Slip Op. 24-

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

NORCA INDUSTRIAL 

COMPANY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

and 

INTERNATIONAL PIPING & 

PROCUREMENT GROUP, LP, 

Consolidated Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge

Consol. Court No. 21-00192

OPINION

[Sustaining the negative evasion determination of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection under the Enforce and Protect Act.]

Dated: February 7, 2024

Peter Koenig, Jeremy W. Dutra, and Christopher D. Clark, of Squire Patton Boggs 

(US) LLP, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs Norca Industrial Company, LLC and 

International Piping & Procurement Group, LP. 

Margaret J. Jantzen, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., and Tamari J. 

Lagvilava, Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, of 

Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. 
Consol. Court No. 21-00192 Page 2 

Choe-Groves, Judge: This case arises out of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection’s (“Customs”) evasion determination under the antidumping order on 

certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from the People’s Republic of China 

(“China”). Customs’ Final Administrative Determination in Enforce and Protect

Act (EAPA) Case No. 7335 (Mar. 22, 2021) (“Final Administrative 

Determination”), PR 3791

; see Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From 

the People’s Republic of China (“Order”), 57 Fed. Reg. 29,702 (Dep’t of 

Commerce July 6, 1992) (antidumping duty order and amendment to final 

determination of sales at less than fair value). Before the Court is the Final 

Remand Redetermination (“Remand Redetermination”), Final Remand 

Redetermination EAPA Consol. Case No. 7335, ECF No. 58, which the Court 

ordered in Norca Indus. Co. v. United States, 46 CIT __, 561 F. Supp. 3d 1379 

(2022) (“Norca I”). For the following reasons, the Court sustains Customs’ 

negative evasion determination in the Remand Redetermination. 

BACKGROUND 

On November 6, 2020, Customs determined that substantial evidence 

demonstrated that Plaintiffs entered covered merchandise into the United States 

through evasion of the Order. Notice of Determination as to Evasion (Nov. 6, 

1

 Citations to the administrative record reflect the public record (“PR”), ECF No. 

18. 
Consol. Court No. 21-00192 Page 3 

2020) (“November 6 Determination”) at 1–2, PR 368. Customs initiated on 

November 5, 2019 a parallel Enforce and Protect Act (“EAPA”) investigation into 

whether Plaintiffs evaded the Order with their entries of merchandise into the 

United States based on allegations raised by Allied Group. Id. at 2. Allied Group 

alleged that BW Fittings, the former Vietnamese supplier of Plaintiffs’ 

merchandise, did not produce carbon steel butt-weld fittings in Vietnam, but 

transshipped such merchandise from China into the United States. Id. 

Customs’ Regulations and Rulings of the Office of Trade affirmed the 

November 6 Determination on March 22, 2021. See Final Administrative 

Determination. Plaintiffs filed separate suits challenging the November 6 

Determination and Final Administrative Determination, which the Court 

consolidated. Order (June 8, 2021), ECF No. 14. 

After Plaintiffs filed their respective Rule 56.2 motions, Defendant requested 

a remand of the Final Administrative Determination because Customs had recently 

learned that certain documents collected during the investigation were not provided 

to the Parties during the investigation or were not included as part of the record. 

Def.’s Mot. Voluntary Remand Suspend Current Br. Schedule (“Def.’s Mot. 

Voluntary Remand”), ECF No. 23; see also Pl.’s Rule 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R., 

ECF No. 20; Mem. Points Auth. Supp. Pl.’s Rule 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 

21 (“Pl.’s Rule 56.2 Mem.”); Consol. Pl.’s Rule 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 
Consol. Court No. 21-00192 Page 4 

22. Defendant conceded that the administrative record was incomplete, stating that 

remand would allow an opportunity for a third party, who had submitted numerous 

photographs and videos from a November 2019 site visit of BW Fittings’ Vietnam 

facility to Customs (but were excluded from the administrative record), to bracket 

the business confidential information in its submissions to Customs. Def.’s Mot. 

