Thai Plastic Bags Indust., Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2013 WL 491520

TPBI challenged Commerce's remand on zeroing and the transactions-disregarded rule in the antidumping review.
Court previously remanded to require more explanation on zeroing and to review the rule’s application.
Remand Results affirmed not to aggregate negative normal-to-export margins with dumped margins under average-to-average, while the review used average-to-transaction method.
Commerce explained three comparison methods: average-to-average, transaction-to-transaction, and average-to-transaction; the modification targeted only average-to-average.
On remand, Commerce applied a per-model cost adjustment under the transactions-disregarded rule consistent with agency practice, affecting all TPBI models.
Court affirms Remand Results and judgment will be entered accordingly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether zeroing is reasonably applied in this review	TPBI argues zeroing is inconsistent with law	Commerce's interpretation aligns with statutory authority	Affirmed the Remand Results on zeroing issue
Whether Commerce correctly applied the transactions-disregarded rule on remand	TPBI contends improper application inconsistent with past practice	Commerce applied rule consistently with agency practice	Affirmed the Remand Results on transactions-disregarded rule

NSK Ltd. v. United States, 510 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (WTO jurisprudence not binding unless implemented)
Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (binding status of WTO rulings in US decisions)
Corus Staal BV v. Dep’t of Commerce, 395 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (discusses dumping definitions and zeroing context)
JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (inconsistencies between investigations and reviews require explanation)
Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (reasonableness of different methods for investigations vs. reviews)