Downhole Pipe & Equipment, LP et al v. United States

Slip Op. 13-
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
DOWNHOLE PIPE & EQUIPMENT, LP, 	:
and DP-MASTER MANUFACTURING 	:
CO., LTD., 	:
:
Plaintiffs, 	:
: Before: Nicholas Tsoucalas,
v. 	: 	Senior Judge
:
UNITED STATES, 	: Court No.: 11-00081
:
Defendant, 	:
:
and 	:
:
VAM DRILLING USA, TEXAS STEEL 	:
CONVERSION, INC., ROTARY 	:
DRILLING TOOLS, TMK IPSCO, and 	:
U.S. STEEL CORP., 	:
:
Defendant-Intervenors. :
:
OPINION
[The Department of Commerce’s remand determination is sustained]
Dated:
Mark 	B. 	Lehnardt, 	Lehnardt 	& 	Lehnardt, 	LLC, 	of 	Liberty, 	MO,
and 	Irene 	H. 	Chen, 	Chen 	Law 	Group 	LLC, 	of 	Rockville, 	MD, 	for
plaintiffs.
Mikki 	Cottet, 	Senior 	Trial 	Counsel, 	Commercial 	Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington,
DC, 	for 	defendant. 	With 	her 	on 	the 	brief 	were 	Stuart 	F. 	Delery,
Acting 	Assistant 	Attorney 	General, 	Jeanne 	E. 	Davidson, 	Director,
and Todd M. Hughes, Deputy Director. 	Of counsel on the brief was
Nathaniel J. Halvorson, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington,
DC.
Roger 	B. 	Schagrin 	and 	John 	W. 	Bohn, 	Schagrin 	Associates, 	of
Washington, DC, for VAM Drilling USA, Texas Steel Conversion, Inc.,
Rotary Drilling Tools, and TMK IPSCO.
TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge: 	This matter is before the court
1RYHPEHU
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 1 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 2
following 	remand 	to 	the 	Department 	of 	Commerce 	(“Commerce”) 	in
Downhole Pipe & Equip. LP v. United States, 36 CIT __, 887 F. Supp.
2d 	1311 	(2012) 	(“Downhole 	I”). 	Commerce 	issued 	its 	remand
redetermination in May 2013. 	See Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant 	to 	Court 	Remand 	(May 	13, 	2013), 	ECF 	No. 	94 	(“Remand
Results”). 	Plaintiffs Downhole Pipe & Equipment, LP, and DP-Master
Manufacturing 	Co., 	Ltd. 	(“DP-Master” 	and, 	collectively,
“Plaintiffs”), 	contest 	the 	Remand 	Results. 	For 	the 	reasons
discussed below, the court sustains the Remand Results.
BACKGROUND
The 	relevant 	facts 	and 	procedural 	history 	of 	this 	case
are 	set 	forth 	in 	Downhole 	I, 	36 	CIT 	at 	__, 	887 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	at
1315–18, 	and 	are 	summarized 	briefly 	herein. 	Drill 	pipes 	are
“specialized high-strength iron alloy tube[s]” used in oil drilling
applications 	alongside 	other 	so-called 	oil 	country 	tubular 	goods
(“OCTG”). 	Id. 	at 	__, 	887 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	at 	1315. 	In 	the 	original
proceeding, Commerce determined that “drill pipe from the [People’s
Republic 	of 	China 	(“PRC”)] 	is 	being, 	or 	is 	likely 	to 	be, 	sold 	in
the United States at [less than fair value (“LTFV”)]”. 	Drill Pipe
From 	the 	PRC: 	Final 	Determination 	of 	Sales 	at 	LTFV 	and 	Critical
Circumstances, 	76 	Fed. 	Reg. 	1966, 	1966 	(Jan. 	11, 	2011) 	(“Final
Determination”).
The Final Determination specifically targeted drill pipe
green tubes (“DPGT”), an input for drill pipe defined as “seamless
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 2 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 3
tubes 	with 	an 	outer 	diameter 	of 	less 	than 	or 	equal 	to 	6 	5/8
inches[,] 	. 	. 	. 	containing 	between 	0.16 	and 	0.75 	percent
molybdenum, and containing between 0.75 and 1.45 percent chromium.”
