MCC Holdings v. United States , 2024 CIT 30 ( 2024 )

SlipȱOp.ȱ24Ȭ30ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ
MCCȱHOLDINGSȱdoingȱbusinessȱasȱ
CRANEȱRESISTOFLEX,ȱ
Plaintiff,ȱ
v.ȱ
ȱȱBefore:ȱȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ
UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ
ȱȱCourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ
Defendant,ȱ
andȱ
ASCȱENGINEEREDȱSOLUTIONS,ȱLLC,ȱ
DefendantȬIntervenor.ȱ
OPINIONȱ
[Sustainingȱaȱremandȱredeterminationȱsubmittedȱinȱresponseȱtoȱcourtȱorderȱinȱ
litigationȱcontestingȱaȱscopeȱruling]ȱ
Dated:ȱMarch 11, 2024
PeterȱJ.ȱKoenig,ȱSquireȱPattonȱBoggsȱ(US)ȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱplaintiff.ȱȱ
WithȱhimȱonȱtheȱsubmissionȱwereȱJeremyȱW.ȱDutraȱandȱChristopherȱD.ȱClark.ȱ
JoshuaȱE.ȱKurland,ȱTrialȱCounsel,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱ
forȱdefendant.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱsubmissionȱwereȱBrianȱM.ȱBoynton,ȱPrincipalȱDeputyȱ
AssistantȱAttorneyȱGeneral,ȱPatriciaȱM.ȱMcCarthy,ȱDirector,ȱandȱL.ȱMishaȱPreheim,ȱ
AssistantȱDirector.ȱȱOfȱcounselȱwasȱW.ȱMitchellȱPurdy,ȱAttorney,ȱOfficeȱofȱtheȱChiefȱ
CounselȱforȱTradeȱEnforcementȱ&ȱCompliance,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱCommerce,ȱofȱ
Washington,ȱD.C.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ2ȱ
ȱ
DanielȱL.ȱSchneiderman,ȱKingȱ&ȱSpaldingȱLLP,ȱofȱWashingtonȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendantȬ
intervenor.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱsubmissionȱwasȱJ.ȱMichaelȱTaylor.ȱ
ȱ
Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱȱPlaintiffȱMCCȱHoldingsȱdbaȱCraneȱResistoflexȱ(“Crane”),ȱanȱ
importerȱofȱcertainȱductileȱironȱlapȱjointȱflangesȱ(“Crane’sȱflanges”),ȱbroughtȱthisȱactionȱ
toȱcontestȱanȱadministrativeȱdecisionȱbyȱtheȱInternationalȱTradeȱAdministration,ȱU.S.ȱ
DepartmentȱofȱCommerceȱ(“Commerce”ȱorȱtheȱ“Department”)ȱthatȱitsȱimportedȱ
merchandiseȱisȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorderȱonȱcertainȱpipeȱfittingsȱ
fromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱ(theȱ“Order”).ȱȱNoticeȱofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱOrder:ȱ
NonȬMalleableȱCastȱIronȱPipeȱ[Fittings]ȱFromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱChina,ȱ68ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ
16,765ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱApr.ȱ7,ȱ2003)ȱ(theȱ“Order”).ȱ
Beforeȱtheȱcourtȱisȱaȱredeterminationȱuponȱremandȱ(theȱ“ThirdȱRemandȱ
Redetermination”),ȱwhichȱCommerceȱsubmittedȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱopinionȱandȱ
orderȱinȱMCCȱHoldingsȱdbaȱCraneȱResistoflexȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ
1201ȱ(2022)ȱ(“CraneȱII”).ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCourtȱOrderȱ
(Dec.ȱ19,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ64ȱ(“ThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination”).ȱ
CommerceȱdeterminedȱinȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱunderȱprotest,ȱ
thatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱnotȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱPlaintiffȱhasȱcommentedȱinȱfavorȱofȱ
theȱThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱPl.ȱMCCȱHoldingsȱDBAȱCraneȱResistoflex’sȱ
CommentsȱonȱCommerceȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Jan.ȱ3,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ66ȱ
(“Crane’sȱComments”).ȱȱDefendantȬintervenor,ȱASCȱEngineeredȱSolutions,ȱLLCȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ3ȱ
ȱ
(“ASC”),ȱhasȱcommentedȱinȱopposition.ȱȱDef.ȬIntervenor’sȱCommentsȱonȱtheȱFinalȱ
ResultsȱofȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ1ȱ(Jan.ȱ3,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ67ȱ(“ASC’sȱ2023ȱ
Comments”)ȱ(incorporatingȱbyȱreferenceȱDef.ȬIntervenor’sȱCommentsȱonȱtheȱFinalȱ
ResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱ(Jan.ȱ20,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ60ȱ(“ASC’sȱ2022ȱComments”)).ȱȱȱȱ
DefendantȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱshouldȱenterȱjudgmentȱforȱtheȱGovernment,ȱ
maintainingȱthatȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱisȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱ
evidenceȱandȱotherwiseȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlaw.ȱ
TheȱcourtȱsustainsȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱ
I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ
Backgroundȱonȱthisȱcaseȱisȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱcourt’sȱpriorȱopinionsȱandȱisȱ
summarizedȱandȱsupplementedȱherein.ȱȱCraneȱII,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1202—03;ȱ
MCCȱHoldingsȱdbaȱCraneȱResistoflexȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ45ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1350,ȱ
1353—55ȱ(2021)ȱ(“CraneȱI”).ȱ
OnȱAugustȱ29,ȱ2018,ȱCraneȱfiledȱaȱrequestȱwithȱCommerceȱforȱaȱscopeȱrulingȱ(theȱ
“ScopeȱRulingȱRequest”),ȱwhichȱadvocatedȱthatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱ
theȱOrder.ȱȱNonȬMalleableȱCastȱIronȱPipeȱFittingsȱfromȱChina:ȱDuctileȱIronȱLapȱJointȱFlanges,ȱ
ScopeȱRequestȱ(P.R.ȱDoc.ȱ1)ȱ(“ScopeȱRulingȱRequest”).1ȱȱInȱtheȱdecisionȱcontestedȱinȱthisȱ
ȱ
ȱAllȱcitationsȱtoȱdocumentsȱfromȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱareȱtoȱpublicȱ
1
documents.ȱȱTheseȱdocumentsȱareȱcitedȱasȱ“P.R.ȱDoc.ȱ__.”ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ4ȱ
ȱ
litigation,ȱtheȱ“FinalȱScopeȱRuling,”ȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱCrane’sȱflangesȱtoȱbeȱwithinȱ
theȱscope.ȱȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱonȱtheȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱOrderȱonȱNonȬMalleableȱCastȱIronȱ
PipeȱFittingsȱfromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱMCCȱHoldingsȱdbaȱCraneȱResistoflexȱ(P.R.ȱ
Doc.ȱ16)ȱ(“FinalȱScopeȱRuling”).ȱȱCraneȱcommencedȱthisȱactionȱtoȱcontestȱtheȱFinalȱScopeȱ
RulingȱonȱDecemberȱ19,ȱ2018.ȱȱSummons,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ1;ȱCompl.,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ2.ȱ
CraneȱmovedȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱagencyȱrecordȱunderȱUSCITȱRuleȱ56.2.ȱȱ
Pl.ȱMCCȱHoldingsȱdbaȱCraneȱResistoflex’sȱRuleȱ56.2ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱonȱtheȱAgencyȱR.ȱ
(Aug.ȱ23,ȱ2019),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ27.ȱȱInȱresponseȱtoȱCrane’sȱmotion,ȱdefendantȱfiledȱanȱ
unopposedȱmotionȱforȱthisȱcaseȱtoȱbeȱremandedȱtoȱCommerceȱinȱlightȱofȱthisȱCourt’sȱ
decisionȱinȱStarȱPipeȱProds.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ43ȱCITȱ__,ȱ365ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1277ȱ(2019)ȱ(“Starȱ
PipeȱI”).ȱȱDef.’sȱUnopposedȱMot.ȱtoȱStayȱBriefingȱScheduleȱandȱtoȱGrantȱVoluntaryȱ
Remand,ȱ(Dec.ȱ30,ȱ2019),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ32.ȱȱStarȱPipeȱIȱaroseȱfromȱlitigationȱinȱwhichȱaȱ
plaintiffȱcontestedȱaȱscopeȱrulingȱonȱductileȱironȱflangesȱthatȱinȱmanyȱrespectsȱwereȱ
similarȱtoȱCrane’sȱflanges.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱconcludedȱinȱStarȱPipeȱIȱthatȱtheȱfinalȱscopeȱrulingȱ
atȱissueȱinȱthatȱcaseȱdidȱnotȱreflectȱconsiderationȱofȱallȱofȱtheȱfactorsȱ(theȱ“(k)(1)ȱfactors”)ȱ
Commerceȱwasȱrequiredȱtoȱconsiderȱaccordingȱtoȱitsȱregulation,ȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ
§ȱ351.225(k)(1).ȱȱTheȱcourtȱgrantedȱdefendant’sȱmotionȱinȱpartȱand,ȱconsideringȱtheȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ5ȱ
ȱ
Department’sȱrequestedȱremandȱtooȱnarrow,ȱdirectedȱCommerceȱtoȱreconsiderȱtheȱFinalȱ
ScopeȱRulingȱinȱtheȱentirety.2ȱȱOrderȱ2ȱ(Jan.ȱ7,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ33.ȱ
Commerceȱsubmittedȱtheȱfirstȱredeterminationȱuponȱremandȱ(“FirstȱRemandȱ
Redetermination”)ȱonȱAprilȱ3,ȱ2020,ȱinȱwhichȱitȱagainȱconcludedȱthatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱ
wereȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCt.ȱ
Order,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ39Ȭ1ȱ(“FirstȱRemandȱRedetermination”).ȱȱInȱCraneȱI,ȱtheȱcourtȱremandedȱ
theȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱtoȱCommerce,ȱrulingȱthatȱCommerceȱhadȱfailedȱtoȱ
considerȱcertainȱmaterialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecordȱthatȱdetractedȱfromȱitsȱdeterminationȱ
andȱreachedȱsomeȱconclusionsȱthatȱwereȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱrecordȱevidence.ȱȱ
CraneȱI,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1353.ȱ
Commerceȱfiledȱaȱredeterminationȱ(theȱ“SecondȱRemandȱRedetermination”)ȱinȱ
responseȱtoȱCraneȱIȱonȱDecemberȱ21,ȱ2021,ȱinȱwhichȱCommerceȱruled,ȱunderȱprotest,ȱthatȱ
Crane’sȱflangesȱwereȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱ
PursuantȱtoȱCourtȱOrder,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ58Ȭ1.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱconcludedȱinȱCraneȱIIȱthatȱtheȱSecondȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱwasȱpreliminaryȱtoȱanȱactualȱscopeȱdeterminationȱand,ȱ
therefore,ȱnotȱinȱaȱformȱinȱwhichȱitȱcouldȱgoȱintoȱeffectȱifȱsustainedȱuponȱjudicialȱreview.ȱȱ
ȱ
2ȱTheȱcourtȱrecentlyȱsustainedȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdetermination,ȱsubmittedȱunderȱ
protestȱfollowingȱthisȱcourt’sȱdecisionȱinȱStarȱPipeȱProds.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ607ȱ
F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1192ȱ(2022)ȱ(“StarȱPipeȱIV”),ȱthatȱStarȱPipe’sȱflangesȱareȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱ
theȱOrder.ȱȱStarȱPipeȱProds.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ48ȱCITȱ__,ȱSlipȱOp.ȱNo.ȱ24Ȭ28ȱ(Mar.ȱ6,ȱ2024)ȱ
(“StarȱPipeȱV”).ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ6ȱ
ȱ
CraneȱII,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1209ȱ(2022).ȱȱConcludingȱthatȱtheȱSecondȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱ“doesȱnotȱallowȱtheȱcourtȱtoȱperformȱitsȱessentialȱjudicialȱ
reviewȱfunction,”ȱCraneȱIIȱorderedȱCommerceȱtoȱissueȱaȱdeterminationȱthatȱwouldȱgoȱ
intoȱeffectȱifȱsustainedȱuponȱjudicialȱreview.ȱȱId.ȱȱCraneȱIIȱheld,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱtheȱSecondȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱ“misconstruesȱCraneȱIȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱmadeȱ
‘findings’ȱandȱimpliesȱthatȱCommerceȱisȱreachingȱtheȱdecisionȱtoȱexcludeȱCrane’sȱ
flangesȱfromȱtheȱOrderȱoutȱofȱaȱneedȱtoȱimplementȱthoseȱ‘findings.’”ȱȱId.ȱȱCraneȱIIȱ
clarifiedȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱdidȱnotȱmakeȱfindingsȱinȱCraneȱIȱnorȱdidȱitȱdirectȱtheȱresult.ȱȱId.ȱȱ
TheȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱCraneȱIIȱaddedȱthatȱaȱdecisionȱonȱwhetherȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱ
withinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrderȱ“isȱaȱdeterminationȱforȱCommerceȱtoȱmakeȱuponȱ
remand.”ȱȱId.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ607ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1208.ȱ
II.ȱȱDISCUSSIONȱ
A.ȱȱJurisdictionȱandȱStandardȱofȱReviewȱ
Theȱcourtȱexercisesȱsubjectȱmatterȱjurisdictionȱunderȱsectionȱ201ȱofȱtheȱCustomsȱ
CourtsȱActȱofȱ1980,ȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1581(c),ȱwhichȱgrantsȱjurisdictionȱoverȱcivilȱactionsȱ
broughtȱunderȱsectionȱ516AȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱofȱ1930,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1516a.3ȱȱAmongȱtheȱ
decisionsȱthatȱmayȱbeȱcontestedȱaccordingȱtoȱsectionȱ516Aȱisȱaȱdeterminationȱofȱ
ȱ
3ȱCitationsȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱCodeȱandȱtoȱtheȱCodeȱofȱFederalȱRegulationsȱareȱ
toȱtheȱ2018ȱeditions.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ7ȱ
ȱ
“whetherȱaȱparticularȱtypeȱofȱmerchandiseȱisȱwithinȱtheȱclassȱorȱkindȱofȱmerchandiseȱ
describedȱinȱanȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱantidumpingȱorȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorder.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi).ȱȱ
Inȱreviewingȱanȱagencyȱdetermination,ȱtheȱcourtȱmustȱsetȱasideȱanyȱdetermination,ȱ
finding,ȱorȱconclusionȱfoundȱ“toȱbeȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱ
orȱotherwiseȱnotȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlaw.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).ȱ
B.ȱȱTheȱScopeȱLanguageȱofȱtheȱOrderȱ
