Masonry Anchors Aren't Nails, May Not Be Covered by AD/CV Duties, CIT Says
Masonry anchors are not nails, the Court of International Trade said in a May 29 decision that calls into question the Commerce Department’s interpretation of the scope of antidumping and countervailing duties on steel nails. Overturning a 2017 scope ruling that found OMG’s masonry anchors are covered by AD/CV duties on steel nails from Vietnam (see 1702220043), the court held that neither common dictionary definitions nor commercial terms support the idea that anchors are a type of nail.
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 ruled to the contrary in a series of scope rulings dating back to 2013 (see 13100102), finding zinc and nylon masonry anchors of various types are subject to AD/CV duty orders on steel nails from China and Vietnam (see 1706200062, 1703280025 and 1804030044). In each of the rulings, Commerce had variously argued that steel pins that, when hammered, expand the anchors to fill in a pre-drilled hole, are nails as referred to in the scope.
But a masonry anchor is a “unitary article of commerce,” and as such “the entire product, not just a component part, must be defined as a nail to fall within the scope of the orders” for it to be subject to AD/CV duties.
“The entire product here is not a nail,” CIT said. Dictionaries define nails as a “a fastener inserted by impact into the materials to be fastened,” it said. OMG’s masonry anchors are not inserted by impact, but are slid into pre-drilled holes before they are expanded, CIT said. And in OMG’s masonry anchors, the steel pin is “not the primary fastener; rather, the materials are fastened by the expanded zinc body while the steel pin is only used to facilitate expansion,” it said.
“Trade usage further supports the conclusion that OMG’s zinc anchors are not nails,” CIT said. “Multiple industry actors categorize anchors with steel pins as anchors rather than as nails.” According to industry usage, “the pin is a nail but the unitary article of commerce is an anchor,” it said. “Therefore, OMG’s zinc anchor, taken as a unitary article of commerce, is not a nail within that word’s plain meaning and thus does not fall within the unambiguous scope of the Orders,” the court said.
(OMG, Inc. v. U.S., Slip Op. 18-63, CIT # 17-00036, dated 05/29/18)