Id. 	at 	1967. 	Commerce 	determined 	the 	surrogate 	value 	for 	DPGT
using 	import 	data 	for 	Indian 	Harmonized 	Tariff 	Schedule 	(“IHTS”)
categories 	7304.23 	and 	7304.29. 	See 	Drill 	Pipe 	from 	the 	PRC:
Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination at 31–32
(Jan. 3, 2011), A-570-965.
In Downhole I, the Court remanded the Final Determination
to 	Commerce 	with 	instructions 	to 	reconsider 	the 	surrogate 	values
for DPGT and the labor wage rate. 	Downhole I, 36 CIT at __, 887	1
F. 	Supp. 	2d 	at 	1330. 	The 	Court 	held 	that 	Commerce 	failed 	to
address Infodrive data contradicting its finding that DPGT entered
India 	under 	IHTS 	7304.23 	and 	7304.29 	during 	the 	period 	of
investigation. 	Id. at __, 887 F. Supp. 2d at 1324–25. 	The Court
acknowledged 	that 	the 	IHTS 	subheadings 	may 	in 	fact 	be 	the 	best
available 	information, 	but 	it 	could 	not 	affirm 	the 	Final
Determination 	on 	the 	basis 	of 	the 	explanation 	Commerce 	provided.
Id. at __, 887 F. Supp. 2d at 1325.
On 	remand, 	Commerce 	examined 	a 	number 	of 	potential
On 	remand, 	Commerce 	selected 	data 	from 	“Chapter 	6A: 	Labor	1
Cost 	in 	Manufacturing” 	in 	the 	ILO 	Yearbook 	for 	India 	as 	the
surrogate 	value 	for 	the 	labor 	wage 	rate. 	Remand 	Results 	at 	18.
Plaintiffs 	do 	not 	allege 	error 	in 	their 	submission 	to 	the 	court.
See Pls.’ Comments on Remand Redetermination (“Pls.’ Cmts.”).
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 3 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 4
surrogate values for DPGT, including: import data for IHTS 7304.23,
7304.29, 	and 	7304.59; 	price 	data 	on 	P1110 	and 	J/K 	55 	tubes 	from
Metal 	Bulletin 	Research; 	and 	adjusted 	values 	for 	alloy 	steel
billets and seamless tubes. 	See Draft Results of Redetermination
Pursuant 	to 	Remand 	at 	4 	(Apr. 	5, 	2013), 	ECF 	No. 	119-2 	(“Draft
Results”). 	Commerce 	initially 	selected 	price 	data 	for 	imports
under IHTS 7304.59.10 and 7304.59.20, “circular, seamless, alloy”
classifications 	covering 	“products 	which 	are 	not 	properly
classified 	as 	drill 	pipe, 	OCTG, 	or 	a 	number 	of 	other 	clearly-
delineated types of tubes.” 	Id. at 15. 	Commerce found that the	2
IHTS 7304.59 data was most representative of DPGT, contemporaneous
with the period of investigation, duty and tax exclusive, publicly
available, 	and 	represented 	a 	broad 	market 	average. 	See 	id. 	at
15–16. 	Commerce 	“confirmed” 	its 	analysis 	with 	a 	National 	Import
Specialist at United States Customs and Border Protection (“CPB”).
Memorandum 	from 	Toni 	Datch, 	re: 	Remand 	Redetermination 	in 	the
Investigation 	of 	Drill 	Pipe 	from 	the 	PRC 	at 	1 	(Mar. 	26, 	2013),
A-570-965 (“NIS Memo”).
For the final results, Commerce selected import data from
IHTS 7304.59.20 alone to value DPGT. 	See Remand Results at 14–18.
Commerce 	concluded 	that 	Infodrive 	data 	Plaintiffs 	placed 	on 	the
IHTS 7304.59.10 and 7304.59.20 differ only in terms of the	2
size 	of 	the 	tubes 	they 	cover: 	IHTS 	7304.59.10 	covers 	tubes 	with
diameters up to 114.3 mm, while IHTS 7304.59.20 covers tubes with
diameters between 114.3 mm and 219.1 mm. 	Remand Results at 5.