TheȱOrderȱcontainsȱlanguageȱ(theȱ“scopeȱlanguage”)ȱdefiningȱtheȱmerchandiseȱ
thatȱisȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder,ȱasȱfollows:ȱ
[F]inishedȱandȱunfinishedȱnonȬmalleableȱcastȱironȱpipeȱfittingsȱwithȱanȱ
insideȱdiameterȱrangingȱfromȱ1/4ȱinchȱtoȱ6ȱinches,ȱwhetherȱthreadedȱorȱ
unthreaded,ȱregardlessȱofȱindustryȱorȱproprietaryȱspecifications.ȱȱTheȱ
subjectȱfittingsȱincludeȱelbows,ȱells,ȱtees,ȱcrosses,ȱandȱreducersȱasȱwellȱasȱ
flangedȱfittings.ȱȱTheseȱpipeȱfittingsȱareȱalsoȱknownȱasȱ“castȱironȱpipeȱ
fittings”ȱorȱ“grayȱironȱpipeȱfittings.”ȱȱTheseȱcastȱironȱpipeȱfittingsȱareȱ
normallyȱproducedȱtoȱASTMȱAȬ126ȱandȱASMEȱB.16.4ȱspecificationsȱandȱ
areȱthreadedȱtoȱASMEȱB1.20.1ȱspecifications.ȱȱMostȱbuildingȱcodesȱrequireȱ
thatȱtheseȱproductsȱareȱUnderwritersȱLaboratoriesȱ(UL)ȱcertified.ȱȱTheȱ
scopeȱdoesȱnotȱincludeȱcastȱironȱsoilȱpipeȱfittingsȱorȱgroovedȱfittingsȱorȱ
groovedȱcouplings.ȱ
ȱ
Fittingsȱthatȱareȱmadeȱoutȱofȱductileȱironȱthatȱhaveȱtheȱsameȱ
physicalȱcharacteristicsȱasȱtheȱgrayȱorȱcastȱironȱfittingsȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱscopeȱ
aboveȱorȱwhichȱhaveȱtheȱsameȱphysicalȱcharacteristicsȱandȱareȱproducedȱ
toȱASMEȱB.16.3,ȱASMEȱB.16.4,ȱorȱASTMȱAȬ395ȱspecifications,ȱthreadedȱtoȱ
ASMEȱB1.20.1ȱspecificationsȱandȱULȱcertified,ȱregardlessȱofȱmetallurgicalȱ
differencesȱbetweenȱgrayȱandȱductileȱiron,ȱareȱalsoȱincludedȱinȱtheȱscopeȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ8ȱ
ȱ
ofȱthisȱpetition.[4]ȱȱTheseȱductileȱfittingsȱdoȱnotȱincludeȱgroovedȱfittingsȱorȱ
groovedȱcouplings.ȱȱDuctileȱcastȱironȱfittingsȱwithȱmechanicalȱjointȱendsȱ
(MJ),ȱorȱpushȱonȱendsȱ(PO),ȱorȱflangedȱendsȱandȱproducedȱtoȱtheȱ
AmericanȱWaterȱWorksȱAssociationȱ(AWWA)ȱspecificationsȱAWWAȱC110ȱ
orȱAWWAȱC153ȱareȱnotȱincluded.ȱ
ȱ
Order,ȱ68ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ16,765.ȱ
C.ȱȱTheȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱandȱtheȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱ
TheȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱdescribedȱnineȱmodelsȱofȱductileȱironȱ“lapȱjoint”ȱ
flanges.ȱȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱatȱ1.ȱȱEachȱmodelȱisȱaȱsingleȱdiscȬshapedȱarticleȱmadeȱofȱ
ductileȱironȱwithȱanȱunthreadedȱcenterȱhole.ȱȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱatȱEx.ȱ1.ȱȱSurroundingȱ
theȱcenterȱholeȱareȱsmaller,ȱequallyȱspaced,ȱunthreadedȱholesȱthatȱareȱpresentȱtoȱ
accommodateȱboltsȱusedȱinȱassemblingȱaȱjointȱbetweenȱtheȱendsȱofȱtwoȱplasticȬlinedȱ
pipes.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ2,ȱEx.ȱ1.ȱȱTheȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱstatesȱthatȱCrane’sȱFlangesȱ“areȱforȱaȱ
lineȱofȱplasticȱlinedȱpipingȱatȱCraneȱResistoflexȱinȱMarion,ȱNC,ȱUSAȱforȱuseȱinȱprocessȱ
pipingȱprimarilyȱforȱtheȱchemicalȱprocessȱindustry.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ2.ȱ
TheȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱdescribedȱanȱassembledȱ“lapȱjoint”ȱasȱconsistingȱofȱ
twoȱflanges,ȱaȱgasketȱplacedȱbetweenȱtheȱflanges,ȱandȱaȱsetȱofȱboltsȱandȱnutsȱthatȱareȱ
usedȱasȱtheȱmeansȱofȱclampingȱtheȱtwoȱflangesȱtogether.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ3,ȱEx.ȱ1.ȱȱTheȱScopeȱ
ȱ
4ȱTheȱwordȱ“petition”ȱisȱincorrectlyȱincludedȱinȱtheȱscopeȱlanguageȱasȱitȱappearsȱ
inȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱNoticeȱofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱOrder:ȱNonȬMalleableȱCastȱIronȱPipeȱFittingsȱ
FromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱChina,ȱ68ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ16,765ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱApr.ȱ7,ȱ2003).ȱȱ
Theȱapparentȱintentȱwasȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorderȱinstead.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ9ȱ
ȱ
RulingȱRequestȱaddedȱthatȱ“[t]hereȱisȱnoȱpipeȱfittingȱattachedȱtoȱtheȱsubjectȱFlanges.”ȱȱ
Id.ȱatȱ3.ȱȱȱ
TheȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱstatedȱthatȱCrane’sȱFlangesȱareȱdescribedȱbyȱindustryȱ
standardȱASMEȱB16.42,ȱpointingȱoutȱthatȱthisȱindustryȱstandardȱdoesȱnotȱconsiderȱ
