Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Co. Ltd. v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2811
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes from Thailand; Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Co. Ltd. is the sole Thai respondent; Commerce granted a duty drawback adjustment increasing Saha's EP and also included exempted duties in COP and CV; Saha’s inputs included bonded warehouse imports with duty exemptions; domestic producers challenged both the drawback and COP/CV inclusion; Trade Court remanded on yield-factor calculation, which was resolved on remand, and the Trade Court and Federal Circuit affirmed.
- Bonded warehouse program in Thailand exempts duties on imported inputs used for exports; the exemption conditions export within one year.
- Commerce used Saha’s actual yield factors on the drawback adjustment; it also applied a matching principle requiring COP and CV to reflect the same duty exemptions as EP.
- The court applied Chevron deference to Commerce’s interpretation of §1677b and §1677a, and held that Commerce reasonably included exempted duties in COP and CV to avoid distortions in NV.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trade Court’s final results, upholding both the duty drawback adjustment and the inclusion of exempted duties in COP/CV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the duty drawback adjustment was lawful under §1677a(c)(1)(B). | Saha argues exemption-based duties should not raise EP. | Commerce’s interpretation allows adjustment when duties are not collected due to export. | Yes; adjustment lawful under statute. |
| Whether exempted duties must be included in COP and CV under the matching principle. | Saha contends no costs reflect exempted duties so COP/CV should exclude them. | Matching principle requires EP, COP, CV to reflect duty exemptions to avoid distortion. | Yes; include in COP and CV. |
| Whether Commerce’s interpretation of §1677b is permissible under Chevron deference. | Chevron should limit deference due to ambiguity in statute. | Interpretation is reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference. | Permissible construction; Chevron deference applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hornos Electricos de Venezuela v. United States, 285 F.Supp.2d 1353 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003) (duty drawback context and NV/EP considerations)
- Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372 (Fed.Cir. 2001) (Chevron deference to agency statutory interpretations)
- Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (Supreme Court 1991) (agency policy changes can be reasonable; deference applies)
- Thai Pineapple Public Co., Ltd. v. United States, 187 F.3d 1362 (Fed.Cir. 1999) (records reflection of costs; deviation allowed when necessary)
- NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204 (Fed.Cir. 1995) (Commerce may reject company records if not cost-reflective)
- European Trading, 27 C.C.P.A. 289 (1940) (export rebate costs; limits on including certain costs in COP)