Slip Op. 06-61

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

____________________________________

:

SANGO INTERNATIONAL L.P., :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

UNITED STATES, : Before: Judith M. Barzilay, Judge

: Court No. 05-00145

Defendant, :

:

WARD MANUFACTURING, INC., :

ANVIL INTERNATIONAL, INC., :

:

Defendant-Intervenors. :

____________________________________:

OPINION

[Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the agency record is denied.]

Dated: May 1, 2006

Baker & McKenzie LLP (William D. Outman, II), (Stuart P. Seidel), (Kevin J. Sullivan)

for Plaintiff Sango International, L.P.

(Patricia M. McCarthy), Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil

Division, United States Department of Justice; (Kelly B. Blank), Attorney, Commercial

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; (David Samuel

Silverbrand) Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,

United States Department of Justice; David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch,

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Kemba Eneas, Attorney, Office of the Chief

Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of counsel, for

Defendant.

Schagrin Associates (Roger B. Schagrin), (Brian E. McGill), (Michael J. Brown), for

Defendant-Intervenors Ward Manufacturing, Inc., & Anvil International, Inc.
Court. No. 05-00145 Page 2

I. Introduction

This case concerns the scope of the antidumping duty order issued by the Department of

Commerce (“Commerce” or “Department”) on Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings, Cast, Other

Than Grooved, from the People’s Republic of China. 68 Fed. Reg. 69,376 (Dec. 12, 2003)

(“Order”). Pursuant to Rule 56.2 of the United States Court of International Trade, Plaintiff

Sango International L.P. (“Sango”) has moved for a judgment upon the agency record declaring

that Commerce’s scope ruling holding that gas meter swivels and gas meter nuts fall within the

ambit of the Order is unsupported by substantial evidence on the record and otherwise is not in

accordance with the law. See Notice Final Scope Ruling (Jan. 11, 2005) (Pl.’s App. 630-44)

(“Scope Ruling”). For the reasons stated below, this court denies Plaintiff’s motion for judgment

on the agency record. 

II. Procedural History

 On December 12, 2003, Commerce issued an antidumping order imposing duties on

“certain malleable iron pipe fittings, cast, other than grooved fittings, from the People’s Republic

of China” (“China” or “PRC”). Order, 68 Fed. Reg. 69,377. The Order described the covered

products as

certain malleable iron pipe fittings, cast, other than grooved fittings, from the

People’s Republic of China. The merchandise is classified under item numbers

7307.19.90.30, 7307.19.90.60 and 7307.19.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTSUS). Excluded from the scope of this order are metal compression

couplings, which are imported under HTSUS number 7307.19.90.80. A metal

compression coupling consists of a coupling body, two gaskets, and two

compression nuts. These products range in diameter from 1/2 inch to 2 inches

and are carried only in galvanized finish. Although HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

purposes, the Department’s written description of the scope of this proceeding is

dispositive. 
Court. No. 05-00145 Page 3

1The language describing the scope of the antidumping investigation remained identical

from the investigation’s initiation, through the preliminary and final determinations, to the

antidumping order, except that the investigation notice had yet to exclude metal compression

couplings from the scope. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain

Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China, 67 Fed. Reg. 70,579, 70,579

(Dep’t Commerce Nov. 25, 2002); Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings

from the People’s Republic of China, 68 Fed. Reg. 33,911, 33,913 (Dep’t Commerce June 6,

2003); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances:

Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China, 68 Fed. Reg. 61,395,

61,397 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 28, 2003); Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of

China, 68 Fed. Reg. 65,873, 65,873 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 24, 2003). 

2Defendant-Intervenors were petitioners in Commerce’s original antidumping

investigation. 

Id.1 Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(c)(1), on July 28, 2004, Nitek Electronics, Inc., an importer

of gas meter swivels and gas meter nuts, and Sango, an United States manufacturer which

insulates imported gas meter swivels, applied to Commerce for a scope ruling that would exclude

gas meter swivels and nuts from the Order. See Application Scope Ruling Meter Swivels &

Meter Nuts (Pl.’s App. 1-12). On August 10, 2004, Defendant-Intervenors Ward Manufacturing,

Inc. (“Ward”), and Anvil International, Inc. (“Anvil”),2 submitted comments to Commerce

contending that gas meter swivels and nuts fall within the Order because they are “malleable iron

pipe fittings which are cast and that are not grooved fittings and are not compression fittings.” 

Ward Resp. Application Scope Ruling (Def.’s App. Tab 1, at 1). 