flangesȱtoȱbeȱ“fittings.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ4.ȱȱItȱstatedȱthatȱ“theȱstandardȱB16.42ȱbyȱitsȱtitleȱcoversȱ
‘DuctileȱIronȱPipeȱFlangesȱandȱFlangedȱFittingsȱClassesȱ150ȱandȱflangeȱ300.’”ȱId.ȱatȱ4.ȱȱ
TheȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱconcludedȱthatȱfiveȱofȱtheȱnineȱflangesȱdescribedȱinȱtheȱ
ScopeȱRulingȱRequest—thoseȱwithȱinnerȱdiametersȱofȱ1.938ȱinchesȱtoȱ4.615ȱinches,ȱ
inclusive—areȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱOrderȱandȱthatȱtheȱremainingȱfourȱflanges,ȱhavingȱinnerȱ
diametersȱgreaterȱthanȱ6ȱinches,ȱareȱnot.ȱȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱatȱ1.ȱȱCommerceȱreasonedȱ
thatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱdescribedȱbyȱtheȱtermȱ“fittings”ȱ(orȱtheȱsynonymousȱtermȱ“pipeȱ
fittings”)ȱasȱusedȱinȱtheȱscopeȱlanguageȱinȱtheȱOrderȱand,ȱbecauseȱtheyȱareȱmadeȱofȱ
ductileȱiron,ȱratherȱthanȱnonȬmalleableȱcastȱiron,ȱareȱdescribedȱbyȱtheȱfirstȱsentenceȱofȱ
theȱsecondȱparagraphȱofȱtheȱscopeȱlanguage.ȱȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱatȱ10—12.ȱȱInȱpertinentȱ
part,ȱtheȱsentenceȱisȱasȱfollows:ȱ“Fittingsȱthatȱareȱmadeȱoutȱofȱductileȱironȱthatȱhaveȱtheȱ
sameȱphysicalȱcharacteristicsȱasȱtheȱgrayȱorȱcastȱironȱfittingsȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱscopeȱ
aboveȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱareȱalsoȱincludedȱinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱthisȱpetition.”ȱȱOrder,ȱ68ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ16,765.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ10ȱ
ȱ
D.ȱȱTheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ
InȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱasȱitȱdidȱinȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱ
Redetermination,ȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱunderȱprotestȱthatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱoutsideȱ
theȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱInȱreachingȱthisȱconclusion,ȱCommerceȱreasonedȱthatȱitȱ“mustȱ
takeȱintoȱaccount”ȱtheȱ(k)(1)ȱfactorsȱasȱsetȱforthȱinȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.225(k)(1).ȱȱThirdȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ8.ȱȱTheȱ(k)(1)ȱfactorsȱareȱ“[t]heȱdescriptionsȱofȱtheȱ
merchandiseȱcontainedȱinȱtheȱpetition,ȱtheȱinitialȱinvestigation,ȱandȱtheȱdeterminationsȱ
ofȱtheȱSecretaryȱ(includingȱpriorȱscopeȱdeterminations)ȱandȱtheȱ[U.S.ȱInternationalȱ
Trade]ȱCommissionȱ[‘ITC’ȱorȱtheȱ‘Commission’].”ȱȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.225(k)(1).ȱȱTheȱThirdȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱstatesȱthatȱ“inȱconsiderationȱofȱCraneȱIȱandȱCraneȱIIȱandȱ
furtherȱreviewȱofȱtheȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱunderȱrespectfulȱprotest,ȱweȱfindȱthatȱtheȱ
sourcesȱidentifiedȱinȱ19ȱCFRȱ351.225(k)(1)ȱdoȱnotȱsupportȱaȱfindingȱthatȱtheȱductileȱironȱ
flangesȱareȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.”ȱȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ7ȱ(footnoteȱ
omitted).ȱ
Inȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱobjectionȱinȱCraneȱII,ȱCommerceȱstatedȱinȱtheȱThirdȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱthatȱ“shouldȱtheȱCourtȱaffirmȱtheseȱfinalȱresultsȱofȱ
redetermination,ȱaȱFederalȱRegisterȱnoticeȱwillȱbeȱpublishedȱstatingȱthat,ȱconsistentȱwithȱ
theȱCourt’sȱholdings,ȱCrane’sȱductileȱironȱflangesȱareȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.”ȱȱ
ThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ17.ȱȱCommerceȱaddedȱthatȱ“relevantȱinstructionsȱtoȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ11ȱ
ȱ
[CustomsȱandȱBorderȱProtection]ȱgivingȱeffectȱtoȱtheȱdetermination,ȱasȱsustainedȱbyȱtheȱ
Court,ȱwillȱalsoȱbeȱissuedȱatȱthatȱtimeȱasȱappropriate.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ18.ȱ
E.ȱȱCommentsȱonȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ
CraneȱsupportsȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱstatingȱthatȱ“Commerceȱ
correctlyȱheldȱthatȱCraneȱflangesȱareȱnotȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱpertinentȱantidumpingȱorder,ȱ
whenȱrenderingȱaȱdecisionȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlawȱandȱrecordȱfacts,ȱperȱthisȱCourt’sȱ
decisions.”ȱȱCrane’sȱCommentsȱ1.ȱ
ArguingȱthatȱitȱmerelyȱreformatsȱtheȱDepartment’sȱpreviousȱdecisionȱratherȱthanȱ
makeȱanyȱnewȱfindings,ȱASCȱopposesȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱandȱ
incorporatesȱbyȱreferenceȱitsȱcommentsȱopposingȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱ
ASC’sȱ2023ȱCommentsȱ1.ȱȱTakingȱtheȱpositionȱthatȱbothȱtheȱSecondȱandȱThirdȱRemandȱ
Redeterminationsȱareȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱandȱotherwiseȱnotȱinȱ
accordanceȱwithȱlaw,ȱASCȱmaintainsȱthatȱ“Commerce,ȱactingȱ‘underȱprotest,’ȱerredȱbyȱ
(1)ȱfindingȱthatȱtheȱCourtȱdirectedȱaȱparticularȱresult,ȱ(2)ȱimproperlyȱignoringȱtheȱplainȱ
meaningȱofȱtheȱscopeȱinȱfavorȱofȱinterpretationsȱofȱcertainȱ‘(k)(1)’ȱmaterials,ȱandȱ
(3)ȱfindingȱthatȱitȱlackedȱdiscretionȱtoȱinterpretȱcertainȱkeyȱlanguageȱinȱtheȱreportȱofȱtheȱ
InternationalȱTradeȱCommission.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ2.ȱ
Defendantȱrespondsȱtoȱtheȱcommentȱsubmissionsȱbyȱstatingȱthatȱ“theȱCourtȱ
shouldȱsustainȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱResultsȱandȱenterȱfinalȱjudgmentȱforȱtheȱGovernmentȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ12ȱ
becauseȱCommerceȱhasȱcompliedȱwithȱtheȱCourt’sȱremandȱorderȱandȱbecauseȱtheȱThirdȱ
RemandȱResultsȱareȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱandȱotherwiseȱlawful.”ȱȱDef.’sȱ
Resp.ȱtoȱCommentsȱonȱRemandȱResultsȱ1ȱ(Jan.ȱ13,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ68.ȱȱ
TheȱcourtȱagreesȱwithȱtheȱpositionȱofȱtheȱGovernmentȱandȱCraneȱthatȱtheȱThirdȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱisȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecordȱandȱ
otherwiseȱaccordsȱwithȱlaw.ȱȱForȱtheȱreasonsȱstatedȱbelow,ȱtheȱcourtȱdisagreesȱwithȱ
ASC’sȱpositionȱtoȱtheȱcontrary.ȱ
F. CommerceȱWasȱRequiredȱtoȱConsiderȱtheȱFactorsȱinȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ351.225(k)(1)
ASCȱarguesȱthatȱbecauseȱtheȱscopeȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱOrderȱunambiguously
includesȱductileȱironȱflangesȱsuchȱasȱCrane’s,ȱCommerceȱshouldȱnotȱhaveȱconsideredȱ
theȱ(k)(1)ȱfactors.ȱȱASC’sȱ2022ȱCommentsȱ2—3ȱ(“Thereȱbeingȱnoȱambiguity,ȱthatȱshouldȱ
haveȱbeenȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱmatter;ȱthereȱwasȱnoȱjustificationȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱ‘(k)(1)’ȱ
materials.”ȱ(footnoteȱomitted)).ȱȱThisȱargumentȱisȱunpersuasiveȱbecauseȱtheȱscopeȱ
language,ȱalthoughȱusingȱtheȱtermȱ“fittings”ȱ(and,ȱsynonymously,ȱ“pipeȱfittings”),ȱdoesȱ
notȱdefineȱtheȱtermȱandȱonȱitsȱfaceȱdoesȱnotȱresolveȱtheȱissueȱofȱwhetherȱflangesȱinȱ
general,ȱorȱductileȱironȱflangesȱinȱparticular,ȱwereȱwithinȱtheȱintendedȱmeaningȱofȱthatȱ
term.ȱ
Considerationȱofȱtheȱ(k)(1)ȱfactorsȱnotȱonlyȱwasȱrequiredȱbyȱtheȱplainȱlanguageȱofȱ
theȱregulation,ȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.225(k)(1),ȱasȱappliedȱtoȱthisȱproceedingȱbutȱalsoȱwasȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ13ȱ
ȱ
essentialȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdetermining,ȱforȱpurposesȱofȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱ
Redetermination,ȱwhetherȱductileȱironȱflangesȱwereȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱ
Department’sȱandȱtheȱITC’sȱinvestigations.5ȱȱAsȱdiscussedȱbelow,ȱconsiderableȱrecordȱ
evidenceȱpertainingȱtoȱtheȱ(k)(1)ȱfactorsȱsupportsȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱinȱtheȱThirdȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱthatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱ
G.ȱȱSubstantialȱEvidenceȱSupportingȱtheȱDepartment’sȱDeterminationȱthatȱCrane’sȱ
FlangesȱAreȱNotȱWithinȱtheȱScopeȱofȱtheȱOrderȱ
ȱ
Theȱcourt,ȱasȱdoesȱdefendant,ȱdisagreesȱwithȱASC’sȱcommentȱthatȱtheȱThirdȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱisȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱInȱitsȱ
previousȱopinions,ȱtheȱcourtȱidentifiedȱcertainȱevidenceȱthatȱdetractedȱfromȱtheȱ
Department’sȱearlierȱfindingsȱandȱthatȱCommerceȱneededȱtoȱconsider,ȱwhichȱitȱnowȱhasȱ
