Court Opinion

ID: 9949562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 21:01:09.434092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:29.724473
License: Public Domain

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