Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. United States , 2019 CIT 93 ( 2019 )

Slip Op. 19-
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge
UNITED STATES,
Court No. 17-00057
Defendant,
and
MID CONTINENT STEEL & WIRE, INC.,
Defendant-Intervenor.
OPINION
[United States Department of Commerce’s Final Results of Redetermination pursuant to Court
Remand are sustained.]
Dated:-XO\
George R. Tuttle, III, The Law Offices of George R. Tuttle, A.P.C., of Larkspur, CA, for plaintiff.
Sosun Bae, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of
Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant. With her on the brief were Joseph H. Hunt,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Patricia M. McCarthy,
Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was David W. Campbell, Attorney, Office of the Chief
Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington,
DC.
Adam H. Gordon and Ping Gong, The Bristol Group PLLC, of Washington, DC, for defendant-
intervenor.
Katzmann, Judge: The court returns to the question of whether plaintiff Simpson Strong-
Tie Company’s (“Simpson”) zinc and nylon anchor products are nails. Before the court now is
the United States Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand (Dep’t Commerce Dec. 20, 2018) (“Remand Results”), ECF No. 50,
Court No. 17-00057 Page 2
which the court ordered in Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. United States, 42 CIT __, 335 F. Supp. 3d
1311 (2018). Under protest, Commerce found that Simpson’s zinc and nylon anchors were outside
the scope of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Steel Nails from the People’s Republic of China,
73 Fed. Reg. 44,961 (Dep’t Commerce Aug. 1, 2008) and Certain Steel Nails from the People’s
Republic of China, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,101 (Dep’t Commerce May 24, 2011) (Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Review) (collectively “the Orders”). Simpson requests that the court
sustain Commerce’s finding on remand that its products fall outside the scope of the Orders. Pl.’s
Comments on the Dep’t of Commerce’s Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand (“Pl.’s Br.”), Jan. 22, 2019, ECF No. 52. Defendant-Intervenor Mid Continent Steel &
Wire, Inc. (“Mid Continent”) requests that the court reconsider its previous decision and remand
order. Def.-Inter.’s Comments on Remand Redetermination (“Def-Inter.’s Br.”), Jan. 22, 2019,
ECF No. 51. The court sustains Commerce’s Remand Results.
BACKGROUND
The relevant legal and factual background of the proceedings involving Simpson has been
set forth in greater detail in Simpson, 335 F. Supp. 3d at 1314–18. Information pertinent to the
instant matter is set forth below.
On March 20, 2017, Commerce determined that Simpson’s zinc and nylon anchors fell
within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering steels nails from China.
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Steel Nails from the People’s Republic
of China: Final Scope Ruling on Simpson Strong-Tie Company’s (Zinc and Nylon Nailon)
Anchors, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,961 (Dep’t Commerce Mar. 20, 2017), P.R. 36 (“Final Scope Ruling”).
Simpson appealed the Final Scope Ruling to this court, arguing that its anchors are not steel nails
and, thus, could not fall within the scope of the orders. In Simpson, 335 F. Supp. 3d at 1317–21,
Court No. 17-00057 Page 3
the court held that the plain language of the Orders excluded Simpson’s zinc and nylon anchors
and remanded to Commerce for redetermination consistent with its opinion. On December 3,
2018, Commerce issued a Draft Remand Redetermination in which it found, pursuant to the court’s
remand order, that Simpson’s anchors are outside the scope of the Orders. See Remand Results at
2. Simpson and Mid Continent submitted timely comments in response, see id., and Commerce
issued its Remand Results on December 20, 2018, see generally id. Under respectful protest,
Commerce again found that Simpson’s zinc anchors fell outside the scope of the Orders. Id. at 2,
5–8. Simpson and Mid Continent submitted their comments on the Remand Results on January
22, 2019. Pl.’s Br.; Def.-Inter.’s Br. Defendant the United States (“the Government”) submitted
its response to these comments on March 8, 2019. Def.’s Resp. to the Parties’ Comments on the
Dep’t of Commerce’s Final Results of Redetermination (“Def.’s Resp.”), ECF No. 56. At the
court’s request, the parties submitted supplemental comments on June 14, 2019. Def.’s Resp. to
Court Order, ECF No. 61; Def.-Inter.’s Resp. to Court Order, ECF No. 62; Pl.’s Resp. to Court
Order, ECF No. 63.
