Tube Forgings of America, Inc. et al v. United States

Slip Op. 25-156
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
TUBE FORGINGS OF AMERICA,
INC. AND MILLS IRON WORKS,
INC.,
Consolidated Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
NORCA INDUSTRIAL
COMPANY, LLC AND
INTERNATIONAL PIPING &
PROCUREMENT GROUP, LP,
Consolidated Defendant-
Intervenors.
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Consol. Court No. 23-00231
OPINION AND ORDER
[Remanding the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results of redetermination
pursuant to the first remand order in the final scope ruling in a covered
merchandise referral regarding certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings.]
Dated: December 16, 2025
Lawrence J. Bogard and John B. Totaro, Jr., Neville Peterson, LLP, of
Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiffs Tube Forgings of America, Inc. and
Mills Iron Works, Inc.
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 2
Anne M. Delmare, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States.
With her on the brief were Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Patricia
M. McCarthy, Director, and Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the
brief was Leslie M. Lewis, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade
Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington,
D.C. Also of counsel was Jack Dunkelman, Attorney, and Ruslan N. Klafehn,
Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance,
U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.
Jeremy W. Dutra, Squire Patton Boggs (U.S.) LLP, of Washington, D.C., for
Defendant-Intervenors Norca Industrial Company, LLC and International Piping &
Procurement Group, LP.
Choe-Groves, Judge: This case concerns the final covered merchandise
referral determination published by the U.S. Department of Commerce
(“Commerce”) regarding carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings. See Certain Carbon
Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China (“Final
Determination”), 88 Fed. Reg. 69,909 (Dep’t of Commerce Oct. 10, 2023) (final
determination of covered merchandise inquiry) and accompanying Decision
Memorandum for the Final Results of Covered Merchandise Inquiry (“Final
IDM”), PR 831 ; see also Antidumping Duty Order and Amendment to the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld
Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China (“Order”), 57 Fed. Reg. 29,702
(Dep’t of Commerce July 6, 1992). Commerce determined that certain carbon steel
1 Citations to the administrative record reflect the public record (“PR”), ECF Nos.
36, 63.
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 3
butt-weld pipe fittings with “rough fittings” produced in the People’s Republic of
China (“China”) that underwent the second and third stages of production in the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”) were not subject to the scope of the
antidumping order on butt-weld pipe fittings from China. See Final Determination
88 Fed. Reg. at 69,909. Before the Court are Commerce’s Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (“Remand Redetermination”), ECF
No. 56-1.
Consolidated Plaintiffs Tube Forgings of America, Inc. (“Tube Forgings of
America”) and Mills Iron Works, Inc. (“Mills Iron Works”) (collectively,
“Plaintiffs,” “Petitioners,” or “Tube Forgings”) filed their comments in opposition.
Mem. Consol. Pls.’ Opp’n Redetermination Remand (“Consol. Pls.’ Cmts.”), ECF
No. 58. Consolidated Defendant-Intervenors Norca Industrial Company, LLC
(“Norca”) and International Piping & Procurement Group, LP (“IPPG”)
(collectively, “Defendant-Intervenors”) filed their comments in support. Def.-
Intervs.’ Cmts. Supp. Remand Results (“Def.-Intervs.’ Cmts.”), ECF No. 62.
Defendant United States (“Defendant” or “the Government”) filed its response to
Consolidated Plaintiffs’ comments. Def.’s Resp. Consol. Pls.’ Cmts. Remand
Redetermination (“Def.’s Resp.”), ECF No. 64.
For the following reasons, the Court remands the Remand Redetermination.
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 4
BACKGROUND
The Court presumes familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
history of this case. See Tube Forgings of Am., Inc. v. United States (“Tube
Forgings I”), 49 CIT __, 750 F. Supp. 3d 1364 (2025).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) submitted a covered
merchandise referral to Commerce on September 6, 2022, requesting a
determination whether merchandise described in the referral was within the scope
of the Order. See Customs’ Covered Merchandise Referral Request for
Merchandise Under EAPA Consolidated Case Number 7335 (Remand Number
7717), Imported by Norca Industrial Company, LLC and International Piping &
Procurement Group, LP: Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Carbon Steel Butt-
Weld Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China (“Covered Merchandise
Referral Request”) (Sept. 6, 2022), PR 7. In the Covered Merchandise Referral
Request, Customs stated that the record showed contradicting information
provided by Norca and BW Fittings, and described the production of Norca’s and
IPPG’s carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings as involving three stages of production:
1. Converting seamless pipe into the rough shape of an elbow, tee, reducer,
etc., through a cold- or hot-forming (or forging) process;
2. Reforming or sizing the rough fitting so that the fitting will match the pipe
it is destined to be welded to; and
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 5
3. Undergoing finishing processes such as shot blasting or other cleaning,
machine beveling, boring and tapering, grinding, die stamping, inspection,
and painting.
Covered Merchandise Referral Request at 3–4.
