Mid Continent Nail Corporation v. United States

Slip Op. 13-92
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Before: Nicholas Tsoucalas, Senior Judge
________________________________________
MID CONTINENT NAIL CORPORATION, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	:
:
UNITED STATES, 	:
: 	Court No.: 10-00247
Defendant, 	:
:
and 	:
:
TARGET CORPORATION, 	:
:
Defendant-Intervenor. 	:
:
ORDER
TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge: 	On July 18, 2013, the United States
Court 	of 	Appeals 	for 	the 	Federal 	Circuit 	(“CAFC”) 	vacated 	and
remanded 	this 	court’s 	judgment 	in 	Mid 	Continent 	Nail 	Corp. 	v.
United 	States, 	36 	CIT 	__, 	Slip 	Op. 	12-97 	(2012) 	(“Mid 	Continent
II”) (not reported in the Federal Supplement), with instructions to
remand the matter back to the United States Department of Commerce
(“Commerce”) for further proceedings. 	Mid Continent Nail Corp. v.
United 	States, 	Nos. 	2012-1682, 	2012-1683, 	2013 	WL 	3746081, 	at 	*1
(Fed. Cir. July 18, 2013) (“Mid Continent III”).
Mid 	Continent 	II 	upheld 	Commerce’s 	redetermination 	issued
pursuant 	to 	the 	court’s 	earlier 	decision 	in 	Mid 	Continent 	Nail
Corp. 	v. 	United 	States, 	36 	CIT 	__, 	825 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	1290 	(2012)
(“Mid 	Continent 	I”). 	In 	Mid 	Continent 	I, 	the 	court 	held 	that
Case 1:10-cv-00247-NT Document 80 Filed 07/23/13 Page 1 of 2

Court No. 10-00247 	Page 2
Commerce 	impermissibly 	limited 	the 	scope 	of 	an 	antidumping 	duty
order by excluding in-scope steel nails packaged and imported as a
component of certain household tool kits because the scope lacked
clear language regarding mixed media applications. 	Id. at 1292–96.
The 	CAFC 	“disagree[d] 	. 	. 	. 	that 	Commerce 	is 	foreclosed 	by 	the
broad language of the antidumping order from interpreting the order
to 	exclude 	nails 	included 	within 	mixed 	media 	tool 	kits,” 	but
agreed “that Commerce has not yet reasonably interpreted the order
in 	this 	case 	so 	as 	to 	justify 	such 	an 	exclusion.” 	Mid 	Continent
III, 2013 WL 3746081, at *5. 	The CAFC also provided an extensive
roadmap for Commerce to follow in analyzing this and future mixed
media cases. 	Id.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED 	that 	this 	case 	is 	remanded 	to 	Commerce 	for
redetermination 	in 	accordance 	with 	the 	CAFC’s 	opinion 	in 	Mid
Continent III; and it is further
ORDERED 	that 	the 	remand 	results 	are 	due 	within 	ninety 	(90)
days 	of 	the 	date 	this 	opinion 	is 	entered. 	Any 	responses 	or
comments are due within thirty (30) days thereafter. 	Any rebuttal
comments are due within fifteen (15) days after the date responses
or comments are due.
/s/NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
Nicholas Tsoucalas
Senior Judge
Dated: July 23, 2012
New York, New York
Case 1:10-cv-00247-NT Document 80 Filed 07/23/13 Page 2 of 2