Commerce began a formal scope inquiry on September 13, 2004, in accordance with 19

C.F.R. § 351.225(e), as it was “unable to determine conclusively that meter swivels and meter

nuts are pipe fittings and are treated as such within the industry.” Scope Inquiry Initiation (Pl.’s

App. 289-90). As interested parties, Anvil and Ward respectively submitted briefs on whether
Court. No. 05-00145 Page 4

meter swivels and nuts lie within the scope of the Order on October 4, 2004, and October 14,

2004. On October 18, 2004, Commerce notified Ward that it had submitted these filings without

the certifications mandated by 19 C.F.R. § 351.303(g), forcing the Department to reject them. 

The Department, however, gave Ward a one-day extension to resubmit its briefs, which Ward

promptly did. See Commerce Deficiency Letter (Def.-Intervenors’ App. Tab 4); Ward Case Br.

(Oct. 19, 2004) (Def.-Intervenors’ App. Tab 5); Ward Rebuttal Br. (Oct. 19, 2004) (Def.-

Intervenors’ App. Tab 5). 

In its investigation, Commerce analyzed the Order, the petition, the initial investigation,

determinations of the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”), and the

determinations of the Secretary of Commerce to determine whether these sources proved

dispositive as to whether gas meter swivels and nuts fall within the Order’s scope. See 19 C.F.R.

§ 351.225(k)(1). Commerce found these sources dispositive and issued the Scope Ruling on

January 11, 2005, finding that gas meter swivels and gas meter nuts fall within the scope of the

Order. See Scope Ruling at 12-14. Specifically, it determined that:

First, these products are manufactured from malleable iron using a casting process

in the PRC. Second, these products are indisputably “fittings;” they are “pipe

fittings” because they are parts of a piping system, they direct the flow of the gas

through a piping system, and can be, although are not always, connected to other

pipe fittings or pipes. Finally, they are neither grooved fittings nor compression

couplings, both of which are specifically excluded.

Id. at 12. Sango then brought this action to contest the Scope Ruling. 

Plaintiff Sango sets forth three contentions in its motion for judgment on the agency

record. First, it maintains that it was clear error for Commerce to grant Defendant-Intervenors

extensions to refile their case and rebuttal briefs after discovering that the initial submissions

lacked administratively-mandated certifications. Consequently, Sango avers that these
Court. No. 05-00145 Page 5

3These factors receive their name from Diversified Prods. Corp. v. United States, 6 CIT

155, 572 F. Supp. 883 (1983), in which this Court first outlined them prior to their regulatory

codification. These descriptive elements encompass: “(i) The physical characteristics of the

product; (ii) The expectations of the ultimate purchasers; (iii) The ultimate use of the product;

(iv) The channels of trade in which the product is sold; and (v) The manner in which the product

is advertised and displayed.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2). 

submissions should not constitute a part of the agency record. Second, Sango claims that gas

meter swivels and gas meter nuts lie unambiguously outside the scope of the Order, “as

evidenced by the language of the Order, the facts of the record and other administrative

determinations,” rendering Commerce’s Scope Ruling unsupported by substantial evidence and

otherwise not in accordance with the law. Pl.’s Mot. J. A.R. 2. Finally, Sango believes the court

should deem Commerce’s Scope Ruling invalid because the Department failed to consider the

so-called Diversified Products criteria3 enumerated in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2).

III. Discussion

A. Preliminary Issues: Defendant-Intervenors’ Submission Extension

Sango asserts that the Department erred by granting Anvil and Ward a one-day extension

to re-file their case brief and rebuttal case brief, which lacked certifications required by 19

C.F.R. § 351.303(g), and that the briefs therefore should not become part of the record. See

Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. J. A.R. 35. Plaintiff’s argument is without merit. Only with a

demonstration of “substantial prejudice” can Sango challenge Commerce’s decision to provide

Defendant-Intervenors with a one-day extension to resubmit their documents. Am. Farm Lines v.

Black Ball Freight Serv., 397 U.S. 532, 539 (1970) (citation omitted); see 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1966)

(“due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error” in reviewing agency action);

Intercargo Ins. Co. v. United States, 83 F.3d 391, 394-95 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Supreme Court

has long upheld “the general principle that (i)t [sic] is always within the discretion of . . . an
Court. No. 05-00145 Page 6

4The court assumes that such consideration is given equally to submissions of both

petitioners and respondents. 

administrative agency to relax or modify its procedural rules adopted for the orderly transaction

of business before it when in a given case the ends of justice require it.” Am. Farm Lines, 397

U.S. at 539 (quotations & citation omitted). Further, Commerce’s own regulations state that

“[u]nless expressly precluded by statute, the Secretary may, for good cause, extend any time

limit established” within the antidumping and countervailing duties regulations. 19 C.F.R. §

351.302(b).4 Plaintiff makes no assertion that substantial prejudice to its case arose from the

Department’s decision. Therefore, its claim must fail. 

