Federal Circuit Affirms Masonry Anchors Aren't Nails, Not Subject to AD Duties
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Aug. 28 upheld several lower court rulings that found masonry anchors are not subject to antidumping duties on steel nails from China and Vietnam. Affirming three Court of International Trade decisions issued in 2018 (see 1805290053, 1809240016 and 1810020020), the appeals court held that anchors imported by OMG, Simpson Strong-Tie and Midwest Fastener do not function as nails, and so aren’t covered by the scope language in the AD duty orders.
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.
The decisions run counter to several scope rulings issued by the Commerce Department that included the masonry anchors under the AD duty orders on steel nails. Commerce had applied similar logic in each, finding the drive pin component of the anchors is basically a nail, and that the scope language covers two-piece nails (see 1702220043). After CIT rejected that logic, Commerce reissued the scope rulings under protest, finding that the masonry anchors are outside the scope of duties. CIT subsequently affirmed each of those rewritten rulings, and the government appealed to the Federal Circuit.
CAFC agreed with CIT that the masonry anchors are not nails, and shouldn’t be considered so for AD duty purposes. “Though OMG’s anchors are constructed of two or more pieces, they are not nails,” the appeals court said. “Considering OMG’s anchors as unitary items, no reasonable person could conclude that OMG’s anchors are nails because unlike nails, OMG’s anchors are not designed for impact insertion. Rather, OMG’s anchors require a predrilled hole at least half an inch deeper than the anchor embedment with a diameter matching the shank diameter of the anchor,” it said.
Relying on the inclusion of the steel pin component in the anchors was misguided because Commerce should have considered the articles as a whole, CAFC said. While the AD duty orders cover nails “constructed of two or more pieces,” not covered are “fasteners of two or more pieces, one of which is a nail,” the appeals court said.