Commerce Continues to Exclude 'Unfinished' Pipe Fittings From AD Order
The Commerce Department continued to exclude certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings made from Chinese fittings that underwent production in Vietnam from the scope of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. Submitting its remand results to the Court of International Trade on May 2, Commerce assessed various (k)(1) sources, namely the original 1991 petition, the 1992 International Trade Commission report, a prior circumvention finding and statements from industry officials upon direction from the court (Tube Forgings of America v. United States, CIT # 23-00231).
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 agency initially excluded the pipe fittings under review as part of a covered merchandise referral in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation.
The subject pipe fittings undergo a three-step production process, which the petition established are: (1) converting seamless pipe into the rough shape of an elbow, tee or reducer through a cold- or hot-forming process; (2) reforming or sizing the rough fitting to match the pipe it's meant to be welded to; and (3) undergoing finishing processes. The court noted that the "heart of the case" involves distinctions between "rough," "unfinished" and "finished fittings."
Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sent back Commerce's exclusion of the "rough" fittings from the AD order on the grounds that various (k)(1) sources either included contradictory information or failed to include reference to "rough fittings" (see 2501020044).
On remand, Commerce acknowledged that the use of the term "rough fitting" to describe the precursor products to both the unfinished and finished butt-weld pipe fittings "created confusion among the parties and with the Court." To alleviate the confusion, the agency instead identified only two production phases for the subject merchandise: (1) "rough shapes" for pipe that has only undergone conversion into a rough shape of an elbow, tee or reducer through a cold- or hot-forming process, and (2) "unfinished fittings" for "rough shapes which have been reformed or sized to match the pipe it is destined to be welded to, but which have not been finished."
The agency then went through each of the (k)(1) sources Choe-Groves took issue with and explained that the agency's ultimate decision to exclude the subject goods from the AD order is supported. Regarding the 1991 petition, the court told Commerce to address the lack of reference to the term "rough fitting." The agency said it's "not surprising" the original petition doesn't use the term "rough fitting" since it isn't defined, adding that the petition "does distinguish between merchandise that has undergone the first stage of the production process" and the second.
Choe-Groves took the largest issue with Commerce's consideration of a prior circumvention proceeding involving goods from Thailand. The court said was "problematic" since it confusingly said a product Commerce previously called an unfinished butt-weld pipe fitting was no longer considered an unfinished butt-weld pipe fitting here but instead considered a rough fitting.
The agency said it agrees that the "difference in terminology used in the Thailand Circumvention Inquiry and the Final Determination created confusion," but that while the terms used were "inconsistent," the treatment of the products was not. The use of the term "unfinished butt-weld pipe fittings" in the Thailand circumvention proceeding was "inaccurate," and the agency's failure to clearly explain its prior mistake "created confusion," but had the agency "truly considered these rough shapes to be unfinished butt-weld pipe fittings, there would have been no need for a circumvention inquiry at all," the brief said.