Voluntary Remand at 4; see Pl.’s Rule 56.2 Mem. at 5. On March 11, 2022, this 

Court remanded the Final Administrative Determination. Norca I, 46 CIT at __, 

561 F. Supp. 3d at 1384. 

The Court stayed this case while Customs referred a covered merchandise 

determination to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to determine 

whether Plaintiffs’ Chinese-origin rough fittings purchased from BW Fittings were 

covered by the Order in two scenarios: (1) Chinese-origin rough fittings that only 

underwent the third stage of production (i.e., finishing processes) in Vietnam and 

(2) Chinese-origin rough fittings that underwent both the second and third stages of 

production in Vietnam. Customs’ Covered Merchandise Referral Request for 

Merchandise Under EAPA Consolidated Case [No.] 7335 (Remand [No.] 7717), 

Imported by Norca Industrial Company, LLC and International Piping & 

Procurement Group, LP: Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Carbon Steel ButtWeld Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China (Sept. 6, 2022) at 4, ECF 

No. 53-1. 
Consol. Court No. 21-00192 Page 5 

Commerce issued its final covered merchandise determination on September 

29, 2023, stating that a rough fitting does not become covered merchandise (or an 

unfinished fitting) until after the second stage of production and is a material input 

used in the production of an unfinished fitting. Decision Mem. Final Results 

Covered Merchandise Inquiry – EAPA Inv. 7335: Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld 

Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China (Dep’t of Commerce Sept. 29, 

2023) (“Final Covered Merchandise Determination”) at 27, ECF No. 53-2. 

Commerce determined that the subject merchandise were outside the scope of the 

Order. Id. 

In light of Commerce’s covered merchandise determination, Customs filed a 

negative evasion determination on January 22, 2024. See Remand 

Redetermination. Plaintiffs filed comments asking the Court to sustain the 

Remand Redetermination. Pls.’ Cmts. Remand Redetermination (“Pls.’ Cmts.”), 

ECF No. 61. 

The Court held a status conference on January 29, 2024. Status Conference 

(Jan. 29, 2024), ECF No. 62. 

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 517 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1517(g), and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grant the Court 

jurisdiction over actions contesting determinations of evasion pursuant to 
Consol. Court No. 21-00192 Page 6 

the EAPA statute. The Court reviews Customs’ evasion determination for 

compliance with all procedures under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1517(c) and (f) and will hold 

unlawful “any determination, finding, or conclusion [that] is arbitrary, capricious, 

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1517(c)(1)(A), (g)(2). The Court reviews determinations made on remand for 

compliance with the Court's remand order. Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. 

v. United States, 38 CIT 727, 730, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1290 (2014), aff’d, 802 

F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

DISCUSSION 

Customs has authority under the EAPA to investigate and determine whether 

covered merchandise was entered into the customs territory of the United States 

through evasion. 19 U.S.C. § 1517(c)(1)(A). “Evasion” is defined as: 

[E]ntering covered merchandise into the customs territory of the United 

States by means of any document or electronically transmitted data or 

information, written or oral statement, or act that is material and false, 

or any omission that is material, and that results in any cash deposit or 

other security or any amount of applicable antidumping or 

countervailing duties being reduced or not being applied with respect 

to the merchandise. 

Id. § 1517(a)(5)(A).

In Norca I, the Court remanded the Final Administrative Determination for 

Customs to correct the record and reconsider the allegations of evasion. Norca I, 

46 CIT at __, 561 F. Supp. 3d at 1384. On remand, Customs placed new 
Consol. Court No. 21-00192 Page 7 

information on the record and made a covered merchandise referral to Commerce. 

Remand Redetermination at 1–3. Commerce’s covered final merchandise referral 

concluded that the subject merchandise were outside the scope of the Order. Final 

Covered Merchandise Determination at 27. Based on Commerce’s referral, 

Customs reconsidered its prior affirmative evasion determination, and in the 

Remand Redetermination made a final negative evasion determination. 

Plaintiffs now ask the Court to sustain the Remand Redetermination and 

order the immediate liquidation of previously suspended entries. Pls.’ Cmts. at 2–

3. The Government did not file a response to Plaintiffs’ comments, but does not 

oppose Plaintiff’s request to sustain the Remand Redetermination. Status 

Conference (Jan. 29, 2024). 

The Court concludes that Customs’ Remand Redetermination is supported 

by substantial evidence and in accordance with law, and complies with the Court’s 

remand order. 
Consol. Court No. 21-00192 Page 8 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court sustains the Remand Redetermination. 

Judgment will enter accordingly. 

 /s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves 

Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge 

Dated: February 7, 2024 

 New York, New York