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 4 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 5
record 	conclusively 	demonstrated 	that 	DPGT 	did 	not 	enter 	India
under IHTS 7304.59.10, but did not foreclose the possibility that
DPGT entered under IHTS 7304.59.20. 	Id. at 14. 	Commerce continued
to 	find 	that 	import 	data 	for 	IHTS 	7304.59.20 	best 	met 	its
preferences for surrogate values. 	Id.
Plaintiffs 	filed 	comments 	alleging 	that 	the 	Remand
Results were unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise not
in accordance with law. 	See Pls.’ Cmts. at 7–23. 	Plaintiffs ask
the court to remand again with guidance on an acceptable range of
surrogate values for DPGT. 	See id. at 23–25.
JURISDICTION and STANDARD OF REVIEW
The 	court 	has 	jurisdiction 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§
1581(c) 	(2006) 	and 	section 	516A(a)(2)(B)(i) 	of 	the 	Tariff 	Act 	of
1930, 	as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i) (2006).	3
The court will uphold Commerce’s remand redetermination
unless it is “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or
otherwise 	not 	in 	accordance 	with 	law.” 	19 	U.S.C. 	§
1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). 	“‘Substantial 	evidence 	. 	. 	. 	means 	such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.’” 	Goldlink Indus. Co. v. United States, 30
CIT 616, 618, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1326 (2006) (quoting Universal
All further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 are to the	3
relevant 	provisions 	of 	Title 	19 	of 	the 	United 	States 	Code, 	2006
edition, and all applicable supplements thereto.
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 5 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 6
Camera 	Corp. 	v. 	NLRB, 	340 	U.S. 	474, 	477 	(1951)). 	Under 	this
standard, “an agency ‘must examine the relevant data and articulate
a 	satisfactory 	explanation 	for 	its 	action 	including 	a 	rational
connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” 	Gerber
Food (Yunnan) Co. v. United States, 31 CIT 921, 926, 491 F. Supp.
2d 	1326, 	1333 	(2007) 	(quoting 	Motor 	Vehicle 	Mfrs. 	Ass’n 	v. 	State
Farm 	Mut. 	Auto 	Ins. 	Co., 	463 	U.S. 	29, 	43 	(1983)). 	Nevertheless,
“the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the
evidence 	does 	not 	invalidate 	Commerce’s 	conclusion 	as 	long 	as 	it
remains supported by substantial evidence.” 	Zhaoqing New Zhongya
Aluminum Co. v. United States, 36 CIT __, __, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1301,
1305 (2012) (citing Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 488).
DISCUSSION
Commerce 	determines 	the 	normal 	value 	of 	subject
merchandise produced in a non-market economy (“NME”) “on the basis
of the value of the factors of production utilized in producing the
merchandise” 	in 	a 	comparable 	market 	economy. 	19 	U.S.C. 	§
1677b(c)(1). 	In 	selecting 	these 	surrogate 	values, 	Commerce 	must
use the “best available information.” 	Id. 	Commerce “normally will
use 	publicly 	available 	information” 	from 	a 	single 	country, 	19
C.F.R. 	§ 	351.408(c)(1), 	(2) 	(2013), 	and 	it 	“prefers 	data 	that
reflects a broad market average, is . . . contemporaneous with the
period of review, specific to the input in question, and exclusive
of taxes on exports.” 	Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co. v. United States,
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 6 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 7
36 CIT __, __, 837 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1350–51 (2012).
“[T]he process of constructing foreign market value for
a 	producer 	in 	a 	[NME] 	country 	is 	difficult 	and 	necessarily
imprecise.” 	Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1373,
1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). 	Commerce
has “broad discretion to determine the best available information,”
Goldlink, 	30 	CIT 	at 	619, 	431 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	at 	1327 	(internal
quotation 	marks 	omitted), 	and 	“[i]f 	Commerce’s 	determination 	of
what constitutes the best available information is reasonable, then
the Court must defer to Commerce.” 	Id., 431 F. Supp. 2d at 1327.
Plaintiffs 	argue 	that 	Commerce 	erroneously 	determined
that 	IHTS 	7304.59.20 	was 	the 	best 	available 	information 	because
IHTS 7304.59.20 is not representative of DPGT and Commerce did not
provide adequate justification for rejecting non-IHTS alternative
values on the record. See Pls.’ Cmts. at 8–23.