Norca claimed that its merchandise exported by BW Fittings into the United
States underwent at least the second and third stages of production in Vietnam, and
that the rough fittings imported by BW Fittings from China were not “unfinished”
carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings covered by the Order. Id. at 4. BW Fittings
reported that it phased in its production capabilities for carbon steel butt-weld pipe
fittings. Id. BW Fittings’ production records showed that in some cases it
performed only the third stage of production, while in other cases it performed
both the second and third stages of production. Id. Customs requested that
Commerce determine whether Norca’s and IPPG’s “Chinese-origin rough fittings”
purchased from BW Fittings were covered by the Order in two scenarios: (1)
Chinese-origin rough fittings that only underwent the third stage of production
(i.e., finishing processes) in Vietnam and (2) Chinese-origin rough fittings that
underwent both the second and third stages of production in Vietnam. Id.
Commerce defined the subject merchandise at issue as “rough and
unfinished fittings originating in China and processed into butt-weld pipe fittings
through two production scenarios in Vietnam,” with the first production scenario
involving “Chinese-origin unfinished butt-weld pipe fittings [that] undergo the
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 5 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 6
final stage (i.e., finishing processes) of three production stages in Vietnam” and the
second production scenario involving “Chinese-origin rough butt-weld pipe fittings
[that] undergo the second and third stages of production in Vietnam.” Final IDM
at 3.
Commerce issued a preliminary covered merchandise determination on June
23, 2023, in which it determined that “rough butt-weld pipe fittings from China
that are processed in Vietnam into finished butt-weld pipe fittings in the final two
stages of production are not subject to the scope of the Order” and “that unfinished
butt-weld pipe fittings from China that are processed in Vietnam into finished butt-
weld pipe fittings are subject to the scope of the Order.” Certain Carbon Steel
Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China (“Preliminary
Determination”), 88 Fed. Reg. 41,075 (Dep’t of Commerce June 23, 2023)
(preliminary results of covered merchandise inquiry) and accompanying Decision
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results (“PDM”), PR 63, 66; Tube Forgings I,
49 CIT at __, 750 F. Supp. 3d at 1371.
On October 10, 2023, Commerce issued its final covered merchandise
determination and continued to determine that “rough fittings originating from
China that undergo the second and third stages of production in Vietnam are not
subject to the scope of the Order.” Final Determination, 88 Fed. Reg. 69,909.
Additionally, Commerce determined that “unfinished fittings from China that
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 6 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 7
undergo the third stage of production in Vietnam are subject to the scope of the
Order.” Id.
On January 2, 2025, this Court remanded the Final Determination, holding
that Commerce’s determination that “rough fittings” that undergo the second and
third stages of production in Vietnam are not subject to the scope of the Order was
not supported by substantial evidence. See Tube Forgings I, 49 CIT at __, 750 F.
Supp. 3d at 1383. The Court stated that at the heart of this case was the distinction
between “rough,” “unfinished,” and “finished” fittings. Id. at __, 750 F. Supp. 3d
at 1373. The Court concluded that Commerce arbitrarily deviated from its long-
standing practice of considering products in the “rough shape of an elbow, tee, or
reducer, which were not heated or formed,” to be butt-weld pipe fittings that fall in
scope of the Order. Id. at __, 750 F. Supp. 3d at 1383.
On May 2, 2025, Commerce issued its Remand Redetermination and
continued to determine that “merchandise that has undergone the first stage of
production in China and then undergoes the second and third stages of production
in Vietnam is not subject to the scope of the Order.” Remand Redetermination at
39.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) has jurisdiction pursuant to
Section 516A(a)(2)(B)(vi) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 7 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 8
§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi), and 28 U.S.C.§ 1581(c). The Court will hold unlawful any
determination unsupported by substantial evidence on the record or otherwise not
in accordance with law. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). The Court also
reviews determinations made on remand for compliance with the Court’s remand
order. Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 38 CIT 727, 730,
992 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1290 (2014), aff’d, 802 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
DISCUSSION
I. 	Legal Framework for Scope Determination
The descriptions of merchandise covered by the scope of an antidumping or
countervailing duty order must be written in general terms, and questions may arise
as to whether a particular product is included within the scope of an order. See 19
C.F.R. § 351.225(a). When such questions arise, Commerce’s regulations direct it
to issue scope rulings that clarify whether the product is included within the scope.
Id. Although there are no specific statutory provisions that govern Commerce’s
interpretation of the scope of an order, Commerce is guided by case law and
agency regulations. See Meridian Prods., LLC v. United States (“Meridian
Products”), 851 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 19 C.F.R. § 351.225.
Commerce’s inquiry must begin with the relevant scope language. See, e.g.,
OMG, Inc. v. United States, 972 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2020). If the scope
language is unambiguous, “the plain meaning of the language governs.” Id. If the
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 8 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 9
language is ambiguous, however, Commerce interprets the scope with the aid of
the sources set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1). Meridian Prods., 851 F.3d at
1382. If the (k)(1) sources do not dispositively answer the question, Commerce
may consider the (k)(2) factors under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2). Id.
