Stupp Corp. v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1293

Background

Commerce investigated antidumping duties on welded line pipe from Korea for Oct 1, 2013–Sept 30, 2014; HYSCO and SeAH were mandatory respondents; final determination issued Oct. 2015 and amended Nov. 2015.
Commerce applied its differential pricing analysis (Cohen's d, ratio and meaningful-difference tests) and used mixed or A‑to‑T methodologies for respondents, increasing some margins from the preliminary determination.
SeAH filed a case brief on Sept. 1, 2015; Commerce rejected portions as untimely new factual information under 19 C.F.R. § 351.102/351.301; Maverick’s supplemental brief was wholly rejected as beyond the permitted scope.
Commerce calculated imputed credit expenses for SeAH’s back‑to‑back sales from shipment to payment and excluded time‑on‑water inventory carrying costs from CEP adjustments.
Stupp et al. challenged Commerce’s treatment of pipe grades B and X42 for model matching; Maverick challenged inclusion of certain HYSCO “local sales” in the home‑market database as actually being export‑oriented.
Court consolidated related actions and reviewed Commerce’s determinations under the substantial‑evidence/APA standards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rejection of portions of SeAH’s case brief	SeAH: material was not "factual information" or was timely and Commerce abandoned continuing comment on differential pricing	Commerce: submissions were new factual information and untimely under regs	Sustained: Commerce reasonably treated the material as new factual information and rejection was lawful
Differential‑pricing analysis (Cohen’s d, ratio, meaningful‑difference)	SeAH: method lacks statutory basis, misuses Cohen's d, fails to show A‑to‑A cannot account for differences, and zeroing is unlawful	Commerce: method is a reasonable exercise of statutory discretion and supported by record; A‑to‑T required where A‑to‑A cannot account for masked dumping	Sustained: Commerce’s methodology is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence
Credit expenses on SeAH’s back‑to‑back sales	SeAH: Commerce erred by deducting credit expenses that originate outside U.S., contrary to 19 U.S.C. §1677a(d)(1)	Commerce: imputed credit expense properly measured from shipment to payment; inventory carrying costs treated separately	Sustained: Commerce lawfully calculated credit expenses from shipment to payment and distinguished inventory carrying costs
Product matching: Grades B vs X42	Stupp et al.: Commerce should collapse or recode grades since specs overlap and narrow sample shows overlap	Commerce: grades have distinct certification, chemistry, and yield strength requirements; no evidence of manipulation	Sustained: Commerce reasonably treated grades B and X42 as separate control‑numbers for model matching
Inclusion of certain HYSCO local sales in home‑market database	Maverick: sales were effectively exports; Commerce relied on actual knowledge rather than objective (imputed) inquiry and ignored record evidence (VAT treatment, port delivery, buyer capabilities)	Commerce: concluded HYSCO lacked knowledge and pointed to customers who might further manufacture and to limits of record evidence	Remanded: Commerce failed to address record evidence detracting from its conclusion and should further explain/reconsider, possibly seek letters of credit or reopen record
Rejection of Maverick’s supplemental case brief	Maverick: rejection was an abuse of discretion because the revised databases (by HYSCO) warranted supplemental analysis and rebuttal; the brief analyzed effects of those revisions	Commerce: brief raised issues that should have been in the primary brief and exceeded supplemental scope	Held: Abuse of discretion—Commerce allowed supplemental briefing on revisions and must place on the record those portions of Maverick’s brief that address effects of HYSCO’s database revisions

Key Cases Cited

Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 144 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (CIT 2016) (supports treating certain submissions as factual information and examining timeliness)
Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 862 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirms district court on differential‑pricing methodology issues)
Tri Union Frozen Prods., Inc. v. United States, 163 F. Supp. 3d 1255 (CIT 2016) (addresses scope and timeliness of factual submissions and expert analyses)
Fujitsu Gen. Ltd. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (agency discretion in methodological choices)
Torrington Co. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (deference to Commerce on complex economic decisions)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (agency must provide a reasoned explanation for discretionary choices)
Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Co. v. United States, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1329 (CIT 2018) (Commerce has discretion to create Cohen's d‑based test)
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (substantial‑evidence review must account for record evidence that detracts)
NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (limits on Commerce rejecting corrective information as abuse of discretion)
Corus Staal BV v. Dep't of Commerce, 395 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (WTO reports are not self‑executing U.S. law)