This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion reverses a judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade concerning the scope of an antidumping duty order. Notably, Judge Chen dissented. The nonprecedential opinion affirms the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The orders are all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States (Precedential)
Wheatland Tube Company appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade, which affirmed the U.S. Department of Commerce’s remand determination as to the scope of an antidumping duty order concerning certain steel pipes imported from Thailand. For the following reasons, we reverse.
Chen, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
A 1986 antidumping order on pipes imported from Thailand covers “certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes . . . , which are commonly referred to in the industry as ‘standard pipe’ or ‘structural tubing.’” Antidumping Duty Order on Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes & Tubes from Thailand: Final Scope Ruling on Line Pipe & Dual-Stenciled Standard & Line Pipe, No. A-549-502 (June 30, 2020) (Final), J.A. 40763 (Scope Ruling I); Antidumping Duty Order: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes & Tubes from Thailand, 51 Fed. Reg. 8341, 8341 (Mar. 11, 1986) (Thailand Order). This appeal raises the question of whether the Thailand Order encompasses dual-stenciled pipes and, in particular, whether “dual-stenciled pipe” is also “commonly referred to in the industry as ‘standard pipe.’” Scope Ruling I, J.A. 40763. In my view, it is far from clear from the face of the Thailand Order whether people in the relevant industry refer to dual-stenciled pipe as standard pipe.
The record reflects the existence of three types of circular welded carbon steel pipes that are referred to as standard pipes, line pipes, and dual-stenciled pipes. Standard pipes typically satisfy American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) specifications A-53, A-120, or A-135, while line pipes typically satisfy the requirements of American Petroleum Institute (API) specifications API-5L or API-5X. Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes & Tubes from Turkey & Thailand, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-253, 731-TA-252, USITC Pub. 1810, at I-2 (Feb. 1986) (Final) (Final Injury Determination); Scope Ruling I, J.A. 40764. Compared to standard pipes, line pipes are made from higher grade steel, require additional testing to ensure they satisfy API specifications, and may contain a higher content of carbon and manganese. Final Injury Determination at II-1. To ensure compliance with ASTM and API specifications, respectively, standard pipes and line pipes are “inspected and tested at various stages in the production process.” Id. at I-2, II-1. Dual-stenciled pipes—the products central to this dispute—are “stamped to indicate compliance with” both ASTM and API specifications. Certain Circular Welded Pipe & Tube from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand & Turkey, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-253, 731-TA-132, -252, -271, -273, -532 to -534, -536, USITC Pub. 4754, at 6 (Jan. 2018) (Fourth Sunset Review).
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the Court of International Trade (Trade Court) vigorously contest how to answer the question of whether the Thailand Order covers such dual-stenciled pipes, with Commerce insisting that the Thailand Order’s reference to “standard pipe” covers dual-stenciled pipes, and the Trade Court maintaining the opposite. Scope Ruling I, J.A. 40775–78; Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 547 F. Supp. 3d 1278, 1291–92 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (Saha I); Antidumping Duty Order on Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes, No. A-549-502 (Jan. 6, 2022) (Final), J.A. 58–65 (Scope Ruling II); Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 592 F. Supp. 3d 1299, 1305 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (Saha II). I agree with the Trade Court’s position and thus would have affirmed its decisions in both Saha I and Saha II.
The plain language of the Thailand Order is unclear as to whether the relevant industry commonly refers to dualstenciled pipes as standard pipes. That is, does dual-stenciled pipe go by two different names or just one? That ambiguity requires us to consider the interpretative materials under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1) (2020), i.e., the (k)(1) materials. These (k)(1) materials contain substantial evidence supporting only the conclusion that the Thailand Order does not cover dual-stenciled pipes. For example, among numerous other pieces of evidence from the (k)(1) materials that support the Trade Court’s conclusion that the Thailand Order excludes dual-stenciled pipes, the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) reviews of antidumping orders for circular welded pipes—including the Thailand Order— indicated that the Thailand Order does not cover dualstenciled pipes, expressly stating that “dual-stenciled pipe, which for U.S. customs purposes enters as line pipe under a different tariff subheading, is not within the scope of the orders.” Certain Circular Welded Pipe & Tube from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand & Turkey, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-253, 731-TA-132, -252, -271, -273, -532 to -534, -536, USITC Pub. 4333, at 8 (June 2012) (Third Sunset Review) (emphasis added); see Fourth Sunset Review at 6–7. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
Vuksich v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
John M. Vuksich appeals an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.