Commerce may consider the following interpretive sources under 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.225(k)(1) to determine whether merchandise is covered by the scope of an
order:
(A) 	The descriptions of the merchandise contained in the petition
pertaining to the order at issue;
(B) 	The descriptions of the merchandise contained in the initial
investigation pertaining to the order at issue;
(C) 	Previous 	or 	concurrent 	determinations 	of 	the 	Secretary,
including 	prior 	scope 	rulings, 	memoranda, 	or 	clarifications
pertaining to both the order at issue, as well as other orders with
same or similar language as that of the order at issue; and
(D) 	Determinations of the Commission pertaining to the order at
issue, including reports issued pursuant to the Commission’s
initial investigation.
19 C.F.R. § 351.255(k)(1)(i).
Secondary interpretive sources include any other determinations of the
Secretary or the Commission not identified above, rulings or determinations by
Customs, industry usage, dictionaries, and any other relevant record evidence. Id.
§ 351.255(k)(1)(ii). If there is a conflict between these secondary interpretive
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 9 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 10
sources and the primary interpretive sources of this section, the primary
interpretive sources will normally govern in determining whether a product is
covered by the scope of the order at issue. Id.
It is well-established that “Commerce cannot ‘interpret’ an antidumping
order so as to change the scope of th[e] order, nor can Commerce ‘interpret’ an
order in a manner contrary to its terms.” Eckstrom Indus., Inc. v. United States,
254 F.3d 1068, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2001). When a party challenges a scope
determination, the Court must determine whether the scope of the order “contain[s]
language that specifically includes the subject merchandise or may be reasonably
interpreted to include it.” Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087,
1089 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
II. 	Plain Language of the Scope Order
The scope language of the Order in this case states in relevant part:
The products covered by this order are carbon steel butt-weld pipe
fittings, having an inside diameter of less than 14 inches, imported in
either finished or unfinished form. These formed or forged pipe fittings
are used to join sections in piping systems where conditions require
permanent, welded connections, as distinguished from fittings based on
other fastening methods (e.g., threaded, grooved, or bolted fittings).
Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings are currently classified under
subheading 7307.93.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS).
Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is
dispositive.
Order, 57 Fed. Reg. at 29,702.
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 10 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 11
This Court concluded in Tube Forgings I that the scope language is
ambiguous with respect to whether “unfinished” fittings include further processed
“rough” fittings because “the plain scope language does not mention the subject
merchandise that were the focus of the covered merchandise scope referral,” and is
also ambiguous as to what the definition of “unfinished” fittings means. 49 CIT at
__, 750 F. Supp. 3d at 1373. The Court held that because the scope language is
ambiguous as to the definition of an “unfinished butt-weld pipe fitting,”
Commerce’s examination of the (k)(1) sources was in accordance with law. Id. at
__, 750 F. Supp. 3d at 1383. Upon further review of Commerce’s Remand
Redetermination, the Court now concludes that the (k)(1) sources do not
dispositively support Commerce’s determination with substantial evidence, the
(k)(1) review is not in accordance with law, and as explained below, a second
remand is necessary for Commerce to consider the (k)(2) criteria set forth in 19
C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2).
III. 	Terminology Used By Commerce
The scope language of the Order discusses “carbon steel butt-weld pipe
fittings, having an inside diameter of less than 14 inches, imported in either
finished or unfinished form.” 57 Fed. Reg. at 29,702. Commerce used the term
“rough fitting” in its Final IDM, and this Court remanded for Commerce to answer
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 11 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 12
the question whether a “rough fitting” is identifiable as a “butt-weld pipe fitting.”
Tube Forgings I, 49 CIT at __,750 F. Supp. 3d at 1374.
On remand, Commerce explained that:
As a general matter, Commerce acknowledges that our use of the term
“rough fitting” to describe the precursor products to both the unfinished
and finished butt-weld pipe fittings subject to the Covered Merchandise
Inquiry created confusion among the parties and with the Court. 	We
solely adopted this term to refer to the merchandise at issue in a manner
which was consistent with the language used in the first production
scenario posed by CBP. 	Thus, we referred to merchandise that had
undergone 	the 	first 	production 	stage 	as 	a 	“rough 	fitting” 	and
merchandise that had undergone the first two production stages as an
“unfinished fitting.” However, as noted by the Court, this term is not
used in the 1991 Petition. To cure this confusion, and for purposes of
this 	remand, 	Commerce 	instead 	identifies 	products 	by 	stage 	of
production as follows: (1) “rough shapes” for pipe which has undergone
only conversion into a rough shape of an elbow, tee, reducer, etc.,
through a cold- or hot-forming (or forging) process; and (2) “unfinished
fittings” for rough shapes which have been reformed or sized to match
the pipe as it is destined to be welded to, but which have not been
finished.
Remand Redetermination at 6 (internal citations omitted).
Customs discussed the stages of production in the Covered Merchandise
Referral Request, based on Norca’s description of its manufacturing processes, as
follows:
Norca states that the first stage of production for [carbon steel butt-weld
pipe fittings] involves converting seamless pipe “into the rough shape
of an elbow, tee, reducer, etc., through a cold- or hot-forming (or
forging) process.” 	Norca further states 	that the second stage of
production involves reforming or sizing the rough fitting so that the
fitting will match the pipe it is destined to be welded to, and the third
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 12 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 13
stage includes finishing processes such as “shot blasting, or other
cleaning, 	machine 	beveling, 	boring 	and 	tapering, 	grinding, 	die
stamping, inspection, and painting.”