I. Commerce Reasonably Concluded that IHTS 7304.59.20 Best
Represented DPGT
Plaintiffs argue that Commerce erred in finding that IHTS
7304.59.20 	was 	representative 	of 	DPGT 	because: 	(1) 	Commerce’s
analysis 	of 	Indian 	tariff 	classifications 	was 	inadequate; 	(2)
Commerce 	failed 	to 	address 	Infodrive 	data 	indicating 	that 	IHTS
7304.59.20 	was 	not 	representative 	of 	DPGT 	or 	DP-Master’s
merchandise; 	(3) 	Commerce 	ignored 	evidence 	indicating 	that 	the
average 	unit 	value 	(“AUV”) 	of 	entries 	under 	IHTS 	7304.59.20 	was
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 7 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 8
“aberrantly 	high;” 	and 	(4) 	Commerce 	improperly 	relied 	on 	the 	NIS
Memo. 	See Pls.’ Cmts. at 8–21.
A. Analysis of Indian Tariff Classifications
Plaintiffs 	argue 	that 	“Commerce’s 	legal 	analysis 	of
tariff classifications was inadequate” because Commerce dismissed
alternative IHTS subheadings without considering “legal principles”
such as General Rule of Interpretation 2(a). 	Pls.’ Cmts. at 13.	4
Plaintiffs insist further analysis was necessary given Commerce’s
change in position from the Final Determination and record evidence
indicating that petitioners classified DPGT under subheadings other
than 7304.59. 	Id. at 13–15.
Plaintiffs 	fail 	to 	demonstrate 	that 	Commerce’s 	IHTS
analysis was inadequate. 	First, Plaintiffs do not cite any legal
authority 	demonstrating 	that 	Commerce 	must 	conduct 	a 	full
classification 	analysis 	when 	considering 	import 	data 	from 	a
particular foreign tariff 	heading as a surrogate value. 	Second,	5
Plaintiffs 	provide 	virtually 	no 	legal 	analysis 	contravening
GRI 	2(a) 	reads: 	“Any 	reference 	in 	a 	heading 	to 	an 	article	4
shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or
unfinished, provided that, as entered, the incomplete or unfinished
article 	has 	the 	essential 	character 	of 	the 	complete 	or 	finished
article.”
Plaintiffs 	also 	fail 	to 	provide 	guidance 	on 	why 	CBP	5
regulations should apply to the classification of DPGT under IHTS
categories 	over 	Indian 	laws 	and 	regulations. 	The 	court 	need 	not
address this matter because Commerce’s selection of IHTS 7304.59.20
was reasonable on the basis of the record as a whole.
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 8 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 9
Commerce’s 	selection. 	This 	court 	has 	ruled 	that 	Commerce 	should
not 	rely 	on 	a 	basket 	tariff 	category 	if 	a 	more 	representative
surrogate 	value 	is 	available. 	See 	Arch 	Chems., 	Inc. 	v. 	United
States, 	33 	CIT 	954, 	972 	(2009) 	(not 	reported 	in 	the 	Federal
Supplement) (citing Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Comm. v. United
States, 	29 	CIT 	1418, 	1444 	(2005) 	(not 	reported 	in 	the 	Federal
Supplement)). 	Here, 	Commerce 	reasonably 	concluded 	that 	IHTS
7304.59.20 	was 	more 	representative 	of 	DPGT 	than 	the 	alternative
IHTS 	categories 	on 	the 	record. 	See 	Draft 	Results 	at 	5–6, 	15–16;
Remand Results at 14–18. 	Commerce concluded that IHTS 7304.23 was
not 	representative 	of 	DPGT 	because 	it 	captured 	processed 	semi-
finished drill pipe. 	See Draft Results at 5 (unchanged in Remand
Results). 	Similarly, Commerce concluded that IHTS 7304.29 was not
representative 	of 	DPGT 	because 	it 	captured 	“semi-finished 	[OCTG]
casing 	and 	tubing,” 	which 	is 	not 	an 	input 	for 	drill 	pipe. 	Id.
