Thai Premium Pipe Company Ltd. v. United States

Slip Op. 21-118
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
SAHA THAI STEEL PIPE PUBLIC
COMPANY LIMITED,
Plaintiff,
and
THAI PREMIUM PIPE
COMPANY LTD. and PACIFIC
PIPE PUBLIC COMPANY
LIMITED,
Consolidated Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
WHEATLAND TUBE COMPANY,
Defendant-Intervenor.
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Consol. Court No. 18-00214
OPINION
[Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s second remand results in the
2016–2017 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded
carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand.]
Dated: September 17, 2021
Case 1:18-cv-00219-JCG Document 25 Filed 09/17/21 Page 1 of 7

Consol. Court No. 18-00214 	Page 2
Daniel L. Porter, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, of Washington, D.C.,
for Plaintiff Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited.
Robert G. Gosselink, Jonathan M. Freed, and Aqmar Rahman, Trade Pacific
PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiff Thai Premium Pipe
Company Ltd.
Lizbeth R. Levinson, Ronald M. Wisla, and Brittney R. Powell, Fox Rothschild
LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiff Pacific Pipe Public Company
Limited.
In K. Cho, Trial Attorney, and Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of
Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. With them on the brief were
Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Jeanne E. Davidson,
Director. Of counsel on the brief was Brendan S. Saslow, Attorney, Office of the
Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
Roger B. Schagrin and Elizabeth J. Drake, Schagrin Associates, of Washington,
D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor Wheatland Tube Company.
Choe-Groves, Judge: Plaintiff Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company
Limited (“Saha Thai”) and Consolidated Plaintiffs Thai Premium Pipe Company
Ltd. (“Thai Premium”) and Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited (“Pacific Pipe”)
filed this consolidated action challenging the final results published by the U.S.
Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) in the 2016–2017 administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from
Thailand. See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand
(“Final Results”), 83 Fed. Reg. 51,927 (Dep’t of Commerce Oct. 15, 2018) (final
results of antidumping duty admin. review; 2016–2017); see also Decision Mem.
Case 1:18-cv-00219-JCG Document 25 Filed 09/17/21 Page 2 of 7

Consol. Court No. 18-00214 	Page 3
for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Review; 2016–2017 (Oct. 4,
2018), PR 143. Before the Court are the Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to CIT Order, ECF No. 83 (“Second Remand Results”), which the Court
ordered in Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. United States (“Saha Thai II”), 44
CIT __, 487 F. Supp. 3d 1323 (2020). For the reasons discussed below, the Court
sustains the Second Remand Results.
BACKGROUND
The Court presumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history set
forth in its prior opinions and recounts the facts relevant to the Court’s review of
the Second Remand Results. See Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. v. United States
(“Saha Thai I”), 43 CIT __, __, 422 F. Supp. 3d 1363, 1365–67 (2019); Saha Thai
II, 44 CIT at __, 487 F. Supp. 3d at 1326–27.
The Court concluded in Saha Thai I that Commerce’s particular market
situation adjustment to the cost of production for the purpose of the sales-below-
cost test was not in accordance with the law and remanded to Commerce for
further consideration. 43 CIT at __, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 1369–70, 1371. Because
the Court concluded that the particular market situation adjustment was not in
accordance with the law, the Court did not consider whether the particular market
situation adjustment, without a duty drawback adjustment for Saha Thai, was
supported by substantial evidence; and whether Commerce conducted the
Case 1:18-cv-00219-JCG Document 25 Filed 09/17/21 Page 3 of 7

Consol. Court No. 18-00214 	Page 4
underlying administrative review in a fair and impartial manner in accepting the
particular market situation allegation submitted by Wheatland Tube Company and
in the opportunity Commerce gave to interested parties to offer information. Id. at
__, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 1371–72.
In the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, ECF Nos. 62,
63 (“Remand Results”), filed under respectful protest, Commerce made a
particular market situation determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(15)(C),
disregarded all home market sales without conducting a sales-below-cost test, and
calculated normal value based on constructed value. Remand Results at 1–2, 7–8.
Commerce also made a particular market situation determination under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677b(e) and calculated constructed value with an adjustment to the cost of
production as an alternative calculation methodology. Id. at 8–11. The Court
concluded in Saha Thai II that Commerce’s exclusion of home market sales,
Commerce’s particular market situation determination under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677(15)(C), Commerce’s particular market situation determination under 19
U.S.C. § 1677b(e), and Commerce’s application of an alternative calculation
methodology under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e) were not in accordance with the law and
remanded. 44 CIT at __, 487 F. Supp. 3d at 1331–35.
On second remand, Commerce “continue[d] to find that a particular market
situation existed in Thailand during the period of review that distorted the price of
Case 1:18-cv-00219-JCG Document 25 Filed 09/17/21 Page 4 of 7