Covered Merchandise Referral Request at 3–4.
The Court reviews Commerce’s determination on remand that:
“merchandise that has undergone the first stage of production in China and then
undergoes the second and third stages of production in Vietnam is not subject to
the scope of the Order.” Remand Redetermination at 39.
IV. 	Use of Interpretative Sources Under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1)
In Tube Forgings I, the Court held that Commerce’s determination was not
supported by substantial evidence and remanded for Commerce to provide further
explanation for the following (k)(1) sources: the U.S. International Trade
Commission Report (“ITC Report”), the Petition pertaining to the Order,
declarations from domestic industry executives, and the Thailand Circumvention
Determination. 49 CIT at __, 750 F. Supp. 3d at 1375–76; see generally
Petitioners’ CMI Questionnaire Resp. at Ex. 7 (“ITC Report”), PR 51; Petitioners’
CMI Questionnaire Resp. at Ex. 5 (“Petition”), PR 51; Petitioners’ CMI
Questionnaire Resp. at Ex. 1 (“Declaration of Patrick R. Benavides”), PR 51; Ex. 2
(“Declaration of Jeffrey Griffith”), PR 51; Ex. 3 (“Declaration of Bruce Rust”), PR
51; Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of
China (“Thailand Circumvention Determination”), 59 Fed. Reg. 15,155 (Dep’t of
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 13 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 14
Commerce Mar. 31, 1994) (affirmative final determination of circumvention of
antidumping duty order); see also Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings
from the People’s Republic of China (“Thailand Preliminary Circumvention
Determination”), 59 Fed. Reg. 62 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 3, 1994) (affirmative
preliminary determination of circumvention of antidumping duty order).
V. 	Petition
The Court remanded for Commerce to address the Petition’s lack of
reference to the term “rough fitting,” and analyze whether the Petition answers the
question whether a carbon steel pipe that has been cut to length in the rough shape
of an elbow, tee, or reducer, is identifiable as a butt-weld pipe fitting. Tube
Forgings I, 49 CIT at __, 750 F. Supp. 3d at 1377.
Commerce acknowledged the confusion that it caused by using the term
“rough fitting,” which Commerce admitted does not appear in the Petition.
Remand Redetermination at 6. Commerce acknowledged the Petition’s lack of
reference to the term “rough fitting,” but stated that the Petition distinguishes
between merchandise that has undergone the first stage of the production process
and merchandise that has undergone the first and second stages of production. Id.
at 7. Commerce noted that the Petition: (1) uses the term “bent pipe,” which is a
product of seamless pipe that has undergone the first stage of the production
process; (2) discusses unfinished “tees” and “reducers” as “somewhat different
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 14 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 15
before the coining operation” as a second stage of production; and (3) refers to the
reforming and coining process as “necessary to ensure that the fitting will match
the pipe to which it is attached.” Id. at 7–9.
The Petition confirms that, “[t]he products covered by this Petition are
carbon steel butt-weld fittings having an inside diameter of less than 360
millimeters ([14] inches) classifiable under HTS Subheading 7307.93.30 (‘Butt
welding fittings: With an inside diameter of less than 360 mm: Of iron or nonalloy
steel’). Such fittings are imported in either finished or unfinished condition.”
Petition at 3–4 (footnotes omitted).
The Petition discusses “bent pipe” as follows:
The bent pipe drops off the mandrel and is examined for correctness of
size and shape. 	Often, the bent pipe must undergo a “reforming” or
“coining” operation . . . The operation is necessary to ensure that the
fitting will match the pipe to which it is attached. 	Fittings that are
formed at a temperature under 1,200 [degrees Fahrenheit (“F”)] or
above 1,800 [degrees] F must also undergo heat treatment which
relieves stress build-up within the fitting during the forming process.
After these processes, the bent pipe is considered to be an unfinished
“elbow.” 	The production of an unfinished “tee” or an unfinished
“reducer” is somewhat different before the coining operation.
Petition at 5–6.
The Petition states that after the heat or cold treatment and forming
processes, the bent pipe is considered to be an unfinished elbow. Id. at 6. Based in
part on its review of the Petition, Commerce determined on remand that:
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 15 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 16
“merchandise that has undergone the first stage of production in China and then
undergoes the second and third stages of production in Vietnam is not subject to
the scope of the Order.” Remand Redetermination at 5, 39.
Although the Petition discusses the three stages of production, the Petition
does not state dispositively that carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings having an
inside diameter of less than 360 millimeters that are not heat- or cold-treated and
formed are outside the scope of the Order. The Petition supports Commerce’s
determination in general that a seamless pipe that has been heat- or cold-treated
(the first stage of production), and then is formed (the second stage of production)
is an unfinished butt-weld pipe fitting that is in scope of the Order. The Petition is
silent, however, on whether a product may be in scope before the heat- or cold-
treatment and forming processes take place. In other words, the Petition does not
dispositively require that a butt-weld pipe fitting must be heat- or cold-treated and
formed before it is in scope. Similarly, the plain language of the Order does not
require in the scope text that a butt-weld pipe fitting must be heat- or cold-treated
and formed before it is in scope.
