CIT Upholds Exclusion of Importer's Ductile Iron Flanges From AD Order on Pipe Fittings

The Court of International Trade on March 6 sustained the Commerce Department's fourth remand results excluding Star Pipe Products' ductile iron flanges from the antidumping duty order on cast iron pipe fittings from China.

Judge Timothy Stanceu said that Commerce appropriately considered (k)(1) sources in the scope proceeding, given the uncertainty of whether Star Pipe's flanges plainly fit under the order, and that substantial evidence backs the conclusion that the flanges are not subject to the order. The judge added that the agency didn't base its fourth remand results on the "end use" limitation, as suggested by AD petitioner ASC Engineered Solutions, and that there's enough evidence to find that threaded ductile iron flanges that meet American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard C115 aren't subject to the order.

Contesting the agency's exclusion of Star Pipe's products from the scope of the order, ASC said the scope language unambiguously includes the importer's flanges, rendering consideration of (k)(1) factors unnecessary. In response, Stanceu held that while the scope language mentions "flanged fittings," it doesn't mention flanges, nor does it define "fitting" in a way that resolves the "issue of whether flanges generally fall within the meaning of that term as used." The result is that Commerce was required to consider (k)(1) factors, the court said.

ASC additionally challenged Commerce's decision on evidentiary grounds. Stanceu said he rejected the petitioner's position "in light of the substantial record evidence that supports" the ultimate scope ruling.

Highlighting certain evidence the agency used, Stanceu pointed to the International Trade Commission injury report which considered "all flanged fittings made of ductile cast iron to be excluded from the scope" of the injury proceeding. Since ductile flanged fittings were dropped from the scope of the domestic like-product, "it cannot be concluded that the ITC reached an affirmative injury or threat determination as to them." This, paired with additional evidence, backs Commerce's remand results, the court said.

ASC also said Commerce improperly put an "end use" limitation on the AD order that's not found in its scope language, pointing to Commerce's statement that Star Pipe's flanges are for the "water and wastewater industries." Stanceu found this claim to misread the remand results, which were not based on a "general conclusion that all products produced for water works are excluded from the scope of the Order."

The petitioner also said that Commerce erred in finding that fittings made to AWWA C115 specifications are outside the order's scope. Stanceu found this challenge to not be an "accurate paraphrase of the Department's finding," since there are no "fittings" made to AWWA C115 specifications. Instead, Commerce said, under protest, that Star Pipe's AWWA C115 flanges are covered by language in the scope that excludes goods made to the AWWA C110 standard.

Finding the remand predetermination to be "technically imprecise" since the C110 standard doesn't apply to flanges, Stanceu still sustained the finding, given that "AWWA C110 and AWWA C115 are closely interrelated." A determination that a flange "conforms to AWWA C115 cannot also constitute a finding that the flange conforms to C110 (because no flange can do so) but instead is a finding, among others, supporting a determination that such a product is outside the intended scope of the Order."

Lastly, the court disagreed with Star Pipe that there was enough evidence to overturn Commerce's decision to make the remand determination under protest. Stanceu said that Commerce "reasonably" found that the evidence, "interpreted in conjunction with the court’s prior opinions (which disallowed certain findings as unsupported by the record evidence), does not contain sufficient evidence for the opposite conclusion." The court said it "need not" hold that "every statement Commerce made" in its remand results to explain its decision is "necessarily correct, so long as that conclusion is adequately explained, as it is in this instance."

(Star Pipe Products v. United States, Slip Op. 24-28, CIT # 17-00236, dated 03/06/24; Judge: Timothy Stanceu; Attorneys: Francis Sailer of Grunfeld Desiderio for plaintiff Star Pipe Products; Joshua Kurland for defendant U.S. government; Daniel Schneiderman of King & Spalding for defendant-intervenor ASC Engineered Solutions)