(unchanged 	in 	Remand 	Results). 	In 	contrast, 	Commerce 	found 	that
IHTS 7304.59.20 better represented DPGT because it was a “circular,
seamless, alloy category cover[ing] products which are not properly
classified 	as 	drill 	pipe, 	OCTG, 	or 	a 	number 	of 	other 	clearly-
delineated 	types 	of 	tubes.” 	Id. 	at 	15 	(unchanged 	in 	Remand
Results). 	Commerce “confirmed” its analysis with the professional
opinion 	of 	a 	CPB 	official. 	See 	NIS 	Memo 	at 	1. 	Accordingly,
Commerce’s 	classification 	analysis 	was 	reasonable. 	See 	Gerber
Food, 31 CIT at 926, 491 F. Supp. 2d at 1333 (quoting Motor Vehicle
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 9 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 10
Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43).
B. Infodrive Data
Plaintiffs 	also 	argue 	that 	Infodrive 	data 	demonstrates
that 	7304.59.20 	is 	not 	representative 	of 	DPGT 	generally, 	or 	DP-
Master’s 	DPGT. 	See 	Pls.’ 	Cmts. 	at 	16–18. 	Plaintiffs 	cite
Infodrive data indicating that there were no entries of DPGT in at
least 60% of the entries under IHTS 7304.59.20 during the period of
investigation. 	See 	id. 	at 	16. 	In 	light 	of 	this 	evidence 	and
Infodrive 	data 	indicating 	that 	DPGT 	did 	not 	enter 	under 	IHTS
7304.59.10 	at 	all, 	Plaintiffs 	conclude 	that 	Commerce 	erroneously
selected IHTS 7304.59.20 data to value DPGT. 	See id. at 17–18.
Plaintiffs 	essentially 	compare 	Commerce’s 	selection 	of
IHTS 	7304.59.20 	to 	the 	surrogate 	value 	for 	DPGT 	that 	the 	Court
remanded in Downhole I. 	See id. at 17. 	In that opinion, the Court
recognized Infodrive’s “utility . . . as a supplement to aggregated
IHTS 	data,” 	but 	also 	noted 	that 	“Commerce 	need 	not 	rely 	on
Infodrive 	data 	that 	is 	incomplete 	or 	demonstrably 	inaccurate.”
Downhole I, 36 CIT at __, 887 F. Supp. 2d at 1323. 	The Court also
acknowledged 	that 	“Commerce 	is 	obliged 	to 	address 	Infodrive 	data
offered 	in 	rebuttal 	if 	it 	specifies 	a 	‘definite 	and 	substantial
percentage’ of imports under a particular IHTS category.” 	Id., 887
F. Supp. 2d at 1323 (quoting Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States,
35 CIT __, __, Slip Op. 11-21 at 17 (Feb. 17, 2011) (not reported
in 	Federal 	Supplement)). 	The 	Court 	remanded 	Commerce’s 	IHTS
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 10 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 11
classification 	because 	Commerce 	failed 	to 	explain 	contradictory
Infodrive data. 	Id. at __, 887 F. Supp. 2d at 1325. 	It also noted
that 	IHTS 	7304.23 	and 	7304.29 	might 	be 	the 	best 	available
information, 	but 	Commerce 	had 	to 	substantially 	support 	its
selection in light of the Infodrive data. 	Id., 887 F. Supp. 2d at
1325. 	See 	also 	Calgon, 	35 	CIT 	at 	__, 	Slip 	Op. 	11-21 	at 	17–18
(remanding 	where 	Commerce 	failed 	to 	substantially 	support 	its
tariff 	classification 	while 	taking 	into 	account 	incomplete 	but
contradictory Infodrive data).
In 	contrast 	to 	the 	facts 	in 	Downhole 	I, 	here 	Commerce
explained why its decision retained substantial record support in
light 	of 	the 	Infodrive 	data. 	See 	Remand 	Results 	at 	16–17. 	As
noted 	above, 	Commerce 	selected 	IHTS 	7304.59.20 	based 	on 	its 	own
analysis 	of 	the 	IHTS 	and 	the 	professional 	opinion 	of 	a 	CBP
official. 	See 	Draft 	Results 	at 	5–6, 	15–16; 	Remand 	Results 	at
14–16. 	With specific regard to the Infodrive data, Commerce noted
that 	IHTS 	7304.59.20 	was 	not 	limited 	to 	DPGT 	as 	it 	is 	“a 	basket
category covering multiple types of seamless alloy tubes that could
not be classified elsewhere.” 	Id. at 16–17. 	Additionally, given
that the other IHTS subheadings did not capture DPGT, and “without
information corroborating what the remainder of the overall imports
consist[ed] of,” Commerce concluded that IHTS 7304.59.20 was still
most representative of DPGT. 	See id. at 17. 	Because it addressed
the Infodrive data in compliance with the requirements articulated
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 11 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 12
in Downhole I and Calgon, Commerce’s analysis was reasonable. 	See
Downhole I, 36 CIT at __, 887 F. Supp. 2d at 1325; Calgon, 35 CIT
at __, Slip Op. 11-21 at 17–18.