This Court previously remanded for Commerce to analyze whether the
Petition addresses the situation when a carbon steel pipe that has been cut to length
in the rough shape of an elbow, tee, or reducer, is identifiable as a butt-weld pipe
fitting. Tube Forgings I, 49 CIT at __, 750 F. Supp. 3d at 1377. Commerce did
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 16 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 17
not address this question satisfactorily on remand (the Petition does not support
Commerce’s determination that a product may only be considered to be in scope
after it has been heat- or cold-treated and formed). Clearly there is a dispute
between the Parties in this case whether a product may be considered to be an in-
scope butt-weld pipe fitting if the carbon steel pipe has been merely cut to length in
the rough shape of an elbow, tee, or reducer, and has not been heat- or cold-treated
and formed. Commerce must address this question on second remand.
Thus, because the Petition is silent on whether a butt-weld pipe fitting that
has not been heat- or cold-treated and formed is within scope, the Court concludes
that the Petition does not dispositively support Commerce’s determination that
“merchandise that has undergone the first stage of production in China and then
undergoes the second and third stages of production in Vietnam is not subject to
the scope of the Order.” Remand Redetermination at 39.
VI. 	ITC Report
The Court concluded in Tube Forgings I that the ITC Report did not support
Commerce’s determination that only after the second production stage, or the
sizing and reforming operations, is a carbon steel product identifiable as a butt-
weld pipe fitting that is within the scope of the Order. 49 CIT at __, 750 F. Supp.
3d at 1377. The Court stated that the term “rough” only appears once in the ITC
Report when referencing “rough-formed unfinished fittings,” and identified that
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 17 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 18
the exact sentence “[t]he combination producers Hackney, Tube Forgings, Tube-
Line, and Weldbend purchase and/or import rough-formed unfinished fittings
which they bevel, bore, taper, grind, shot blast, die stamp, inspect, and paint” did
not support Commerce’s determination. Id. The Court reasoned that this sentence
indicated that rough-formed carbon steel pipes are unfinished fittings that are later
processed, and the ITC Report did not confirm Commerce’s determination that
only after carbon steel pipes are cut, then heat- or cold-treated and formed, are they
then considered to be unfinished butt-weld pipe fittings. Id.
On remand, Commerce noted that its use of the term “rough fittings” was
not intended to be synonymous with the term “rough-formed unfinished fittings,”
because “rough-formed unfinished fittings” are within the scope of the Order after
having undergone the first two production stages. Remand Redetermination at 10.
Commerce also stated that it relied on another sentence in the ITC Report for its
determination, rather than on the quotation referenced by the Court:
[A]n unfinished pipe fitting is a fitting that has been advanced after
forging but which requires at least one more processing step (i.e., shot
blasting, 	machine 	beveling, 	boring 	and 	tapering, 	grinding, 	die
stamping, inspecting or painting) to finish the fitting.
Id. at 10 (citing ITC Report at 4 n.6) (emphasis added). Commerce reasoned that
this quote “clearly shows that a shape that has been forged is not yet an unfinished
fitting[,]” but rather the shape must be “‘advanced after forging’ to attain this
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 18 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 19
status, and only then may the unfinished fitting be further processed to become the
final, finished product[,]” which contributes to Commerce’s determination that the
second stage of production is necessary for merchandise that has been formed into
the shape of a fitting to be considered an unfinished fitting. Id.
It is unclear, however, what is meant by the phrase “advanced after forging”
in footnote 6 of the ITC Report. Commerce seems to equate “advanced after
forging” in the ITC Report with the term “formed” used in the Petition (the second
stage of production). However, the ITC Report does not describe the forging
process, and therefore does not dispositively confirm what process applies to a
seamless pipe that must be “advanced after forging” in order to be considered an
unfinished butt-weld pipe fitting subject to the Order.
The only discussion of forging in the ITC Report appears in the following
sentence: “Reducers are hammer-forged to size in the cold-process, followed by
heat-treatment to reduce metallurgical stresses, followed by finishing operations
that are similar for those reducers produced by the hot-process.” ITC Report at I-7.
This sentence suggests that there is a cold-process/heat-treatment (first stage of
production), and then finishing (third stage of production). There is no discussion
in the ITC Report of what is meant by “advanced after forging.” There is not
enough information about the production process in the ITC Report to consider this
a dispositive (k)(1) source.