done.ȱȱAsȱtheȱcourtȱdiscussedȱinȱCraneȱI,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1358—60,ȱ
amongȱtheȱevidenceȱearlierȱoverlookedȱwasȱcertainȱevidenceȱcontainedȱinȱtheȱ“ITCȱ
Report,”ȱwhichȱwasȱtheȱreportȱofȱtheȱaffirmativeȱdeterminationȱofȱthreatȱtoȱtheȱdomesticȱ
industryȱissuedȱbyȱtheȱITCȱduringȱtheȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigation.ȱȱSeeȱNonȬ
MalleableȱPipeȱFittingsȱfromȱChina,ȱInv.ȱNo.ȱ731ȬTAȬ990ȱ(Final),ȱUSITCȱPub.ȱNo.ȱ3586ȱ
(Mar.ȱ2003)ȱ(P.R.ȱDocs.ȱ18–21,ȱAttach.ȱIV)ȱ(“ITCȱReport”).ȱȱTheȱITCȱReportȱcontainedȱ
ȱ
5ȱAnȱamendmentȱtoȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.225(k),ȱeffectiveȱasȱtoȱscopeȱapplicationsȱfiledȱ
onȱorȱafterȱNovemberȱ4,ȱ2021,ȱdoesȱnotȱapplyȱtoȱthisȱproceeding.ȱȱSeeȱRegulationsȱToȱ
ImproveȱAdministrationȱandȱEnforcementȱofȱAntidumpingȱandȱCountervailingȱDutyȱLaws;ȱ
FinalȱRule,ȱ86ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ52,300,ȱ52,327ȱ(Sept.ȱ20,ȱ2021).ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ14ȱ
ȱ
evidenceȱthatȱtheȱITCȱconsideredȱductileȱironȱflangedȱfittingsȱtoȱbeȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱ
itsȱinvestigation.ȱȱCraneȱI,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1359.ȱȱAsȱCraneȱIȱfurtherȱstated,ȱ
“[n]oteworthyȱisȱevidenceȱshowingȱthatȱductileȱironȱflangesȱshareȱaȱdefiningȱphysicalȱ
characteristicȱwithȱductileȱironȱflangedȱfittings,ȱi.e.,ȱaȱflange”ȱandȱ“thatȱtheȱITCȱReportȱ
doesȱnotȱdiscussȱflangesȱ(asȱopposedȱtoȱflangedȱfittings)ȱinȱdescribingȱtheȱmerchandiseȱ
itȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱitsȱownȱinvestigation.”ȱȱId.ȱ
Inȱitsȱ2022ȱcomments,ȱASCȱobjectedȱthatȱtheȱexpressȱexclusionsȱinȱtheȱscopeȱ
languageȱforȱcertainȱductileȱironȱflangedȱfittingsȱwouldȱbeȱ“superfluous”ȱifȱallȱductileȱ
ironȱflangedȱfittingsȱwereȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱASC’sȱ2022ȱ
Commentsȱ3—4.ȱȱASCȱalsoȱopinedȱthatȱtheȱITCȱReportȱisȱ“ambiguous”ȱonȱtheȱissueȱofȱ
whetherȱtheȱITCȱintendedȱtoȱexcludeȱductileȱironȱflangedȱfittingsȱfromȱtheȱscopeȱofȱitsȱ
investigation.ȱȱAsȱCraneȱIȱpointedȱoutȱinȱrespondingȱtoȱaȱsimilarȱanalysisȱinȱtheȱFirstȱ
RemandȱRedetermination,ȱ“[t]hisȱconclusionȱmissesȱtheȱpoint”ȱbyȱ“overlook[ing]ȱtheȱ
significanceȱofȱtheȱITC’sȱdiscussionȱofȱitsȱdomesticȱlikeȱproductȱandȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱ
ITC’sȱinvestigation”ȱ(whichȱtheȱITCȱstatedȱwereȱtheȱsame).ȱȱTheȱITCȱwasȱawareȱofȱtheȱ
specificȱexclusionȱCommerceȱprovidedȱforȱcertainȱgoodsȱconformingȱtoȱspecificationsȱofȱ
theȱAmericanȱWaterȱWorksȱAssociation,ȱ“andȱtheȱITCȱexpressedȱnoȱdisagreementȱwithȱ
respectȱtoȱit.”ȱȱCraneȱI,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1359ȱ(citationȱomitted).ȱȱ“Butȱ
apartȱfromȱthat,ȱtheȱITC,ȱbasedȱonȱitsȱownȱinvestigation,ȱstillȱdeterminedȱthatȱallȱductileȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ15ȱ
flangedȱfittingsȱwereȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱdomesticȱlikeȱproduct,ȱandȱthereforeȱalsoȱ
outsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱitsȱownȱinjury/threatȱinvestigation.”ȱȱId.ȱȱAsȱCraneȱIȱexplained:ȱȱ
Itȱisȱaxiomaticȱthatȱunderȱtheȱantidumpingȱdutyȱstatuteȱasȱitȱappliesȱinȱthisȱ
case,ȱCommerceȱmayȱimposeȱantidumpingȱdutiesȱonȱaȱgoodȱonlyȱ
followingȱaȱdeterminationȱbyȱCommerceȱthatȱtheȱgoodȱisȱ‘unfairlyȱtraded,’ȱ
i.e.,ȱthatȱitȱwasȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱanȱaffirmativeȱlessȬthanȬfairȬvalue
determinationȱbyȱCommerceȱandȱalsoȱwasȱincludedȱwithinȱtheȱgoods
investigatedȱbyȱtheȱITCȱandȱtherebyȱfoundȱtoȱhaveȱresultedȱinȱmaterial
injuryȱorȱtheȱthreatȱofȱmaterialȱinjuryȱtoȱtheȱdomesticȱindustry.ȱȱSee
19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1673.ȱȱByȱrequiringȱCommerceȱtoȱconsiderȱ‘theȱdescriptionsȱof
theȱmerchandiseȱcontainedȱinȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtheȱdeterminationsȱofȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthe
Commission,’ȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.225(k)(1),ȱwhenȱrulingȱonȱaȱscopeȱissue,ȱthe
Department’sȱregulationsȱembodyȱthisȱprinciple.
