Slip Op. 99-99
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Eckstrom Industries, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
BEFORE: Pogue, Judge
v.
Court No. 97-10-01913
The United States,
Defendant. Public Version
[Commerce’s remand determination is sustained.]
Decided: September 20, 1999
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy LLP, (N. David Palmeter, Susan
M. Mathews, and Ronald E. Minsk) for Plaintiff.
David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice; David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial
Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice,
(Lucius B. Lau); Linda A. Andros, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the
Chief Counsel for Import Administration, Department of Commerce, of
counsel, for Defendant.
OPINION
Pogue, Judge: On October 28, 1998, in Eckstrom Industries,
Inc. v. United States, 22 CIT , 27 F. Supp.2d 217 (1998)
(Eckstrom I),1 this Court remanded certain aspects of the
1
Familiarity with the Court’s earlier decision in this case
is presumed.
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 2
Department of Commerce’s ("Commerce" or "the Department") scope
determination issued pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1)(1998).2
The remand order directed Commerce to reconsider its
determination and, if necessary, to conduct a formal scope inquiry
pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2)(1998).3 After conducting the
§ 351.225(k)(2) inquiry, Commerce affirmed its determination that
Eckstrom Industries, Inc.’s ("Eckstrom") cast stainless steel butt-
weld pipe fittings are within the scope of the antidumping duty
order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan.4 See
2
Section 351.225(k)(1) provides,
[I]n considering whether a particular product
is included within the scope of an order
. . . , [Commerce] will take into account
the following: (1) the descriptions of the
merchandise contained in the petition, the
initial investigation, and the determinations
of [Commerce] (including prior scope
determinations) and the Commission.
3
Section 351.225(k)(2) provides,
When the above [(k)(1)] criteria are not
dispositive, the Secretary will further consider:
(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.
4
The original antidumping duty order states,
The products subject to this investigation
are certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe
fittings, whether finished or unfinished,
under 14 inches inside diameter.
Certain welded stainless steel butt-weld
pipe fittings (pipe fittings) are used to
connect pipe sections in piping systems
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 3
Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand ("Remand
Determination") at 1-2. Plaintiff Eckstrom objects to Commerce’s
remand determination, arguing that the Order applies only to welded
pipe fittings, not cast. For the reasons set forth below,
Commerce’s remand determination is sustained.
BACKGROUND
In Eckstrom I, this Court held that the description of the
where conditions require welded connections.
The subject merchandise is used where one or
more of the following conditions is a factor
in designing the piping system: (1) Corrosion
of the piping system will occur if material
other than stainless steel is used;
(2) contamination of the material in the
system by the system itself must be prevented;
(3) high temperatures are present; (4) extreme
low temperatures are present; (5) high
pressures are contained within the system.
Pipe fittings come in a variety of shapes,
with the following five shapes the most
basic: ’elbows’, ’tees’, ’reducers’, ’stub
ends’, and ’caps’. The edges of finished
pipe fittings are beveled. Threaded,
grooved, and bolted fittings are excluded
from these investigations. The pipe fittings
subject to these investigations are
classifiable under subheading 7307.23.00 of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our written
description of the scope of these
investigations is dispositive.
Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order:
Certain Welded Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From
Taiwan, 58 Fed. Reg. 33,250 (Dep’t Commerce, June 16, 1993)
("Order").
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 4
subject merchandise contained in the petition, the initial
investigation, and the final determination do not unambiguously
include cast pipe fittings within the scope of the Order. See
Eckstrom I, 22 CIT at , 27 F. Supp.2d at 228. Similarly,
however, the Court held that the Plaintiff had not adequately
demonstrated that the § 351.225(k)(1) criteria are dispositive in
excluding cast pipe fittings from the scope of the Order. See id.
Accordingly, this Court concluded that Commerce’s determination
that the § 351.225(k)(1) criteria are dispositive was not supported
by substantial evidence. Upon remand, Commerce exercised its
discretion to initiate a formal scope inquiry pursuant to
§ 351.225(k)(2). See Remand Determination at 1.
