Thai Plastic Bags Indus., Co., Ltd. v. United States, 949 F. Supp. 2d 1298

This case involves TPBI and Landblue's antidumping dumping margin calculations for Thai-origin polyethylene carrier bags, reviewed after a remand from TPBI Remand Order.
Two remanded issues were: (i) whether TPBI's G&A expenses properly offset by asset-sale revenues, distinguishing routine from nonroutine asset dispositions; and (ii) whether Landblue's surrogate selling expenses should be calculated using Thantawan's data with TPBI's direct/indirect expense ratio.
On remand, Commerce concluded the land-sale gain was nonroutine and eliminated the corresponding offset from G&A expenses.
Commerce also reaffirmed using Thantawan as Landblue's surrogate and applying TPBI's direct/indirect ratio to Thantawan's selling expenses to produce a CV for Landblue.
The Domestic Producers argued Commerce had a long-standing policy against disaggregating balance sheet line items, allegedly changed in 2007, and sought dismissal of the approach; the court rejected that claim as mischaracterized.
The court ultimately affirmed Commerce's remand results and declined to reopen Landblue's profit calculation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether land-sale revenues may offset TPBI's G&A expenses.	TPBI contends land sale revenues are routine gains that should offset G&A.	Commerce properly treated the land sale as nonroutine, excluding it from the offset.	Affirmed; land sale revenues excluded as nonroutine.
Whether TPBI's ratio of direct to indirect selling expenses should be applied to Thantawan for Landblue's CV.	TPBI's ratio more accurately reflects TPBI's selling cost structure and should be used.	Thantawan is an adequate surrogate; applying TPBI's ratio yields a more accurate CV for Landblue.	Affirmed; use of TPBI's direct/indirect ratio applied to Thantawan is justified.
Whether the Department was required to reopen Landblue's profit calculation on remand.	Remand required reconsideration of profit using different surrogate data.	No obligation to reopen profit; remand order did not require it.	Affirmed; no reopening of Landblue's profit.

Jinan Yipin Corp. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (CIT 2009) (standard of review for remand determinations)
Transactive Corp. v. United States, 91 F.3d 232 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (arbitrary agency action; balancing test in decision-making)
Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd. v. United States, 36 CIT 865 (2012) (discretion to go behind surrogate balance sheets in NME context)
Magnesium Corp. of Am. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (avoidance of line-item disaggregation where distortions may occur)