B. The Scope Ruling

1. Standard of Review

In reviewing a Commerce antidumping order scope determination, this court upholds the

Department’s conclusion unless the court finds it “unsupported by substantial evidence or

otherwise not in accordance with law.” Steel Auth. of India, Ltd. v. United States, 25 CIT 482,

485, 149 F. Supp. 2d. 921, 926 (2001) (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B) (1994)) (quotations

omitted); see 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i) (1996); Nippon Steel Corp., NKK v. United States,

219 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In this context, “substantial evidence” denotes “such

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” 

Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 619-20 (1966) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y.

v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)) (quotations omitted). Crucially, “the possibility of drawing

two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s

finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Id. at 620 (citation omitted). Similarly,

a scope determination is not in accordance with law “if it changes the scope of an order or
Court. No. 05-00145 Page 7

interprets an order in a manner contrary to the order’s terms.” Allegheny Bradford Corp. v.

United States, 28 CIT ___, ___, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1183 (2004). “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.” Id. at 1184 n.6

(quoting Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2002)) (quotations

omitted). 

The first step in evaluating whether Commerce properly placed gas meter swivels and

nuts within the scope of the Order requires the court to examine “the antidumping petition, the

factual findings and legal conclusions adduced from the administrative investigations, and the

preliminary order.” Duferco Steel, 296 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Smith Corona Corp. v. United

States, 915 F.2d 683, 685 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) (quotations omitted); see Tak Fat Trading Co. v.

United States, 396 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2005); 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k). Among these

sources, the language of the order receives the greatest weight. See Tak Fat Trading, 396 F.3d at

1382; Duferco Steel, 296 F.3d at 1097. If these materials do not prove dispositive, the court then

turns to the Diversified Products criteria outlined in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2) to make its

determination. See Tak Fat Trading, 396 F.3d at 1382; Allegheny Bradford, 342 F. Supp. 2d at

1183; 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k). 

2. The 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1) Factors

As noted earlier, Commerce’s Order defined the Order’s scope as encompassing

certain malleable iron pipe fittings, cast, other than grooved fittings, from the

People's Republic of China. The merchandise is classified under item numbers

7307.19.90.30, 7307.19.90.60 and 7307.19.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTSUS). Excluded from the scope of this order are metal compression

couplings, which are imported under HTSUS number 7307.19.90.80. A metal
Court. No. 05-00145 Page 8

compression coupling consists of a coupling body, two gaskets, and two

compression nuts. These products range in diameter from 1/2 inch to 2 inches

and are carried only in galvanized finish. 

Order, 68 Fed. Reg. at 69,376. Likewise, throughout the antidumping proceedings, Commerce

used almost identical language to describe the scope. See supra n.1. The antidumping petition

and related ITC documents employed the same terminology as well. See Anvil & Ward,

Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from China: Antidumping Duty Petition 4 (Oct. 30, 2002)

(describing requested investigatory scope as in Order, though lacking metal compression

coupling exception) (“Petition”); Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from China, ITC Publ’n No.

3649, Investigation No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), at 5 (Dec. 2003) (“ITC, 3649 ”). 

The ITC publications and administrative documents regarding the antidumping

investigation flesh out the meaning of the Order’s text. According to the ITC, 

[p]ipe fittings generally are used for connecting the bores of two or more pipes or

tubes, connecting a pipe to some other apparatus, changing the direction of fluid

flow, or closing the pipe. The material from which MCIPF [malleable cast iron

pipe fittings] are made, cast iron, is a general term for alloys composed primarily

of iron, carbon (greater than two percent) and silicon.

Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from China: Determination and Views of the Commission, ITC

Publ’n No. 3568, Investigation No. 731-TA-1021 (Preliminary), at 5 (Dec. 2002) (footnote

omitted) (“ITC, 3568 ”); see ITC, 3649 at 3; see also Petition at 5 (“Malleable pipe fittings are

normally . . . attached to pipe by screwing.”) (emphasis added); Anvil& Ward, Amendment to the

Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from China, at 4

(Nov. 12, 2002) (same) (“Pet. Am.”). Further, pipe fittings are threaded, “normally” to the

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B1.20.1 specification. Pet. Am. at 3; Petition at
Court. No. 05-00145 Page 9

5Union nuts, which are undisputably covered by the Order, are threaded to a different

ANSI specification, B16.39. Def.-Intervenors’ Mem. P. & A. Opp’n Mot. Sango J. A.R. 12 n.7. 