In its § 351.225(k)(2) inquiry, Commerce preliminarily
determined that Eckstrom’s cast stainless steel butt-weld pipe
fittings are within the scope of the antidumping duty order on
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan. See Remand
Determination at 1. Commerce then gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment and to address the § 351.225(k)(2) criteria.
See id. After reviewing the parties’ comments and the record,
Commerce once again determined that Eckstrom’s cast stainless steel
butt-weld pipe fittings are within the scope of the antidumping
duty order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan.
See id. at 1-2.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court reviews Commerce’s scope determination to decide
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 5
whether it is in accordance with law and supported by substantial
evidence. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i) (1994).
DISCUSSION
In determining whether Eckstrom’s cast pipe fittings are
subject to the Order, Commerce considered the five factors provided
for in § 351.225(k)(2). In evaluating the criteria, Commerce is
directed to "determine whether [the contested] product is
sufficiently similar [to] merchandise unambiguously within the
scope of [the] order as to conclude the two are merchandise of the
same class or kind." Wirth Limited v. United States, 22 CIT ,
, 5 F. Supp.2d 968, 981 (1998), aff’d, No. 98-1391 (Fed. Cir.
Feb. 2, 1999). The Court here addresses Eckstrom’s challenges to
the § 351.225(k)(2) criteria as considered by Commerce in making
its determination.
1. Physical Characteristics
Commerce concluded that Eckstrom’s cast pipe fittings are
covered under the Order because they are made of stainless steel,
under fourteen inches in inside diameter and connected by means of
a butt-weld. See Remand Determination at 6-8. In addition,
Commerce determined that Eckstrom’s cast pipe fittings are made
from T316L stainless steel, "one of the two grades of stainless
steel that the ITC stated are usually used for subject fittings."
Remand Determination at 6-7. The evidence in the record clearly
supports this determination.
Nevertheless, Eckstrom challenges Commerce’s determination,
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 6
arguing that the evidence clearly establishes that the physical
characteristics of cast pipe fittings are different from wrought5
(or welded) pipe fittings, which are clearly within the Order’s
scope. Eckstrom contends that welded pipe fittings are much
stronger than cast pipe fittings, and that "[i]t is this difference
in strength that makes cast fittings unsuitable for high-pressure,
high-temperature, extremely low-temperature, or contamination-risk
applications." Pl.’s Comments on Remand Scope Det. ("Pl.’s
Comments") at 5. Second, Eckstrom points out that cast pipe
fittings are made to different dimensions than wrought fittings.
See id. at 6. "In other words, the two products are different
sizes and can not [sic] be substituted for one another in the same
piping system." Id. Moreover, cast pipe fittings are made from a
different raw material because the welding and casting
manufacturing processes give the same grade of steel, here T316L,
different physical properties. See id. at n.6. "Thus, [according
to Eckstrom,] there is no respect in which the physical
characteristics of the two products are the same." Id.
Commerce replies that the scope of the Order refers to pipe
fittings that are used where "corrosion of the piping system will
occur if material other than stainless steel is used," thereby
suggesting that the strength of the pipe fittings is irrelevant.
See Def.’s Resp. at 11. With respect to the dimensions of the
5
"The term ’wrought’ distinguishes forged iron or steel pipe
from cast-iron pipe." THE MAKING, SHAPING AND TREATING OF STEEL 1019
(William T. Lankford, Jr., et al. eds., 10th ed. 1985). Welded
pipe fittings are wrought.
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 7
fittings, Commerce notes that the only dimensional requirements
necessary are that the pipe fitting be less than fourteen inches in
inside diameter. See id.6
The Court declines to re-weigh the evidence here. See Consolo
v. Federal Maritime Commission, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966) (noting
that the substantial evidence standard "frees the reviewing courts
of the time-consuming and difficult task of weighing the evidence,
it gives proper respect to the expertise of the administrative
tribunal and it helps promote the uniform application of the
statute."). Essentially, Plaintiff highlights the differences
between its cast fittings and the fittings unambiguously covered by
the Order and urges the Court to reinterpret the record from this
standpoint. It is well-established, however, that Commerce has
discretion in balancing the § 351.225(k)(2) criteria. See e.g.,
Smith Corona Corp. v. United States, 12 CIT 854, 869, 698 F. Supp.
