpublishedȱstatingȱthat,ȱconsistentȱwithȱ theȱCourt’sȱholdings,ȱCrane’sȱductileȱironȱflangesȱareȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.”ȱȱ ThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ17.ȱȱCommerceȱaddedȱthatȱ“relevantȱinstructionsȱtoȱ ȱ [CustomsȱandȱBorderȱProtection]ȱgivingȱeffectȱtoȱtheȱdetermination,ȱasȱsustainedȱbyȱtheȱ
Court,ȱwillȱalsoȱbeȱissuedȱatȱthatȱtimeȱasȱappropriate.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ18.ȱ E.ȱȱCommentsȱonȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ CraneȱsupportsȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱstatingȱthatȱ“Commerceȱ correctlyȱheldȱthatȱCraneȱflangesȱareȱnotȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱpertinentȱantidumpingȱorder,ȱ whenȱrenderingȱaȱdecisionȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlawȱandȱrecordȱfacts,ȱperȱthisȱCourt’sȱ decisions.”ȱȱCrane’sȱCommentsȱ1.ȱ ArguingȱthatȱitȱmerelyȱreformatsȱtheȱDepartment’sȱpreviousȱdecisionȱratherȱthanȱ makeȱanyȱnewȱfindings,ȱASCȱopposesȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱandȱ incorporatesȱbyȱreferenceȱitsȱcommentsȱopposingȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱ ASC’sȱ2023ȱCommentsȱ1.ȱȱTakingȱtheȱpositionȱthatȱbothȱtheȱSecondȱandȱThirdȱRemandȱ Redeterminationsȱareȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱandȱotherwiseȱnotȱinȱ accordanceȱwithȱlaw,ȱASCȱmaintainsȱthatȱ“Commerce,ȱactingȱ‘underȱprotest,’ȱerredȱbyȱ (1)ȱfindingȱthatȱtheȱCourtȱdirectedȱaȱparticularȱresult,ȱ(2)ȱimproperlyȱignoringȱtheȱplainȱ meaningȱofȱtheȱscopeȱinȱfavorȱofȱinterpretationsȱofȱcertainȱ‘(k)(1)’ȱmaterials,ȱandȱ (3)ȱfindingȱthatȱitȱlackedȱdiscretionȱtoȱinterpretȱcertainȱkeyȱlanguageȱinȱtheȱreportȱofȱtheȱ InternationalȱTradeȱCommission.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ2.ȱ Defendantȱrespondsȱtoȱtheȱcommentȱsubmissionsȱbyȱstatingȱthatȱ“theȱCourtȱ shouldȱsustainȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱResultsȱandȱenterȱfinalȱjudgmentȱforȱtheȱGovernmentȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ12ȱ becauseȱCommerceȱhasȱcompliedȱwithȱtheȱCourt’sȱremandȱorderȱandȱbecauseȱtheȱThirdȱ RemandȱResultsȱareȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱandȱotherwiseȱlawful.”ȱȱDef.’sȱ Resp.ȱtoȱCommentsȱonȱRemandȱResultsȱ1ȱ(Jan.ȱ13,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ68.ȱȱ TheȱcourtȱagreesȱwithȱtheȱpositionȱofȱtheȱGovernmentȱandȱCraneȱthatȱtheȱThirdȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱisȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecordȱandȱ otherwiseȱaccordsȱwithȱlaw.ȱȱForȱtheȱreasonsȱstatedȱbelow,ȱtheȱcourtȱdisagreesȱwithȱ ASC’sȱpositionȱtoȱtheȱcontrary.ȱ F. CommerceȱWasȱRequiredȱtoȱConsiderȱtheȱFactorsȱinȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ351.225(k)(1)
ASCȱarguesȱthatȱbecauseȱtheȱscopeȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱOrderȱunambiguously includesȱductileȱironȱflangesȱsuchȱasȱCrane’s,ȱCommerceȱshouldȱnotȱhaveȱconsideredȱ theȱ(k)(1)ȱfactors.ȱȱASC’sȱ2022ȱCommentsȱ2—3ȱ(“Thereȱbeingȱnoȱambiguity,ȱthatȱshouldȱ haveȱbeenȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱmatter;ȱthereȱwasȱnoȱjustificationȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱ‘(k)(1)’ȱ materials.”ȱ(footnoteȱomitted)).ȱȱThisȱargumentȱisȱunpersuasiveȱbecauseȱtheȱscopeȱ language,ȱalthoughȱusingȱtheȱtermȱ“fittings”ȱ(and,ȱsynonymously,ȱ“pipeȱfittings”),ȱdoesȱ notȱdefineȱtheȱtermȱandȱonȱitsȱfaceȱdoesȱnotȱresolveȱtheȱissueȱofȱwhetherȱflangesȱinȱ general,ȱorȱductileȱironȱflangesȱinȱparticular,ȱwereȱwithinȱtheȱintendedȱmeaningȱofȱthatȱ term.ȱ Considerationȱofȱtheȱ(k)(1)ȱfactorsȱnotȱonlyȱwasȱrequiredȱbyȱtheȱplainȱlanguageȱofȱ theȱregulation,ȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.225(k)(1),ȱasȱappliedȱtoȱthisȱproceedingȱbutȱalsoȱwasȱ ȱ essentialȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdetermining,ȱforȱpurposesȱofȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱ
Redetermination,ȱwhetherȱductileȱironȱflangesȱwereȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱ Department’sȱandȱtheȱITC’sȱinvestigations.5ȱȱAsȱdiscussedȱbelow,ȱconsiderableȱrecordȱ evidenceȱpertainingȱtoȱtheȱ(k)(1)ȱfactorsȱsupportsȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱinȱtheȱThirdȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱthatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱ
G.ȱȱSubstantialȱEvidenceȱSupportingȱtheȱDepartment’sȱDeterminationȱthatȱCrane’sȱ FlangesȱAreȱNotȱWithinȱtheȱScopeȱofȱtheȱOrderȱ ȱ Theȱcourt,ȱasȱdoesȱdefendant,ȱdisagreesȱwithȱASC’sȱcommentȱthatȱtheȱThirdȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱisȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱInȱitsȱ previousȱopinions,ȱtheȱcourtȱidentifiedȱcertainȱevidenceȱthatȱdetractedȱfromȱtheȱ Department’sȱearlierȱfindingsȱandȱthatȱCommerceȱneededȱtoȱconsider,ȱwhichȱitȱnowȱhasȱ done.ȱȱAsȱtheȱcourtȱdiscussedȱinȱCraneȱI,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1358—60,ȱ amongȱtheȱevidenceȱearlierȱoverlookedȱwasȱcertainȱevidenceȱcontainedȱinȱtheȱ“ITCȱ Report,”ȱwhichȱwasȱtheȱreportȱofȱtheȱaffirmativeȱdeterminationȱofȱthreatȱtoȱtheȱdomesticȱ industryȱissuedȱbyȱtheȱITCȱduringȱtheȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigation.ȱȱSeeȱNonȬ MalleableȱPipeȱFittingsȱfromȱChina,ȱInv.ȱNo.ȱ731ȬTAȬ990ȱ(Final),ȱUSITCȱPub.ȱNo.ȱ3586ȱ (Mar.ȱ2003)ȱ(P.R.ȱDocs.ȱ18–21,ȱAttach.ȱIV)ȱ(“ITCȱReport”).ȱȱTheȱITCȱReportȱcontainedȱ
ȱ
5ȱAnȱamendmentȱtoȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.225(k),ȱeffectiveȱasȱtoȱscopeȱapplicationsȱfiledȱ
onȱorȱafterȱNovemberȱ4,ȱ2021,ȱdoesȱnotȱapplyȱtoȱthisȱproceeding.ȱȱSeeȱRegulationsȱToȱ ImproveȱAdministrationȱandȱEnforcementȱofȱAntidumpingȱandȱCountervailingȱDutyȱLaws;ȱ FinalȱRule,ȱ86ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ52,300,ȱ52,327ȱ(Sept.ȱ20,ȱ2021).ȱ ȱ evidenceȱthatȱtheȱITCȱconsideredȱductileȱironȱflangedȱfittingsȱtoȱbeȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱ
itsȱinvestigation.ȱȱCraneȱI,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1359.ȱȱAsȱCraneȱIȱfurtherȱstated,ȱ “[n]oteworthyȱisȱevidenceȱshowingȱthatȱductileȱironȱflangesȱshareȱaȱdefiningȱphysicalȱ characteristicȱwithȱductileȱironȱflangedȱfittings,ȱi.e.,ȱaȱflange”ȱandȱ“thatȱtheȱITCȱReportȱ doesȱnotȱdiscussȱflangesȱ(asȱopposedȱtoȱflangedȱfittings)ȱinȱdescribingȱtheȱmerchandiseȱ itȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱitsȱownȱinvestigation.”ȱȱId.ȱ Inȱitsȱ2022ȱcomments,ȱASCȱobjectedȱthatȱtheȱexpressȱexclusionsȱinȱtheȱscopeȱ languageȱforȱcertainȱductileȱironȱflangedȱfittingsȱwouldȱbeȱ“superfluous”ȱifȱallȱductileȱ ironȱflangedȱfittingsȱwereȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱASC’sȱ2022ȱ Commentsȱ3—4.ȱȱASCȱalsoȱopinedȱthatȱtheȱITCȱReportȱisȱ“ambiguous”ȱonȱtheȱissueȱofȱ whetherȱtheȱITCȱintendedȱtoȱexcludeȱductileȱironȱflangedȱfittingsȱfromȱtheȱscopeȱofȱitsȱ investigation.ȱȱAsȱCraneȱIȱpointedȱoutȱinȱrespondingȱtoȱaȱsimilarȱanalysisȱinȱtheȱFirstȱ RemandȱRedetermination,ȱ“[t]hisȱconclusionȱmissesȱtheȱpoint”ȱbyȱ“overlook[ing]ȱtheȱ significanceȱofȱtheȱITC’sȱdiscussionȱofȱitsȱdomesticȱlikeȱproductȱandȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱ ITC’sȱinvestigation”ȱ(whichȱtheȱITCȱstatedȱwereȱtheȱsame).