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 19 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 20
Commerce cited to the ITC Report in the Final Results of the Covered
Merchandise Inquiry, contending that “the 1992 ITC Report details stages one and
two of the production process over six paragraphs covering two pages[.]” Final
IDM at 11 (citing PDM at 17 and ITC Report at I-6–I-9). Contrary to Commerce’s
assertion, the Court observes that a clear description of stage two of the production
process is not readily apparent in those six paragraphs. There is a discussion of
heat and cold processing, together with sizing (i.e., “[t]he hot elbow is dropped off
the mandrel and immediately resized in a die under pressure[,]” ITC Report at I-8),
but nowhere in the ITC Report does it state clearly that a product only becomes an
unfinished butt-weld pipe fitting after undergoing stages one and two of
production. Thus, this record evidence does not support Commerce’s
determination.
In addition, Commerce discussed footnote 18 of the ITC Report in the
context of its substantial transformation analysis pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.225(j). See Final IDM at 7–8; see also PDM at 10 (citing ITC Report at I-8
n.18). Footnote 18 of the ITC Report states that, “[i]rrespective of the process,
resizing is necessary to ensure that the butt-weld fitting will match the pipe to
which it is to be welded.” ITC Report at I-8. The ITC Report does not label this as
“stage two” or as a critical step in order for a product to be considered an
unfinished butt-weld pipe fitting within the scope of the Order. Commerce cites to
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 20 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 21
footnote 18 to support its determination that, “[r]ecord evidence suggests that,
although the initial forming process forms the fittings in such a way that is
important for the finished product, resizing and heat treatment are crucial processes
for the integrity of the finished butt-weld pipe fittings; these processes occur in the
second stage of production.” Final IDM at 10 (citing ITC Report at I-8 n.18). The
Court concludes that the ITC Report does not support Commerce’s determination,
because the ITC Report does not state that stage one is heat or cold treatment, does
not state that stage two is resizing or forming, and does not state that only after
undergoing stages one and two does a product become an in-scope butt-weld pipe
fitting.
In fact, the ITC Report provides information about the production process
that is inconsistent with the Petition. The ITC Report explains that:
The manufacturing process may be continuous: that is, carbon steel pipe
may be converted into a finished butt-weld fitting in one continuous
operation, rather than the pipe being converted into a semifinished butt-
weld 	fitting, 	inventoried, 	and 	subsequently 	finished 	in 	another
operation. The Chinese and Thai industries tend to be based on the hot-
process for making elbows and do not possess the capability for heat-
treatment or shot blasting.
ITC Report at I-9–I-10 (emphasis added). This statement from the ITC Report that
there may be “one continuous operation” contradicts Commerce’s determination
that there are three distinct stages of production for a product to be transformed
from seamless pipe to an unfinished and then finished butt-weld pipe fitting.
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 21 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 22
In addition, the ITC Report is silent on whether a butt-weld pipe fitting may
only be within the scope of the Order if the product is heat- or cold-treated and
formed. The Court concludes that because the ITC Report is unclear on the
meaning of the phrase “advanced after forging,” discusses one continuous
manufacturing process (rather than three distinct stages of production as alleged by
Commerce), and does not address whether heat- or cold-treating and forming are
required to be in scope, the (k)(1) source of the ITC Report does not provide
unequivocal evidentiary support, and does not dispositively support Commerce’s
determination that “merchandise that has undergone the first stage of production in
China and then undergoes the second and third stages of production in Vietnam is
not subject to the scope of the Order.” Remand Redetermination at 39.
For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that Commerce’s
Remand Redetermination is not supported by substantial evidence based on the
(k)(1) sources of the Petition and ITC Report.
VII. 	Prior Thailand Circumvention Determination
The Court remanded for Commerce to address the Thailand Circumvention
Determination due to the Court's concerns about contradictory evidence on the
record and the failure to provide sufficient reasons for treating similar situations
differently. Tube Forgings I, 49 CIT at __,750 F. Supp. 3d at 1380. Commerce
“confusingly stated that a product that Commerce previously called an ‘unfinished
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 22 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 23
butt-weld pipe fitting’ in the 1994 Thailand [C]ircumvention [I]nquiry was no
longer considered an ‘unfinished butt-weld pipe fitting’ here, but instead was
considered to be a ‘rough fitting.’” Id. 49 CIT at __, 750 F. Supp. 3d at 1381.
Further, this Court stated that:
It is contradictory for Commerce to have previously referred to a carbon
steel product in the rough shape of an elbow, tee, or reducer, which was
not heated or formed, as an “unfinished butt-weld pipe fitting” 30 years
ago in 1994 (and apparently for the ensuing 30 years), and then claim
that such product is no longer considered an “unfinished butt-weld pipe
fitting,” but should be considered a “rough fitting” in the 2023 Final
IDM . . . [and 	concluded] 	that 	the 	Thailand 	Circumvention
Determination is a (k)(1) source that 	detracts from Commerce’s
determination that carbon steel products in the rough shape of an elbow,
tee, or reducer, which were not heated or formed, are “rough fittings”
rather than “unfinished butt-weld pipe fittings.”
Id. 49 CIT at __, 750 F. Supp. 3d at 1381–82.
On remand, Commerce agreed with the Court that the different terminology
used in the Final Determination and the Thailand Circumvention Determination
created confusion. Remand Redetermination at 15. Commerce stated that while
the terms used were different between the two determinations, the treatment of the
products was the same. Id. Commerce explained that it was unnecessary to
determine whether the merchandise in the Thailand Circumvention Determination
was circumventing the order because such merchandise was already considered to
be covered by the scope of the order. See id. (citing Deacero S.A. de C.V. v.
