2025 CIT 71
Ct. Int'l Trade2025Background
- The Department of Commerce (Commerce) reviewed antidumping duties on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand for the 2019–2020 period, with Saha Thai and Blue Pipe Steel Center as respondents (only Saha Thai is party here).
- Commerce calculated Saha Thai's antidumping margins, relying on responses to supplemental questionnaires about company affiliations, which can affect duty calculations.
- Commerce initially found Saha Thai had not diligently disclosed potential affiliations, particularly with seven companies flagged via evidence from Wheatland Tube; BNK Steel Co. was unique in only sharing a human resources manager with Saha Thai.
- Commerce used adverse facts available (AFA), applying a higher margin when it believed Saha Thai failed to cooperate fully; Saha Thai challenged this, noting a shared HR manager does not meet the statutory test for affiliation.
- The Court previously remanded Commerce’s findings regarding both (1) inclusion of dual-stenciled pipe and (2) the affiliation between Saha Thai and BNK, finding insufficient support for Commerce’s position.
- On the second remand, Commerce followed the Federal Circuit’s decision to include dual-stenciled pipe, but still protested the BNK affiliation’s outcome by attempting to justify its AFA finding on different grounds than previously stated, leading to further remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dual-stenciled pipe is within the scope | Inclusion is improper | Inclusion is proper under Federal Circuit precedent | Commerce's inclusion sustained; no party contests |
| Whether substantial evidence supports BNK affiliation | No statutory basis for affiliation | AFA justified due to incomplete disclosures by Saha Thai | Not supported by substantial evidence; remanded |
| Can Commerce change AFA rationale on remand | Commerce must stick to original rationale | Commerce justified AFA on new questionnaire question | Commerce erred by switching rationales without disclosure |
| Proper process for agency position change on remand | Must acknowledge and explain change | Commerce offered new reason without clear admission | Commerce violated admin. law by rewriting rationale |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020) (courts review agency action on the grounds invoked at the time)
- Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633 (1990) (agency may offer fuller explanation on remand, not new rationale)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (agency must acknowledge when changing position and explain new reasoning)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency must supply reasoned analysis when changing policy)
- Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962) (agency may not substitute new grounds for decision on review)