ȱȱTheȱITCȱwasȱawareȱofȱtheȱ specificȱexclusionȱCommerceȱprovidedȱforȱcertainȱgoodsȱconformingȱtoȱspecificationsȱofȱ theȱAmericanȱWaterȱWorksȱAssociation,ȱ“andȱtheȱITCȱexpressedȱnoȱdisagreementȱwithȱ respectȱtoȱit.”ȱȱCraneȱI,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1359ȱ(citationȱomitted).ȱȱ“Butȱ apartȱfromȱthat,ȱtheȱITC,ȱbasedȱonȱitsȱownȱinvestigation,ȱstillȱdeterminedȱthatȱallȱductileȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ15ȱ flangedȱfittingsȱwereȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱdomesticȱlikeȱproduct,ȱandȱthereforeȱalsoȱ outsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱitsȱownȱinjury/threatȱinvestigation.”ȱȱId.ȱȱAsȱCraneȱIȱexplained:ȱȱ
Itȱisȱaxiomaticȱthatȱunderȱtheȱantidumpingȱdutyȱstatuteȱasȱitȱappliesȱinȱthisȱ case,ȱCommerceȱmayȱimposeȱantidumpingȱdutiesȱonȱaȱgoodȱonlyȱ followingȱaȱdeterminationȱbyȱCommerceȱthatȱtheȱgoodȱisȱ‘unfairlyȱtraded,’ȱ i.e.,ȱthatȱitȱwasȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱanȱaffirmativeȱlessȬthanȬfairȬvalue determinationȱbyȱCommerceȱandȱalsoȱwasȱincludedȱwithinȱtheȱgoods investigatedȱbyȱtheȱITCȱandȱtherebyȱfoundȱtoȱhaveȱresultedȱinȱmaterial injuryȱorȱtheȱthreatȱofȱmaterialȱinjuryȱtoȱtheȱdomesticȱindustry.ȱȱSee 19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1673.ȱȱByȱrequiringȱCommerceȱtoȱconsiderȱ‘theȱdescriptionsȱof theȱmerchandiseȱcontainedȱinȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtheȱdeterminationsȱofȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthe Commission,’ȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.225(k)(1),ȱwhenȱrulingȱonȱaȱscopeȱissue,ȱthe Department’sȱregulationsȱembodyȱthisȱprinciple.
Id.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1359—60.ȱȱWhileȱASCȱcharacterizesȱtheȱITCȱReportȱ asȱ“ambiguous”ȱasȱtoȱwhetherȱductileȱironȱflangedȱfittingsȱwereȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱ ITC’sȱinvestigation,ȱwhatȱisȱnotȱambiguousȱisȱthatȱtheȱITCȱdefinedȱtheȱdomesticȱlikeȱ productȱasȱcorrespondingȱtoȱtheȱscopeȱofȱitsȱinvestigationȱandȱdidȱnotȱbroadenȱtheȱscopeȱ ofȱtheȱdomesticȱlikeȱproductȱtoȱincludeȱductileȱironȱflangedȱfittings.ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱ F. Supp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1359ȱ(quotingȱITCȱReportȱatȱ8).ȱȱTheȱintentȱofȱtheȱITCȱtoȱexcludeȱductile ironȱflangedȱfittingsȱfromȱitsȱinvestigation,ȱandȱtheȱabsenceȱinȱtheȱITCȱReportȱofȱaȱ generalȱdiscussionȱofȱ“flanges”ȱ(orȱductileȱironȱflangesȱinȱparticular,ȱsuchȱasȱCrane’s),ȱ lentȱsupportȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱinȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱtoȱexcludeȱCrane’sȱ flangesȱfromȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱ ȱ TheȱevidenceȱinȱtheȱITCȱReportȱisȱnotȱtheȱonlyȱevidenceȱthatȱsupportsȱtheȱ
Department’sȱconclusionȱinȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱthatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱ notȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱTheȱPetitionȱ(“Petition”),ȱPetitionȱforȱImpositionȱofȱ AntidumpingȱDuties:ȱNonȬMalleableȱCastȱIronȱPipeȱFittingsȱfromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱ China,ȱAȬ570Ȭ875ȱ(Feb.ȱ21,ȱ2002)ȱ(P.R.ȱDocs.ȱ18–21,ȱAttach.ȱI)ȱ(“Petition”),ȱwhileȱ containingȱcertainȱbrochuresȱasȱexhibitsȱthatȱillustrateȱflanges,ȱdidȱnotȱidentifyȱflangesȱ inȱtheȱbodyȱofȱtheȱdocumentȱasȱaȱclassȱorȱkindȱofȱgoodsȱthatȱwasȱintendedȱtoȱbeȱcoveredȱ byȱtheȱrequestedȱinvestigation.ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1357ȱ(“Neitherȱtheȱ bodyȱofȱtheȱPetition,ȱnorȱtheȱscopeȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱOrderȱthatȱculminatedȱfromȱtheȱ investigationȱitȱlaunched,ȱspecificallyȱaddressesȱflanges.”).ȱȱTheȱPetitionȱalsoȱstatedȱthatȱ “[v]irtuallyȱallȱsubjectȱfittingsȱareȱusedȱinȱfireȱprotectionȱsystemsȱandȱinȱtheȱsteamȱheatȱ conveyanceȱsystemsȱusedȱinȱoldȱinnerȱcities,”ȱid.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1358ȱ (citingȱPetitionȱ4);ȱtheȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱstatedȱthatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱwereȱforȱuseȱinȱ processȱpipingȱprimarilyȱforȱtheȱchemicalȱprocessȱindustry.ȱȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱatȱ2.ȱ TheȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱstated,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱCrane’sȱFlangesȱareȱdescribedȱbyȱ industryȱstandardȱASMEȱB16.42,ȱandȱthatȱthisȱindustryȱstandardȱdoesȱnotȱconsiderȱ flangesȱtoȱbeȱ“fittings.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ4.ȱȱ(“[T]heȱstandardȱB16.42ȱbyȱitsȱtitleȱcoversȱ‘DuctileȱIronȱ PipeȱFlangesȱandȱFlangedȱFittingsȱClassesȱ150ȱandȱflangeȱ300’”).ȱȱThroughoutȱthisȱ proceeding,ȱCommerceȱhasȱconsideredȱductileȱironȱflangedȱfittingsȱ(whichȱtheȱITCȱdidȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ17ȱ notȱconsiderȱtoȱbeȱpartȱofȱitsȱinvestigation)ȱandȱductileȱironȱflangesȱtoȱbeȱdifferentȱ classesȱofȱmerchandise.ȱȱNevertheless,ȱinȱtheȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱandȱtheȱFirstȱRemandȱ RedeterminationȱCommerceȱdeemedȱCrane’sȱflangesȱtoȱbeȱ“fittings”ȱbasedȱonȱlogicȱthatȱ isȱopenȱtoȱquestion:ȱhowȱcouldȱaȱ“flange”ȱthat,ȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱpreviousȱ position,ȱisȱalsoȱaȱ“fitting”ȱbeȱsomethingȱotherȱthanȱaȱ“flangedȱfitting”?ȱȱTheȱThirdȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱavoidsȱthisȱapparentȱcontradictionȱbyȱdetermining,ȱbasedȱonȱ theȱevidenceȱconsideredȱonȱtheȱwhole,ȱthatȱCrane’sȱductileȱironȱflangesȱareȱnotȱwithinȱ theȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱ III. CONCLUSION
TheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱthatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱnotȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱ theȱOrderȱisȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecordȱconsideredȱasȱaȱwholeȱandȱ isȱotherwiseȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlaw.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱdisagreesȱwithȱASC’sȱcommentsȱtoȱtheȱ contraryȱforȱtheȱreasonsȱdiscussedȱabove.ȱȱJudgmentȱsustainingȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱ Redeterminationȱwillȱenterȱaccordingly.ȱ AsȱprovidedȱinȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱtheȱJudgmentȱwillȱdirectȱ CommerceȱtoȱpublishȱaȱFederalȱRegisterȱnoticeȱofȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱthatȱ Crane’sȱductileȱironȱflangesȱareȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrderȱandȱtoȱissue,ȱatȱthatȱtime,ȱ relevantȱinstructionsȱtoȱCustomsȱandȱBorderȱProtectionȱeffectuatingȱthatȱdetermination.ȱȱ FourthȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ17—18.ȱ
/s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu
TimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ
Dated:ȱȱ March 11, 2024 NewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