240, 253 (1988).7 Moreover, under the § 351.225(k)(2) criteria,
6
Commerce also argues that "Eckstrom’s explanation of the
manufacturing process of cast and wrought fittings [is] not
illuminating as to the proper interpretation of the scope of the
Order, as the scope language does not discuss manufacturing
process as a parameter for including or excluding any type of
fittings." Remand Determination at 7. Because the Court’s
affirmation does not rely on this argument, however, the Court
declines to address it further.
7
In Smith Corona, the court applied what were known as the
Diversified Products criteria from Diversified Products Corp. v.
United States, 6 CIT 155, 162, 572 F. Supp. 883, 889 (1983). The
Diversified criteria were subsequently codified in the federal
regulations and are currently found at 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2).
Although the § 351.225(k)(2) and Diversified Products criteria do
not conform exactly, they are substantially similar such that the
reasoning in Smith Corona still applies. Cf. Wirth, 22 CIT at
, 5 F. Supp.2d at 973 n.4.
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 8
Commerce need only demonstrate that the general physical
characteristics of the products under consideration are
"sufficiently similar" in order to conclude that the two are of the
same class or kind. Wirth, 22 CIT at , 5 F. Supp. 2d at 981;
Smith Corona, 12 CIT at 860-61, 698 F. Supp. at 245-46 (finding
that different components constitute physical differences but do
not necessarily add up to a different class or kind).
Here, Commerce’s focus on size, grade, and the corrosion
resistance of stainless steel is sufficient to support its
conclusion. Accordingly, the Court finds Commerce’s determination
with respect to physical characteristics to be supported by
substantial evidence.
2. Expectations of the Ultimate Purchaser
Commerce found that pulp and paper companies are the primary
customers of cast pipe fittings and that they use these fittings to
build process piping systems. See Remand Determination at 9.
Commerce also determined that "as the subject merchandise is used
in a variety of applications, expectations of end-users will not be
identical, i.e., expectations will necessarily differ depending
upon the use of the product. However, when used in similar
applications, e.g., corrosion resistance, the expectations are
similar." Id. Commerce noted that Eckstrom admits that its cast
pipe fittings are used where corrosion of the piping system is a
concern, which is one of the factors expressed in the scope of the
Order. See id. Based on this finding, Commerce concluded that
"there is similarity in the expectations of the end[-]users of
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 9
Eckstrom’s cast pipe fittings and fittings subject to the [O]rder."
Id.
Eckstrom disagrees, arguing that end-users have very different
expectations for cast and welded pipe fittings. See Pl.’s Comments
at 7. The ultimate purchasers of Eckstrom’s cast pipe fittings are
generally pulp and paper companies; the ultimate purchasers of its
welded pipe fittings are semiconductor manufacturers. See id. at
6. "Welded pipe fittings are stronger and suitable where there are
additional concerns about contamination, extreme-temperature, and
extreme-pressure in the piping system. . . . Cast fittings are
weaker, less reliable and less expensive." Id. at 7. In essence,
Eckstrom contends that Commerce simply identifies a generality--
that both fittings are used in piping systems where corrosion is a
concern--and then asserts that this generality encompasses the
expectations of end-users for both products. Id. at 8.
In response, Commerce reiterates the position taken in its
Remand Determination. There, Commerce concluded that the
expectations of the end-users do not have to be identical for the
cast pipe fittings to be covered by the scope of the Order. See
Remand Determination at 9. Commerce maintains that even if the
expectations vary, there is still a general application that
encompasses similar expectations, i.e., piping systems where
corrosion resistance is desired. See id.
To properly examine § 351.225(k)(2)(ii), it is necessary to
look at both what the expectations are and who the ultimate
purchasers are. Cf. Diversified Products, 6 CIT at 162, 572 F.
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 10
Supp. at 889. With respect to the latter, Eckstrom acknowledges
that its cast pipe fittings are sold to pulp and paper companies.
See Pl.’s Comments at 6. Similarly, Commerce notes that the ITC
determination in this case referred to pulp and paper companies as
one of the end-users of the subject merchandise under
consideration. See Remand Determination at 8-9. Meanwhile,
Eckstrom points out that it sells its welded pipe fittings to high-
tech semiconductor manufacturers. See Pl.’s Comments at 6.
