Midwest Fastener Corp. v. United States

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________

MIDWEST FASTENER CORP.,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellant

MID CONTINENT STEEL & WIRE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________

2019-2226
______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in No. 1:17-cv-00131-GSK, Judge Gary S.
Katzmann.
______________________

Decided: August 28, 2020
______________________

R
OBERT KEVIN WILLIAMS, Clark Hill PLC, Chicago, IL,
argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by M
ARK
LUDWIKOWSKI, Washington, DC.

SOSUN BAE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Divi-
sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by
Case: 19-2226 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 08/28/2020

MIDWEST FASTENER CORP. v. UNITED STATES
2
ETHAN P. DAVIS, JEANNE DAVIDSON, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY; NIKKI KALBING, Office of the Chief Counsel for
Trade Enforcement and Compliance, United States De-
partment of Commerce, Washington, DC.

ADAM H. GORDON, The Bristol Group PLLC, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by PING
GONG.
______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and STOLL, Circuit
Judges.
STOLL, Circuit Judge.
The Government appeals a decision of the United
States Court of International Trade affirming a remand de-
termination of the United States Department of Commerce
concluding that certain zinc masonry anchors and certain
nylon masonry anchors imported by Midwest Fastener
Corp. are outside the scope of certain antidumping and
countervailing duty orders imposed on certain steel nails
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. See generally Mid-
west Fastener Corp. v. United States, 389 F. Supp. 3d 1384
(Ct. Int’l Trade 2019); see also Certain Steel Nails from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Countervailing Duty Order,
80 Fed. Reg. 41,006 (Dep’t of Commerce July 14, 2015);
Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of Korea, Malaysia,
the Sultanate of Oman, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Antidumping Duty Orders, 80 Fed. Reg. 39,994
(Dep’t of Commerce July 13, 2015). The issues in this case
are substantially identical to the issues presented in OMG,
Inc. v. United States, No. 19-2131 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2020),
issued herewith. For the reasons stated in that opinion, we
affirm the decision of the Court of International Trade.
AFFIRMED
Case: 19-2226 Document: 59 Page: 2 Filed: 08/28/2020