6A gas meter nut is secured to a meter swivel to attach the latter to a gas meter. See

Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. J. A.R. 16, 17. 

7Whether a swivel can connect directly to a pipe remains contentious. In contrast to

Sango, Commerce insists that “[m]eter swivels and nuts can be physically connected to a pipe.”

Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Pl.’s Mot. J. A.R. 10 (quoting Scope Ruling at 12) (quotations omitted); see

Def.-Intervenors’ Mem. P. & A. Opp’n Mot. Sango J. A.R. 12. 

4; see ITC, 3568 at 6.5

3. Plaintiff’s Argument

Sango believes that “the discussion of the class or kind of merchandise contained in the

Order unambiguously excludes” gas meter swivels and gas meter nuts from this rubric and that

therefore “the Department’s Scope Ruling to the contrary is not supported by substantial

evidence nor is it otherwise in accordance with the law.” Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. J. A.R. 2. It

bases this claim on the specialized nature of the products. A meter swivel can connect only with

a gas meter on one end and a pipe fitting on the other,6 while a “pipe ‘fitting’ is almost always

physically threaded onto one end of a length of pipe and is the means whereby the pipe is joined

to (i) another length of pipe; (ii) a gas meter bar or (iii) a gas meter swivel.” Mem. Supp. Pl.’s

Mot. J. A.R. 9 (emphasis added). In essence, because neither gas meter swivels nor nuts can

attach to a length of pipe,7 they cannot qualify as pipe fittings. See Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. J.

A.R. 10, 16, 19; Pl.’s Reply 2, 4. In a parallel line of reasoning, Plaintiff claims that gas meters

and swivels constitute different articles of commerce than pipe fittings and, therefore, cannot fall

within the scope of the Order. See Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. J. A.R. 9. 
Court. No. 05-00145 Page 10

8Since a gas meter swivel and nut must bind with each other to function, the court will

treat them as one unit for this discussion, just as it would, for example, a pipe fitting union

comprised of three pieces screwed together. Cf. Def.-Intervenors’ Mem. P. & A. Opp’n Mot.

Sango J. A.R. 12 & n.7.

9Sango’s argument that the HTSUS classification headings invoked in the Order and

other administrative materials preclude the inclusion of gas meter swivels and nuts within the

scope is groundless. See Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Mot J. A.R. 11, 21-27. The Order itself states that

“[a]lthough HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (CBP) purposes, the Department’s written description of the scope of this proceeding

is dispositive.” Order, 68 Fed. Reg. at 69,376; see Tak Fat Trading Co., 396 F.3d at 1383. 

4. Analysis

Despite Sango’s protests to the contrary, gas meter nuts and swivels possess the

characteristics of pipe fittings outlined in the Order and thus fall within its scope. As Plaintiff

concedes, the products are cast, made of malleable iron, manufactured in the PRC, and do not

fall within the express exceptions within the Order. See Pl.’s App. 610. Likewise, the swivelnut unit8

 connects to a gas meter and links this apparatus to a piping system via a less specialized

pipe fitting to manipulate the flow of the gas. See Pl.’s Br. 10; see, e.g., Pl.’s App. 369, 374. 

Although the swivel may not directly touch a pipe, there is nothing in the record of this case to

require that pipe fittings must directly connect to a pipe to be considered pipe fittings. Further,

swivels are threaded according to the ANSI B1.20.1 specification characteristic of all pipe

fittings. Even Sango’s brief notes that pipe fittings “almost always” connect to a pipe on one

end; sometimes they do not. Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. J. A.R. 9. Finally, Sango’s contention that

gas meters and swivels are separate articles of commerce from pipe fittings fails since the Order

does not address this issue when outlining its scope. Together, these facts, read in light of the

Order’s language, reasonably provide adequate evidence to place gas meter swivels and gas

meter nuts within the scope of the Order.9 Consequently, this court must uphold the Department
Court. No. 05-00145 Page 11

10Because the court finds that the language of the antidumping petition, administrative

factual findings and legal conclusions, and the preliminary antidumping order dispositively

places gas meter swivels and gas meter nuts within the scope of the antidumping order, it holds

that the Department did not err by not examining the Diversified Products factors in 19 C.F.R. §

351.225(k)(2), and the court also need not address these criteria. See Tak Fat Trading, 396 F.3d

at 1382; Allegheny Bradford, 342 F. Supp. 2d at 1183; 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k). 

of Commerce’s Scope Ruling as supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.10

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Sango’s motion for judgment on the agency record is

DENIED. 

May 1, 2006 /s/ Judith M. Barzilay

Dated:________________________ __________________________

New York, NY Judge