101 F.4th 1310
Fed. Cir.2024Background
- This case concerns whether dual-stenciled pipes (pipes certified as both "standard pipe" under ASTM specs and "line pipe" under API specs) exported from Thailand are subject to a 1986 antidumping duty order on "standard pipes."
- Wheatland Tube Company sought an antidumping circumvention ruling from the Department of Commerce (Commerce) against Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co., alleging that Saha was exporting dual-stenciled pipes to evade duties.
- Commerce found dual-stenciled pipes to fall within the scope of the Thailand Order, but not singularly certified line pipes.
- The U.S. Court of International Trade disagreed, holding that the order did not cover dual-stenciled pipes, focusing on ambiguity in the order's scope and certain trade history (including prior partial petition withdrawals).
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit was tasked with determining whether Commerce's original interpretation (including dual-stenciled pipes) was supported by substantial evidence and proper legal analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Thailand antidumping order cover dual-stenciled pipes? | Saha: Dual-stenciled pipes are excluded; industry and later reviews treat them as line pipe only. | Wheatland/Commerce: Dual-stenciled pipes are still "standard pipes" within the scope if they meet ASTM specs. | The Federal Circuit held that dual-stenciled pipes are covered by the order. |
| Whether prior withdrawal of line pipe from petition excludes dual-stenciled pipes | Saha: Withdrawal included dual-stenciled pipes, as they enter under same tariff codes as line pipe. | Wheatland/Commerce: Withdrawal only covered singular line pipes, not standard pipes with additional certifications. | Court found the withdrawal did not exclude dual-stenciled pipes. |
| Whether ambiguity in scope wording ("commonly referred to as standard pipe") excludes dual-stenciled pipes | Saha: Dual-stenciled pipes are distinct in industry parlance and thus not "commonly referred to" as standard pipe. | Wheatland/Commerce: The term standard pipe includes all compliant ASTM pipes, regardless of additional certifications. | Court found no ambiguity that would exclude dual-stenciled pipes. |
| Weight of (k)(1) interpretive materials, including sunset reviews, in determining scope | Saha: Prior ITC reviews/industry evidence treat dual-stenciled pipes as outside scope. | Wheatland/Commerce: Each order is distinct; Thailand Order has no express exclusion—as others do. | Court found (k)(1) materials support Commerce; no implicit exclusion here. |
Key Cases Cited
- King Supply Co. v. United States, 674 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (deference to Commerce in interpreting antidumping orders)
- Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (scope language of order is paramount; interpretations cannot alter plain scope)
- Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 725 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (merchandise facially covered by an order may not be excluded unless order so provides)
- Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Indus. Eng’g Co. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (framework for interpreting scope of antidumping orders)
- Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (consideration of express exclusions in antidumping duty orders)