Consol. Court No. 18-00214 	Page 5
hot rolled coil.” Second Remand Results at 1–2, 5. Under respectful protest,
however, Commerce recalculated the dumping margins without a particular market
situation adjustment. Id. at 2, 5–6.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court has jurisdiction under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 28
U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grant the Court authority to review actions contesting the
final results of an administrative review of an antidumping duty order. The Court
shall hold unlawful any determination found to be unsupported by substantial
evidence on the record or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). The Court also reviews determinations made on remand for
compliance with the Court’s remand order. Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm.
v. United States, 38 CIT __, __, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1290 (2014), aff’d, 802
F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
DISCUSSION
Saha Thai, Pacific Pipe, and Defendant United States ask the Court to
sustain the Second Remand Results. Pl.’s Comments Supp. Remand
Redetermination Results at 2, ECF No. 87; Consol. Pl.’s Comments Supp. Remand
Redetermination Results at 2, ECF No. 88; Def.’s Comments Supp. Second
Remand Results at 2, ECF No. 89. Defendant-Intervenor Wheatland Tube
Company supports Commerce’s redetermination filed under protest. See Def.-
Case 1:18-cv-00219-JCG Document 25 Filed 09/17/21 Page 5 of 7

Consol. Court No. 18-00214 	Page 6
Interv. Wheatland Tube Company’s Comments Commerce’s Second
Redetermination Remand at 3, ECF No. 86. No party filed comments opposing the
Second Remand Results.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that when
Commerce advocates a position zealously and must abandon that position in order
to comply with a ruling of the U.S. Court of International Trade, Commerce
preserves its right to appeal if it adopts a complying position under protest. See
Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In this
case, under protest, Commerce recalculated the weighted-average dumping
margins for Pacific Pipe, Saha Thai, and Thai Premium without a particular market
situation adjustment. Second Remand Results at 5–6. The weighted-average
dumping margins changed from 30.61% to 7.38% for Pacific Pipe, 28% to 0% for
Saha Thai, and 30.98% to 5.23% for Thai Premium. Id. at 6. Commerce’s
recalculation of the weighted-average dumping margins without a particular
market situation adjustment, under protest, is consistent with the Court’s prior
opinions and orders in Saha Thai I and Saha Thai II.
Commerce maintained its determination that a particular market situation
distorted the cost of production. Second Remand Results at 1–3, 5–6. The
reiterated determination has no effect on the dumping margins because Commerce
recalculated the dumping margins without a particular market situation adjustment.
Case 1:18-cv-00219-JCG Document 25 Filed 09/17/21 Page 6 of 7

Consol. Court No. 18-00214 	Page 7
No party challenges the determination.
Because the Court sustains Commerce’s removal of the particular market
situation adjustment, consideration of Commerce’s reiterated particular market
situation determination in the Second Remand Results would have no practical
significance and is mooted. See Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 967
F.2d 1571, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Nies, C.J., dissenting from the orders declining
suggestions for rehearing en banc) (citations omitted) (“An issue is also said to be
‘mooted’ when a court, having decided one dispositive issue, chooses not to
address another equally dispositive issue.”); Daewoo Elecs. Co. v. Int’l Union of
Elec., Elec., Tech., Salaried & Mach. Workers, 6 F.3d 1511, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(“[O]ur disposition of the tax incidence issue moots two other issues . . . .”).
The Court sustains the Second Remand Results without considering
Commerce’s reiterated particular market situation determination in the Second
Remand Results.
CONCLUSION
The Court sustains the Second Remand Results.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: 	September 17, 2021
New York, New York
Case 1:18-cv-00219-JCG Document 25 Filed 09/17/21 Page 7 of 7