Fluid End Block Exporter Trying to Add End Use Requirement to Orders, US Says
Fluid end block exporter BGH Edelstahl Siegen attempted to "inject" an end-use requirement into antidumping and countervailing duty orders on forged steel fluid end blocks, the U.S. said in a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. BGH Edelstahl argues that its forged steel blocks are not “fluid end blocks" because they aren't specifically meant for use in hydraulic pumps, it said (see 2503190024) (BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH v. United States, CIT # 24-00176).
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.
“[A]ccording to Edelstahl, its products ‘have a totally different name,’” the U.S. said. “This cannot overcome the order’s expansive scope that, by its own terms, explicitly includes forged steel articles exceeding Edelstahl’s constricted definition of fluid end block.”
BGH Edelstahl contested the Commerce Department’s inclusion of two of its products in its calculation of BGH Edelstahl’s home market sales for a review: forged steel bars and custom-made forged steel end blocks for use by the military or as compounding machines.
The parties agree that the products’ physical characteristics are described in the orders. Edelstahl argued in a hearing that the orders are “very, very broad,” but said that primary sources indicated that only unfinished fluid end-blocks were intended to be covered.
The government disagreed. The orders define fluid end blocks as blocks “typically used in the manufacture or service of hydraulic pumps.” Their use of the word “typically” shows that there is no end use requirement, as it means that there are other products not used for hydraulic pumps that are still covered by the orders, it said. Further, it said, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a stronger end-use requirement argument in another case that had been based on language that certain products “are used” for a specific purpose.
The scope of the fluid end blocks orders also provides definitions for “steel,” including its required chemical elements and the forging process, the U.S. said. It noted again that both parties agree Edelstahl’s products meet these physical definitions.
This was enough to find the products in-scope and include their sales in Edelstahl’s home-market sales calculation, it said.
“Edelstahl’s attempt to inject an end use requirement into the scope cannot overcome the Federal Circuit’s binding directive that ‘end-use restrictions do not apply to (antidumping) orders unless the (antidumping) order at issue includes clear exclusionary language,” it said.
The scope in this case doesn’t have any such “clear exclusionary language” outside of describing the blocks as “typically used in the manufacture or service of hydraulic pumps,” it said.
Edelstahl pointed to primary sources, such as the International Trade Commission injury report and the definition of fluid end blocks found in Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8413.91.9055. But these sources don’t need to be considered because the language of the orders was itself dispositive, the government said.
And the exporter’s reference to that particular HTS subheading actually “defeats its case” because the scope includes many other such subheadings, not just the one, which it used to the exclusion of the others, it said.
The fact that, as Edelstahl pointed out, “fluid end blocks” aren’t “otherwise defined” in the scope doesn’t mean the orders were ambiguous, it said. Rather, “fluid end blocks” are defined by the scope of the orders.
“Because every scope first identifies the product which it defines (e.g. ‘fluid end blocks’), claiming that the term of the product itself is ambiguous would mean that the language of every scope is ambiguous,” it said.
The government also said that Edelstahl failed to waive its argument that, rather than excluding certain products, Commerce should have made adjustments to the exporter’s home-market sales to account for product type differences