Id.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1359—60.ȱȱWhileȱASCȱcharacterizesȱtheȱITCȱReportȱ
asȱ“ambiguous”ȱasȱtoȱwhetherȱductileȱironȱflangedȱfittingsȱwereȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱ
ITC’sȱinvestigation,ȱwhatȱisȱnotȱambiguousȱisȱthatȱtheȱITCȱdefinedȱtheȱdomesticȱlikeȱ
productȱasȱcorrespondingȱtoȱtheȱscopeȱofȱitsȱinvestigationȱandȱdidȱnotȱbroadenȱtheȱscopeȱ
ofȱtheȱdomesticȱlikeȱproductȱtoȱincludeȱductileȱironȱflangedȱfittings.ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱ
F. Supp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1359ȱ(quotingȱITCȱReportȱatȱ8).ȱȱTheȱintentȱofȱtheȱITCȱtoȱexcludeȱductile
ironȱflangedȱfittingsȱfromȱitsȱinvestigation,ȱandȱtheȱabsenceȱinȱtheȱITCȱReportȱofȱaȱ
generalȱdiscussionȱofȱ“flanges”ȱ(orȱductileȱironȱflangesȱinȱparticular,ȱsuchȱasȱCrane’s),ȱ
lentȱsupportȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱinȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱtoȱexcludeȱCrane’sȱ
flangesȱfromȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ16ȱ
ȱ
TheȱevidenceȱinȱtheȱITCȱReportȱisȱnotȱtheȱonlyȱevidenceȱthatȱsupportsȱtheȱ
Department’sȱconclusionȱinȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱthatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱ
notȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱTheȱPetitionȱ(“Petition”),ȱPetitionȱforȱImpositionȱofȱ
AntidumpingȱDuties:ȱNonȬMalleableȱCastȱIronȱPipeȱFittingsȱfromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱ
China,ȱAȬ570Ȭ875ȱ(Feb.ȱ21,ȱ2002)ȱ(P.R.ȱDocs.ȱ18–21,ȱAttach.ȱI)ȱ(“Petition”),ȱwhileȱ
containingȱcertainȱbrochuresȱasȱexhibitsȱthatȱillustrateȱflanges,ȱdidȱnotȱidentifyȱflangesȱ
inȱtheȱbodyȱofȱtheȱdocumentȱasȱaȱclassȱorȱkindȱofȱgoodsȱthatȱwasȱintendedȱtoȱbeȱcoveredȱ
byȱtheȱrequestedȱinvestigation.ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1357ȱ(“Neitherȱtheȱ
bodyȱofȱtheȱPetition,ȱnorȱtheȱscopeȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱOrderȱthatȱculminatedȱfromȱtheȱ
investigationȱitȱlaunched,ȱspecificallyȱaddressesȱflanges.”).ȱȱTheȱPetitionȱalsoȱstatedȱthatȱ
“[v]irtuallyȱallȱsubjectȱfittingsȱareȱusedȱinȱfireȱprotectionȱsystemsȱandȱinȱtheȱsteamȱheatȱ
conveyanceȱsystemsȱusedȱinȱoldȱinnerȱcities,”ȱid.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ537ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1358ȱ
(citingȱPetitionȱ4);ȱtheȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱstatedȱthatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱwereȱforȱuseȱinȱ
processȱpipingȱprimarilyȱforȱtheȱchemicalȱprocessȱindustry.ȱȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱatȱ2.ȱ
TheȱScopeȱRulingȱRequestȱstated,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱCrane’sȱFlangesȱareȱdescribedȱbyȱ
industryȱstandardȱASMEȱB16.42,ȱandȱthatȱthisȱindustryȱstandardȱdoesȱnotȱconsiderȱ
flangesȱtoȱbeȱ“fittings.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ4.ȱȱ(“[T]heȱstandardȱB16.42ȱbyȱitsȱtitleȱcoversȱ‘DuctileȱIronȱ
PipeȱFlangesȱandȱFlangedȱFittingsȱClassesȱ150ȱandȱflangeȱ300’”).ȱȱThroughoutȱthisȱ
proceeding,ȱCommerceȱhasȱconsideredȱductileȱironȱflangedȱfittingsȱ(whichȱtheȱITCȱdidȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ17ȱ
notȱconsiderȱtoȱbeȱpartȱofȱitsȱinvestigation)ȱandȱductileȱironȱflangesȱtoȱbeȱdifferentȱ
classesȱofȱmerchandise.ȱȱNevertheless,ȱinȱtheȱFinalȱScopeȱRulingȱandȱtheȱFirstȱRemandȱ
RedeterminationȱCommerceȱdeemedȱCrane’sȱflangesȱtoȱbeȱ“fittings”ȱbasedȱonȱlogicȱthatȱ
isȱopenȱtoȱquestion:ȱhowȱcouldȱaȱ“flange”ȱthat,ȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱpreviousȱ
position,ȱisȱalsoȱaȱ“fitting”ȱbeȱsomethingȱotherȱthanȱaȱ“flangedȱfitting”?ȱȱTheȱThirdȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱavoidsȱthisȱapparentȱcontradictionȱbyȱdetermining,ȱbasedȱonȱ
theȱevidenceȱconsideredȱonȱtheȱwhole,ȱthatȱCrane’sȱductileȱironȱflangesȱareȱnotȱwithinȱ
theȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱ
III. CONCLUSION
TheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱthatȱCrane’sȱflangesȱareȱnotȱwithinȱtheȱscopeȱofȱ
theȱOrderȱisȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecordȱconsideredȱasȱaȱwholeȱandȱ
isȱotherwiseȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlaw.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱdisagreesȱwithȱASC’sȱcommentsȱtoȱtheȱ
contraryȱforȱtheȱreasonsȱdiscussedȱabove.ȱȱJudgmentȱsustainingȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱ
Redeterminationȱwillȱenterȱaccordingly.ȱ
AsȱprovidedȱinȱtheȱThirdȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱtheȱJudgmentȱwillȱdirectȱ
CommerceȱtoȱpublishȱaȱFederalȱRegisterȱnoticeȱofȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱthatȱ
Crane’sȱductileȱironȱflangesȱareȱoutsideȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱOrderȱandȱtoȱissue,ȱatȱthatȱtime,ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ18Ȭ00248ȱ Pageȱ18ȱ
relevantȱinstructionsȱtoȱCustomsȱandȱBorderȱProtectionȱeffectuatingȱthatȱdetermination.ȱȱ
FourthȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ17—18.ȱ
/s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu
TimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ
Dated:ȱȱ March 11, 2024
NewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