Nonetheless, record evidence also indicates that some of Eckstrom’s
customers have purchased both cast and welded pipe fittings. See
Pl.’s Dec. 16, 1998, Questionnaire Resp. at 17. Based on the
record evidence as a whole, this Court finds that Commerce’s
determination that cast and welded pipe fittings share similar
ultimate purchasers is supported by substantial evidence.
With regard to expectations, Commerce concludes that
purchasers of cast and welded pipe fittings have similar
expectations because both are expected to prevent corrosion of
piping systems. See Remand Determination at 9. Eckstrom argues
that the two products would never be substitutes for each other in
the same piping system and thus the purchasers of each have
completely different expectations.8 See Pl.’s Comments at 6-8.
The Court does not find that Plaintiff’s arguments establish
that Commerce’s conclusion that cast and welded pipe fitting
8
Eckstrom states that "[w]elded pipe fittings are stronger
and suitable where there are additional concerns about
contamination, extreme-temperature, and extreme-pressure in the
piping system," while "[c]ast fittings are weaker, less reliable,
and less expensive." Pl.’s Comments at 7.
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 11
purchasers have similar expectations is not supported by
substantial evidence. In Wirth, the court upheld Commerce’s
determination that purchasers of CST profile slabs and carbon steel
plate had similar expectations, even though there were uses for
which the products were not substitutes. See Wirth, 22 CIT at
, 5 F. Supp. 2d at 981. Furthermore, in Smith Corona, 12 CIT at
866, 698 F. Supp. at 250, the court looked at the motivations of
the ultimate purchasers to conclude that consumers who purchase
typewriters with text memory are in essence purchasing typewriters
with an added feature, not a different product altogether.
Here, welded pipe fittings, unlike cast pipe fittings, have
characteristics that enable them to be used under high pressure,
high temperature, or contamination sensitive conditions.
Nevertheless, they also share similar characteristics with cast
pipe fittings in that they have similar dimensions, are made of the
same material, connect by means of a butt-weld, and are expected to
prevent corrosion of piping systems.
It is not the task of this Court to review the record evidence
to determine whether a different conclusion could be reached, but
to determine whether Commerce’s conclusion is supported by
substantial evidence. See Timken Co. v. United States, 12 CIT 955,
962, 699 F. Supp. 300, 306 (1988). Commerce’s determination that
purchasers of cast and welded pipe fittings have similar
expectations because both are expected to prevent corrosion of
piping systems is substantially supported by the record.
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 12
3. Ultimate Use of the Product
Commerce determined that "the ultimate uses of Eckstrom’s cast
pipe fittings are the same as those of fittings which the [O]rder
is intended to cover." Remand Determination at 10. Commerce’s
position relies on the Order’s requirement that pipe fittings
subject to the Order be "used where one or more of the following
conditions is a factor: (1) [c]orrosion of the piping system will
occur if material other than stainless steel is used . . . ."9 Id.
Commerce construes the language "one or more" to mean at least one.
See id. Eckstrom’s cast pipe fittings may be used where corrosion
of the piping system will occur if material other than stainless
steel is used. See Pl.’s Dec. 16, 1998, Questionnaire Response at
12. Thus, Commerce contends, Eckstrom’s cast pipe fittings and
welded pipe fittings share similar end uses. See id.
According to Eckstrom, however, Commerce’s analysis is
"nonsensical" because it does not address the differences in the
specific end uses of cast pipe fittings and welded pipe fittings.
See Pl.’s Comments at 8-10. Eckstrom argues,
An almost infinite number of products are suitable for
use under any single listed condition, but only wrought
pipe fittings are suitable for use under any combination
("one or more") of the requisite conditions . . . Because
cast fittings are not suitable for use under any
9
The scope description states that subject merchandise is
used where one or more of the following conditions is a factor in
designing the piping system: 1) corrosion of the piping system
will occur if material other than stainless steel is used; 2)
contamination of the material in the system by the system itself
must be prevented; 3) high temperatures are present; 4) extreme
low temperatures are present; and 5) high pressures are contained
within the system. See Remand Determination at 7.
