CIT Affirms That Split-Drive, Crimp Drive Anchors Not Nails in Line With Federal Circuit Decision

The Court of International Trade issued two opinions on Aug. 3 sustaining the Commerce Department's remand results that held that Simpson Strong-Tie Company's split-drive anchors and crimp drive anchors do not fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on certain steel nails from China. Following a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, OMG, Inc. v. United States, Commerce changed its findings for both products to exclude them from the order. The Federal Circuit held in OMG that masonry anchors are not nails and thus excluded from the order. Since Simpson's split-drive and crimp drive anchors are similar, they are also excluded, the court held.

The most glaring difference that the Federal Circuit found between the strike pin anchors and nails is that nails entail "impact insertion" while strike pins require a pre-drilled hole (see 2008280039). The difference is so glaring that the appellate court ruled that "'no reasonable person could conclude that OMG’s anchors are nails because unlike nails, OMG’s anchors are not designed for impact insertion' and instead 'require a predrilled hole.'" Simpson's split-drive and crimp drive anchors can be characterized the same way.

Simpson highlighted many differences between nails and split-drive anchors in its briefs to the CIT, including "(1) the split-drive anchor has a non-uniform diameter shank split into two half sections extending beyond the circumference of the main body of the shank, and (2) split-drive anchors are not known commercially or sold as nails." The company did the same for its crimp drive anchors, pointing out that, "(1) the crimp drive anchor must be inserted into a pre-drilled hole, (2) the crimp drive anchor includes at least one undulation in its shank, and (3) crimp drive anchors are not known commercially or sold as nails."