Rail Coupler Importer Says Key Question Whether Unattached Rail Couplers in Scope of Investigation
Steel rail coupler importer Wabtec filed a supplemental brief in its dispute against a repeated antidumping investigation (see 2405220058) that saw it change tracks somewhat. It argued that the International Trade Commission wrongly expanded the scope of its injury determination to include unattached couplers, and it claimed that “[e]very statutory element imposes a limit” on Commerce’s ability to define an investigation’s reach (Wabtec Corporation v. United States, CIT #s 23-00160, -00161).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“The trade-remedy statute sets forth a highly complex, reticulated scheme that allocates authority between Commerce and the Commission,” it said. “But the place where the rubber hits the road for regulated parties is the final order.”
And the department wasn’t allowed to include in the scope merchandise that competed with U.S. exports in the Mexican market, it said; it claimed “Congress eliminated any doubt” about that by passing a separate law regarding exports.
Wabtec also argued that not enough of a distinction was drawn between attached and unattached rail car couplers during the investigations. The attached rail car couplers should have actually been considered rail cars for the purpose of the investigations -- as a result, the two products shouldn’t have been included in the same order, it said.
The department, without “ventur[ing] a reason,” used a substantial transformation test to determine that the attached rail couplers were still independent articles of commerce, not parts of rail cars, it said. But instead of comparing an upstream and downstream, the department “deployed an unprecedented and indefensible version of the substantial-transformation test by teeing up a comparison between the couplers themselves -- that is, the attached couplers versus unattached couplers,” Wabtec said.
Commerce was supposed to compare the unattached rail couplers “(the input)” and the railcars “(the finished product),” it said.
It said Commerce’s “sole justification” for comparing coupler types instead of couplers and rail cars was that the former comparison was the scope proposed by petitioners, who didn’t ask for any investigation into rail cars.
“But that is the very question to be answered by Commerce: is a scope that purports to include attached couplers in fact covering railcars? And the answer to that question depends on what the product coming across the border is -- in fact, in reality," it said.