International Trade Today is a service of Warren Communications News.

CAFC Finds Coil Rod Not Covered by China Steel Threaded Rod AD Duties

Coil rod used for casting and moving precast concrete sections is not covered by the antidumping duty order on steel threaded rod from China (A-570-932), ruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Sept. 22 as it reversed a Commerce Department scope ruling. The court found that steel coil rod imported by A.L. Patterson meets the physical description of the scope in some respects, but is sold through different channels and was not covered by the original dumping and injury investigations.

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.

Commerce had issued the scope ruling in 2011, finding Patterson’s coil rod is identified as steel threaded rod by the product descriptions in the AD duty order. But CAFC said the language of the order is not enough, and Commerce must also look at whether the merchandise was covered by the original petition and the Commerce Department’s and International Trade Commission’s investigations. The original petition on steel threaded rod did not mention coil rod, nor did the Commerce and ITC determinations. Importantly, the ITC did not include domestic coil rod producers in its 1999 determination that steel threaded rod industry was being injured, said the Appeals Court.

CAFC also pointed to the different uses of coil rod, which is used for the “rapid assembly and disassembly of molds that form large precast concrete sections, as well as in raising and lowering heavy concrete sections,” from steel threaded rod, which the AD duty scope defines as used primarily in commercial construction to suspend electrical conduits, pipes, ductwork and ceilings.

(A.L. Patterson v. U.S., Fed. Cir. No. 13-1256, dated 09/22/14, Judges Prost, Moore and Chen)