Plaintiffs also argue that the Infodrive data established
that 	IHTS 	7304.59.20 	was 	not 	representative 	of 	DP-Master’s 	DPGT.
Pls.’ Br. at 17. 	According to Plaintiffs, 70% of DP-Master’s DPGT
was of the diameter covered by IHTS 7304.59.10. 	Id. 	As Infodrive
data indicated that DPGT did not enter India under IHTS 7304.59.10,
and 	IHTS 	7304.59.20 	does 	not 	correspond 	to 	70% 	of 	DP-Master’s
merchandise, Plaintiffs insist that the surrogate value should not
apply to that merchandise. 	See Pls.’ Br. at 17–18.
This 	argument 	is 	unconvincing. 	As 	noted 	above,
determining 	a 	surrogate 	value 	is 	“difficult 	and 	necessarily
imprecise.” 	Nation 	Ford 	Chem. 	Co., 	166 	F.3d 	at 	1377. 	Although
IHTS 	7304.59.20 	does 	not 	perfectly 	cover 	DP-Master’s 	DPGT,
Commerce’s 	decision 	was 	reasonable 	nonetheless 	given 	the 	record
support 	for 	IHTS 	7304.59.20 	and 	the 	relative 	weakness 	of 	the
alternative values. 	See QVD Food Co. v. United States, 34 CIT __,
__, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 1318 (2010) (when considering “imperfect
alternatives” 	for 	a 	surrogate 	value, 	Commerce’s 	selection 	is
reasonable if supported with substantial evidence in the record),
aff’d 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
C. AUV of Entries Under IHTS 7304.59.20
Third, Plaintiffs argue that Commerce failed to address
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 12 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 13
its claim that the $4,978.08/MT AUV of IHTS 7304.59.20 entries was
“aberrantly 	high.” 	See 	Pls.’ 	Cmts. 	at 	18. 	According 	to
Plaintiffs, 	record 	evidence 	demonstrated 	that 	DPGT 	comprises
approximately 30% of the value of finished drill pipe. 	Id. at 20.
Because 	the 	AUV 	for 	IHTS 	7304.59.20 	entries 	is 	nearly 	double 	the
$2,511.67/MT 	AUV 	for 	entries 	of 	finished 	and 	semi-finished 	drill
pipe under IHTS 7304.23, Plaintiffs insist that “no reasonable mind
could accept this value.” 	Id. at 18.
“‘[W]hen confronted with a colorable claim that the data
that Commerce is considering is aberrational, Commerce must examine
the data and provide a reasoned explanation as to why the data it
chooses is reliable and non-distortive.’” 	See Xinjiamei Furniture
(Zhangzhou) Co. v. United States, 37 CIT __, __, Slip Op. 13-30 at
10 	(Mar. 	11, 	2013) 	(quoting 	Mittal 	Steel 	Galati 	S.A. 	v. 	United
States, 31 CIT 1121, 1135, 502 F. Supp. 2d 1295, 1308 (2007)). 	“In
such 	a 	case, 	it 	is 	not 	enough 	for 	Commerce 	to 	‘summarily 	discard
the 	alternatives 	as 	flawed,’ 	Commerce 	must 	also 	‘evaluate 	the
reliability of its own choice.’” 	Id., Slip Op 13-30 at 10 (quoting
Shanghai 	Foreign 	Trade 	Enters. 	Co. 	v. 	United 	States, 	28 	CIT 	480,
495, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1352 (2004)).