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 13
combination of the listed conditions, cast fittings
cannot be within the scope of the [O]rder.
Id. at 9. Eckstrom further contends that Commerce has not
indicated that welded pipe fittings are actually used in the same
applications as cast pipe fittings. See id. In addition, Eckstrom
argues that the petitioner’s absence from commenting in this scope
inquiry indicates that it considers cast fittings to be outside the
scope of the Order. See id. at 10.
In response, Commerce reiterates its Remand Determination
position and counters that there could be many reasons for
petitioner’s non-participation in the remand proceeding. See
Def.’s Resp. at 15-16.
Commerce’s reliance on one of the five listed uses of the
product is reasonable. The Order states that the pipe fittings
subject to the Order are "used where one or more of the following
conditions is a factor". Order at 33,250 (emphasis added). The
use of the term "or" clearly indicates that the five conditions
were listed in the alternative. This Court finds unconvincing
Eckstrom’s argument that a combination of conditions must be shown
for the cast pipe fittings to be covered by the scope. Nothing in
the Order requires Commerce to demonstrate that cast pipe fittings
are used for more than one of the stated purposes. That Plaintiff
"can point to evidence . . . which detracts from . . . [Commerce’s]
decision and can hypothesize a . . . basis for a contrary
determination is neither surprising nor persuasive." Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 3 Fed. Cir. (T) 44, 54, 750 F.2d
927, 936 (1984). In addition, Eckstrom’s contention that
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 14
petitioner’s non-participation is indicative of one or the other
position is unpersuasive. As Commerce has stated, "there may be
many different reasons why the petitioner has not filed comments."
Id. at 16. Accordingly, this Court holds that Commerce’s
determination regarding the ultimate use of the product criterion
of § 351.225(k)(2) is supported by substantial evidence on the
record and otherwise in accordance with law.
4. Channels of Trade
Commerce determined that there is some overlap between
Eckstrom’s channels of distribution for its cast pipe fittings and
welded pipe fittings because Eckstrom sells both products to
contractors and to industrial distributors. See Remand
Determination at 11. Also, Eckstrom sometimes sells both products
out of inventory and maintains one sales office for both types of
fittings. See id. Commerce contends that half of Eckstrom’s
customers purchase both products, contradicting Eckstrom’s claims
that there are different markets for each. See id. Commerce cites
the ITC’s determination that, in general, a vast majority of pipe
fittings are distributed through distributors, a sales practice
similar to Eckstrom’s. See id. In addition, Eckstrom admits to
targeting pulp and paper companies for sales of cast pipe fittings,
industries identified by the ITC as primary customers of the
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings subject to its
investigation. See id. at 12. Commerce, therefore, concludes that
Eckstrom’s primary market for sales of cast pipe fittings is
similar to the markets for stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 15
subject to the Order. On this basis, Commerce determined that both
cast and welded pipe fittings have similar channels of trade, and
therefore, the cast pipe fittings are covered by the Order. See
id.
Eckstrom argues that its channels of trade for cast and welded
pipe fittings are distinct. See Pl.’s Comments at 10. Eckstrom
contends it has demonstrated that the two products are sold
differently; have different uses; are supplied from different
sources; and have different pricing structures. See id. According
to Eckstrom, just because both products are sold to contractors and
industrial distributors does not support the conclusion that they
are the same product that is described in an antidumping order.
See id. at 11. In essence, Eckstrom argues that the channels of
trade Commerce looks to here are too broad and that Commerce must
be more specific in considering the channels of trade.
Commerce responds that, "[w]hile it is true that similarities
in channels of trade would not require a conclusion that the two
products are within the scope of an antidumping duty order, such
similarities are certainly relevant to Commerce’s inquiry." Def.’s
Resp. at 17. Commerce maintains, "[T]hat Eckstrom draws its own
conclusions from the evidence does not mean that Commerce’s
determination is unsupported by substantial evidence." Id. at 18.
The regulation does not direct Commerce to be broad or
specific in looking at channels of trade, but simply requires
Commerce to consider the two products’ channels of trade. When a
statute is silent or ambiguous, the Court must defer to Commerce’s
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 16
reasonable interpretation. See Koyo Seiko v. United States, 36
F.3d 1565, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, Commerce has
discretion in determining the appropriate channel of trade to be
reviewed under the regulation.