DISCUSSION
Commerce’s Remand Results are consistent with the court’s remand order and previous
opinion. However, Mid Continent urges the court to reconsider its previous decision, and
expresses concerns about the court’s use of dictionaries in interpreting the plain language of the
scope, whether the court “judicially voided” scope language stating that “steel nails may . . . be
constructed of two or more pieces,” and whether the court’s decision is consistent with the Federal
Circuit’s opinion in Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States, 890 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Def.-
Inter.’s Br. at 2–6. These asserted concerns are not meritorious. The court based its determination
in Simpson, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 1317–21, not only on dictionary definitions of nails, see NEC Corp.
Court No. 17-00057 Page 4
v. Dep’t Commerce, 23 CIT 727, 731, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1307 (1999), but also upon close
consideration of all of the scope language in the Orders -- including the phrase “of two or more
pieces” -- and record evidence, including evidence of trade usage, see ArcelorMittal Stainless
Belg. N.V. v. United States, 694 F.3d 82, 87 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 1 Simpson’s zinc and nylon anchors
are simply not nails “constructed of two or more pieces” because, as discussed in Simpson, 335 F.
Supp. 3d at 1318–19, they do not function like nails and because record evidence demonstrates
that anchors like Simpson’s are considered a separate type of product from nails by the relevant
industry. The court reiterates that Meridian Prods., 890 F.3d 1272, does not undermine this
analysis or determination. See Simpson, 335 F. Supp. 3d at 1320 n.6.
Nor does the court agree with Mid Continent that Midwest Fastener Corp. v. United States,
42 CIT __, 348 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (2018) undermines the court’s prior analysis or determination.
Midwest Fastener held that there was ambiguity as to whether the plaintiff’s strike pin anchor
product 2 fell within the plain language of the scope of the same Orders at issue here and remanded
the case to Commerce to conduct a formal scope inquiry and analysis pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §
351.225(k)(2). Id. at 1306. Commerce found on remand that the strike pin anchor product fell
within the scope of the Orders and that only the steel pin component of the merchandise would be
subject to the Orders. See Midwest Fastener, Court No. 17-000231, Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Remand at 2, 11, Apr. 25, 2019, ECF No. 61. That determination is
not controlling in the matter before the court here. It is well established that the determination
whether merchandise falls within the scope of an order varies depending upon the particular
1
Commerce acknowledges that the court’s decision was not “based solely on the common
dictionary definition of a nail.” See Def.’s Resp. at 6.
2
Midwest’s strike pin anchors have four components – a steel pin, a threaded body, a nut and a
flash washer. Midwest Fastener, 348 F. Supp. 3d at 1299.
Court No. 17-00057 Page 5
product at issue and its relation to the plain language of the Orders’ scope; Midwest Fastener
involves a different, distinct product and an entirely separate administrative record from the
merchandise and administrative record in this case. 3 See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi) (giving
Commerce authority to issue scope rulings clarifying “whether a particular type of merchandise is
within the class or kind of merchandise described in an existing . . . order.” (emphasis added));
King Supply Co., LLC v. United States, 674 F.3d 1343, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A scope ruling is
a highly fact-intensive and case-specific determination.”); Walgreen Co. of Deerfield, IL v. United
States, 620 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Each case must be decided on the particular facts.”);
Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Scope orders may be
interpreted as including subject merchandise only if they contain language that specifically
includes the subject merchandise or may be reasonably interpreted to include it.”).
CONCLUSION
Commerce’s Remand Results are sustained.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gary S. Katzmann
Gary S. Katzmann, Judge
Dated: -XO\
New York, New York
3
Quite apart from the fact that the products are different and distinct, it is also notable that the
Midwest Fastener court has not yet had occasion to address the remand results in that case. The
remand results thus do not necessarily reflect the ultimate disposition of that case.