422 F.Supp.3d 1363
Ct. Int'l Trade2019Background:
- Commerce conducted an administrative review (Mar 1, 2016–Feb 28, 2017) of the antidumping order on circular welded carbon steel pipes from Thailand; mandatory respondents included Saha Thai, Pacific Pipe, and Thai Premium.
- Domestic producer Wheatland alleged a "particular market situation" (PMS) in Thailand: Thai subsidies and distorted imports of hot-rolled coil depressed input prices, so costs of production were distorted.
- Commerce accepted Wheatland’s submission, found a PMS, and applied a PMS adjustment to respondents’ hot-rolled coil costs, which substantially increased computed antidumping margins.
- Commerce applied the PMS cost adjustment when comparing U.S. sales to home-market sales (i.e., in the home-market sales-below-cost test), not only in constructed-value calculations.
- Plaintiffs challenged the Final Results in the CIT; the court held Commerce’s PMS adjustment was not in accordance with law and remanded for further consideration; other procedural and duty-drawback issues were not decided because of the remand.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Lawful use of PMS cost adjustment in sales-below-cost test | Commerce cannot apply a PMS cost adjustment (19 U.S.C. §1677b(e)) to cost calculations used in home-market sales-below-cost comparisons. | TPEA/§1677b(e) permits adjusting costs when PMS prevents accurate cost measures; Commerce may adjust costs in margin calculations regardless of whether comparison is to home-market sales or constructed value. | Court: PMS authority in §1677b(e) applies to constructed value calculations; Commerce misapplied PMS to home-market sales-below-cost test — not in accordance with law; remand. |
| 2. Sales-based vs. cost-based PMS distinction | The statute treats sales-based PMS (19 U.S.C. §1677(15)) and cost-based PMS (§1677b(e)) differently; Commerce conflated them and improperly relied on sales-based amendments to justify cost adjustment. | The TPEA expanded "ordinary course of trade" and Commerce can consider PMS that prevents proper comparisons between markets. | Court: Commerce conflated distinct provisions; post-hoc rationalizations insufficient; PMS cost adjustment cannot be applied in sales-based comparison. |
| 3. Procedural fairness / bias in the review (timeliness, acceptance of Wheatland submission, briefing schedule) | Commerce departed from its prior two-step approach and accepted untimely/new factual submissions and gave insufficient opportunity to respond, showing bias. | Commerce provided adequate process and reasonable briefing schedule adjustments under its regulations. | Court: Did not decide because remand on PMS disposes of the primary legal error; refused to reach fairness claims. |
| 4. Duty drawback adjustment and exhaustion | Saha Thai argued Commerce should have granted a duty-drawback adjustment for imputed Thai AD/safeguard duties on hot-rolled coil; raised in ministerial-error comments. | Defendants argue Saha Thai failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that record shows ineligibility for drawback. | Court: Did not resolve exhaustion or merits; deferred pending remand of PMS issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ad Hoc Comm. v. United States, 13 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (statutory text controls Commerce interpretations when statute is not silent)
- Thomas v. Nicholson, 423 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (statutory omissions are interpreted as deliberate)
- Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (U.S. 1983) (different statutory language in adjacent provisions indicates deliberate congressional intent)
- Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1992) (courts presume a legislature says in a statute what it means)
- Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 862 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Commerce must follow statutory limits in antidumping calculations)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (deference framework for agency statutory interpretation)
- Rates Tech., Inc. v. Mediatrix Telecom, Inc., 688 F.3d 742 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (court may decide dispositive motions on written submissions)