United States, 37 CIT 1457, 1461–62, 942 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1326 (2013) (“When
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 23 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 24
Commerce initiates a scope inquiry under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k) (2012), it
assesses ‘whether a particular product is included within the scope of an order.’
When Commerce initiates a circumvention inquiry . . . it asks whether a product
outside an order’s literal scope should nonetheless be included within the scope as
part of the class or kind of merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order.”).
The Petitioners’ Comments on Covered Merchandise Inquiry described the
merchandise at issue in the Thailand Circumvention Determination, which was
purchased by Awaji Sangyo (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (“AST”):
During the period of inquiry, AST purchased Chinese ‘as-formed’
fittings from Mitsui Co., Ltd., a Japanese trading company. 	The ‘as-
formed’ fittings were produced by Shenzhen Fitting Manufacturing
Factory, which is located [in] Shenzhen, China . . . The unfinished tees
which AST imported from China were in as-formed condition, which
were not advanced beyond cold-forming (i.e., the bulge process).
Accordingly, AST had to ‘decap’ the closed ‘head’ of the as-formed
tees and provide heat treatment, as well as run them through all the
processes downstream of the heat treatment process . . . Neither heat
treatment, decapping, descaling, end-facing, cleaning, coating nor
marking 	had 	been 	provided 	to 	the 	as-formed 	tees 	prior 	to 	the
importation of the merchandise into Thailand. The unfinished Chinese
tees which AST converted to finished tees for exportation to the United
States 	were 	as-formed 	tees 	not 	advanced 	beyond 	cold-forming.
Throughout this response, AST referred to these as-formed fittings as
“unfinished tees.”
Petitioners’ Comments on Covered Merchandise Inquiry at 8–9, PR 31. The
description of the merchandise in the circumvention inquiry was not “advanced
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 24 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 25
beyond cold-forming,” making them similar products to the “rough fittings” in this
proceeding.
The Government concedes that these products are similar:
Although Commerce agreed that the merchandise in the Thailand
Circumvention Inquiry and the covered merchandise inquiry in this
case are similar in that both have only undergone the first stage of
production, Commerce disagreed that its treatment is inconsistent
because the question asked of Commerce in the two inquiries differed.
Def.’s Resp. at 24 (emphasis omitted).
The Government argues that the conclusions in the two determinations
reasonably differed as a result of the different legal frameworks, analyses, and
determinations, explaining that because Commerce did not conduct a
circumvention inquiry or make any findings of circumvention, the products in the
Thailand Circumvention Determination were not within the scope of the Order. Id.
at 26. In the Remand Redetermination, Commerce stated that in both the Thailand
Circumvention Determination and Final Determination, Commerce did not
determine that the products were within the scope of the Order, but rather that the
products processed in Thailand were of a similar class or kind of product and were
considered within scope as a result of circumvention, and drew a distinction
between the result of a circumvention determination and a scope ruling. Remand
Redetermination at 16, 18.
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 25 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 26
Plaintiffs argue that Commerce determined in the Thailand Circumvention
Determination that the butt-weld fittings that had been cut and not advanced
beyond cold-forming (which are identical to the products in the instant case), were
within the scope of the Order. Consol. Pls.’ Cmts. at 5. Specifically, Commerce
determined that:
[W]e have determined that circumvention of the antidumping duty
order on pipe fittings from the PRC has occurred within the meaning of
section 781(b) of the Tariff Act. 	We base this determination on the
statutory criteria. First, the items completed in Thailand and sold to the
United States are of the same class or kind of merchandise as that
covered by the order, and are completed from merchandise produced in
the PRC and covered by the order. 	Second, the difference in value
between the unfinished pipe fittings sold to Thailand and the value of
the 	finished 	pipe 	fittings 	exported 	to 	the 	United 	States 	is
small . . . Further, we find that the pattern of trade and level of imports
into Thailand indicate a finding of circumvention of the antidumping
duty order. Based on the record for this inquiry, we also find that action
is appropriate to prevent evasion of the antidumping duty order.”
Thailand Circumvention Determination, 59 Fed. Reg. at 15,158.
Commerce determined in the Thailand Circumvention Determination that
the products were of the same class or kind of merchandise as that covered by the
Order. See id. Consequently, because the products in this case are identical,
Plaintiffs argue that the subject merchandise should also be considered as covered
by the Order. Consol. Pls.’ Cmts. at 5–7.
As Commerce notes in the Remand Redetermination, “[t]here was no
request for a circumvention inquiry, and Commerce did not conduct a
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 26 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 27
circumvention analysis.” Remand Redetermination at 19. The Court accepts that
the Thailand Circumvention Determination involves a different analytical
framework, and that a circumvention inquiry is distinct from the scope inquiry at
issue in this case. The Court concludes that the Thailand Circumvention
Determination is not a dispositive k(1) source that supports or detracts from
Commerce’s determination.
