CAFC Denies Rehearing Petition in Scope Case on Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 23 denied a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in an antidumping duty scope case filed by importers Smith-Cooper International and Sigma. Judges Kimberly Moore, Haldane Mayer, Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk, Sharon Prost, Jimmie Reyna, Richard Taranto, Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll, Tiffany Cunningham and Leonard Stark denied the petition (Vandewater International v. United States, Fed. Cir. #s 23-1093, -1141).
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 importers petitioned for a rehearing of the court's March decision finding the term "butt-weld" to be ambiguous and that the Commerce Department was right to find steel branch outlets to be covered by an AD order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China (see 2503060073). Dyk dissented in that three-judge decision, finding that the agency erred by refusing to properly consider the regular industry definition of the term.
The Court of International Trade initially said Commerce reasonably analyzed (k)(2) factors in the scope proceeding above the importers' objections that the agency never should have reached the (k)(2) stage since their products were excluded based on the plain language of the order. Reyna and Mayer said the scope was ambiguous based on a 1992 scope ruling and on the fact Smith-Cooper International referred to its branch outlets in import documentation as “butt-weld outlets."