Moreover, this court has upheld Commerce’s use of a broad
channel of trade. For example, in Diversified Products, the court
sustained Commerce’s finding that two products "sold by wholesale
distributors in kit form to original equipment manufacturers" had
similar channels of trade. 6 CIT at 162, 572 F. Supp. at 889.
Although Eckstrom disagrees with Commerce’s determination that
there is an overlap between the channels of distribution for cast
and weld pipe fittings, this does not mean that Commerce’s
determination was not supported by substantial evidence. See
Consolo, 383 U.S. at 620 ("the possibility of drawing two
inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an
administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial
evidence"). Once again, Plaintiff’s argument simply invites this
Court to re-weigh the record evidence supporting Commerce’s
determination, which the Court will not do. Thus, this Court finds
that Commerce’s determination that cast pipe fittings and welded
pipe fittings are sold within the same channels of trade is
supported by substantial evidence on the record and otherwise in
accordance with law.
5. Manner of Advertising or Display
Commerce concludes that Eckstrom treats both its cast and
welded pipe fittings similarly in terms of advertising and display
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 17
because neither are advertised or displayed. See Remand
Determination at 12. Eckstrom counters that it sells its cast and
welded pipe fittings differently. See Pl.’s Comments at 11.
Eckstrom maintains that it stores cast pipe fittings in inventory
while it purchases and sells welded pipe fittings on an as-needed
basis only. See id. Furthermore, Eckstrom provides inspection and
quality control for its cast pipe fittings, but not for its welded
pipe fittings. See id. at 11-12. Moreover, cast pipe fittings are
sold to paper and pulp industries; welded pipe fittings are sold to
the semiconductor industry. See id. at 12. Eckstrom also argues
that the absence of advertising or display practices for both
products does not mean that the products are similar. Rather,
Eckstrom contends that at most this means that advertising and
display practices are irrelevant to the determination of whether
the products are similar. See id.
With respect to selling practices, Commerce responds that the
manner in which the products are sold is irrelevant to the fifth
§ 351.225(k)(2) criterion because it is not contemplated by the
regulation. See Def.’s Resp. at 20. The regulation "makes no
reference to the manner in which the merchandise is sold; rather,
the regulation directs Commerce to consider the ’manner in which
the product is advertised and displayed.’" Id. (citing 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.225(k)(2)(v)). The Court agrees. Criterion
351.225(k)(2)(iv) requires some examination of selling practices;
criterion 351.225(k)(2)(v) does not.
Moreover, with respect to advertising and display, this Court
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 18
finds Eckstrom’s argument unpersuasive. Although one may conclude,
as Eckstrom does, that the absence of advertising or display
practices for two products does not indicate that the two products
are advertised and displayed similarly, "the possibility of drawing
two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an
administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial
evidence." Consolo, 383 U.S. at 620. Commerce has discretion to
evaluate the significance of the evidence indicating the absence of
advertising or display practices for the two products. The absence
of advertising or display practices for Eckstrom’s cast and welded
pipe fittings reasonably leads to the conclusion that Eckstrom
treats both products similarly in terms of advertising and display.
Therefore, Commerce’s determination that cast and welded pipe
fittings are advertised and displayed similarly is supported by
substantial evidence.
Court No. 97-10-01913 Page 19
CONCLUSION
In sum, the Court finds that Commerce’s determination with
respect to the § 351.225(k)(2) criteria is supported by substantial
evidence and otherwise in accordance with law. Therefore, the
Court upholds Commerce’s conclusion that cast stainless steel butt-
weld pipe fittings are of the same class or kind as welded
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings subject to the Order.
Accordingly, this Court sustains Commerce’s determination that cast
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings are subject to the Order.
Donald C. Pogue
Judge
Dated: September 20, 1999
New York, New York
Eckstrom Industries, Inc. v. United States
Court: United States Court of International Trade
Date filed: 1999-09-28
Citations: 70 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 23 Ct. Int'l Trade 670
Copy Citations