VIII. Use of Interpretative Sources Under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2)
In light of the Court’s conclusion that the (k)(1) sources contain conflicting
evidence and are not dispositive, the Court holds that Commerce’s scope ruling is
unsupported by substantial evidence. A second remand is necessary for Commerce
to consider the (k)(2) criteria under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2). See Vandewater
Int’l Inc. v. United States, 130 F.4th 981, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (affirming CIT’s
remand to Commerce for (k)(2) analysis when the (k)(1) sources were equivocal
and non-dispositive).
On second remand when reviewing the (k)(2) criteria, Commerce should
consider the following factors: (1) physical characteristics (including chemical,
dimensional, and technical characteristics) of the product; (2) expectations of the
ultimate users; (3) ultimate use of the product; (4) channels of trade in which the
product is sold; and (5) manner in which the product is advertised and displayed.
19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(2).
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 27 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 28
Commerce may choose to address the applicable industry standards of the
American Society for Testing and Materials and American National Standards
Institute, which were raised on remand in the discussion about the production
processes of the subject merchandise. See Remand Redetermination at 28.
Commerce stated that, “[w]hile industry standards can provide important
information regarding the technical specifications for a butt-weld pipe fitting, these
specifications are guidelines for the production and final product. However, these
specifications do not identify the point in the production process when a fitting
becomes a butt-weld pipe fitting.” Id. at 30.
In addition, Commerce should reconsider the declarations from domestic
industry executives that are on the record. The Court remanded previously for
Commerce to reconsider or provide further explanation for disregarding the
evidence of the industry declarations, reasoning that “Commerce may not lightly
ignore decades of practice and understanding without providing more explanation
for its determination.” Tube Forgings I, 49 CIT at __,750 F. Supp. 3d at 1380.
On remand, Commerce stated that the primary sources of the Petition and
ITC Report are sufficient to answer the question of whether shapes formed during
the first stage of production are sufficiently processed to be considered unfinished
fittings. Remand Redetermination at 12. Commerce explained that:
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 28 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 29
[W]e have considered these declarations within the context of the
totality of the evidence on the record, including the descriptions of the
production process in the [Petition] and the [ITC Report], the absence
of these terms in the primary sources described above, and Commerce’s
finding that products that had completed stage one processing were
circumventing the Order. Because the recent claims made by industry
officials in their declarations conflict with information in the primary
interpretative sources enumerated in 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(k)(1) (all of
which, unlike the industry declarations were on the administrative
record long before 2023), we afforded the primary interpretive sources
more 	weight 	than 	industry 	declarations, 	which 	are 	secondary
interpretative sources, consistent with our regulations.
Id. at 13–14. Because the Court has now held that the (k)(1) sources are equivocal
and non-dispositive, the Court orders Commerce to reconsider the industry
declarations in its (k)(2) analysis on second remand.
IX. 	Country of Origin Under 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(j)
In conjunction with the (k)(2) analysis on second remand, Commerce should
revisit its substantial transformation analysis to determine the country of origin of
the subject merchandise under § 351.225(j). There is some overlap of criteria
between the § 351.225(k)(2) analysis and the country of origin analysis under
§ 351.225(j) (for example, physical characteristics of the product and intended end-
use/ultimate use of the product).
Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that Commerce’s substantial
transformation analysis is flawed. Complaint at 4, ECF No. 6. Plaintiffs argue that
Commerce’s determination that sizing is an essential characteristic of the product
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 29 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 30
is not supported by substantial evidence. See Consol. Pls.’ Mot. J. Agency R. at
32–39, ECF No. 24.
Commerce noted in its Preliminary Determination that certain information
was missing from the record regarding the substantial transformation analysis.
PDM at 15–16. Thus, when Commerce reopens the record on second remand to
conduct its (k)(2) analysis, Commerce should consider eliciting additional
evidence about substantial transformation that might assist with its country of
origin determination. As discussed above, the Court concludes that the ITC Report
excerpts (particularly ITC Report footnote 18 and ITC Report pages I-6–I-9 cited
in the Final IDM) are not dispositive on the substantial transformation issue, and
therefore Commerce’s determination on country of origin is not supported by
substantial evidence.
CONCLUSION
Because the Court concludes that the (k)(1) sources are non-dispositive and
the Remand Redetermination is not supported by substantial evidence, the Court
remands the Remand Redetermination for further consideration in accordance with
this Opinion. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that this case shall proceed according to the following schedule:
(1) Commerce shall file its second remand redetermination on or before
March 16, 2026;
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 30 of 31

Consol. Court No. 23-00231 	Page 31
(2) Commerce shall file the administrative record on or before March
23, 2026;
(3) Comments in opposition to the second remand redetermination shall
be filed on or before April 13, 2026;
(4) Comments in support of the second remand redetermination shall be
filed on or before May 15, 2026; and
(5) The joint appendix shall be filed on or before May 22, 2026.
/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: 	December 16, 2025
New York, New York
Case 1:23-cv-00231-JCG Document 65 Filed 12/16/25 Page 31 of 31