Commerce 	clearly 	addressed 	this 	argument 	in 	the 	Remand
Results, finding that Plaintiffs’ “previous arguments indicate that
[IHTS 7304.23] is much broader than finished drill pipe, and is not
a reliable indicator of the value of finished drill pipe.” 	Remand
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 13 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 14
Results 	at 	14. 	Specifically, 	Commerce 	noted 	that 	Plaintiffs
“previously 	explained 	that 	some 	line 	items 	under 	[IHTS] 	category
7304.23.90 may be of drill pipe tools, other drill pipe products,
or 	inputs 	of 	either.” 	Id. 	at 	14–15 	(internal 	quotation 	marks
omitted). 	Additionally, the Court acknowledged in Downhole I that
IHTS 	7304.23.90 	contains 	entries 	of 	“seamless 	pipe” 	and 	other
products. 	See Downhole I, 33 CIT at __, 887 F. Supp. 2d at 1324 &
n.11. 	Simply 	put, 	there 	was 	no 	verifiable 	“benchmark” 	for 	drill
pipe 	from 	which 	Commerce 	could 	value 	DPGT. 	And, 	as 	noted 	above,
Commerce 	provided 	a 	reasonable 	explanation 	for 	its 	selection 	of
IHTS 	7304.59.20. 	Accordingly, 	Commerce 	reasonably 	rejected
Plaintiffs’ argument. 	See Gerber Food, 31 CIT at 926, 491 F. Supp.
2d at 1333 (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43).
D. The NIS Memo
Plaintiffs 	argue 	that 	Commerce’s 	determination 	was
unreasonable 	because 	the 	NIS 	Memo 	was 	the 	“sole 	factual
justification.” 	Pls.’ Cmts. at 8. 	The NIS Memo reads: “During the
week 	of 	January 	7, 	2013, 	[Commerce] 	contacted 	Mary 	Ellen 	Laker,
[CBP] National Import Specialist, regarding the HTS classification
of [DPGT], as described in the scope of the Order. 	She confirmed
that [DPGT] would be categorized under HTS 7304.59.” 	NIS Memo at	6
The “Order” Commerce referred to is Drill Pipe From the PRC:	6
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 11,757 (Mar. 3, 2011), which
is based, in part, on the Final Determination.
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 14 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 15
1 (internal footnote omitted). 	Plaintiffs allege that the NIS Memo
is unreliable as evidence because it does not explain whether the
contact 	with 	the 	CPB 	official 	was 	casual 	or 	formal, 	whether
Commerce provided the scope language to the CBP official, whether
the CBP official knew the Indian tariff categories as well as the
U.S. 	categories, 	whether 	the 	CBP 	official 	considered 	alternative
IHTS categories, or whether the CBP official considered the scope
language. 	See Pls.’ Cmts. at 9–12. 	Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue
that the NIS Memo “fails to provide even the proverbial scintilla”
of evidence. 	Id. at 13 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiffs’ argument is unconvincing. 	First, contrary to
Plaintiffs’ 	insistence, 	Commerce 	did 	not 	rely 	solely 	on 	the 	NIS
Memo in its analysis. 	As noted above, Commerce fell back on IHTS
7304.59.20 	after 	reasonably 	concluding 	that 	it 	was 	more
representative of DPGT than the other IHTS classifications on the
record. 	See Draft Results at 5–6, 15–16; Remand Results at 14–18.
With 	specific 	regard 	to 	the 	NIS 	Memo, 	Commerce 	explained 	that 	it
“confirmed” this analysis with the CPB official. 	See NIS Memo at
1; Remand Results at 15–16.
Second, 	Plaintiffs’ 	argument 	is 	entirely 	conjectural.
Plaintiffs 	insist 	that 	the 	NIS 	Memo 	contains 	several 	possible
flaws, but fail to identify any evidence in the record supporting
their 	assertions. 	See 	Pls.’ 	Cmts. 	at 	9–12. 	Accordingly, 	their
argument 	simply 	invites 	the 	court 	to 	reweigh 	evidence. 	However,
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 15 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 16
“[t]he court’s role is not to reweigh evidence,” Fedmet Res. Corp.
v. United States, 37 CIT __, __, 911 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1355 (2013)
(Tsoucalas, 	J.) 	(citing 	Laminated 	Woven 	Sacks 	Comm. 	v. 	United
States, 	34 	CIT 	__, 	__, 	716 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	1316, 	1328 	(2010)
(Tsoucalas, J)), and it declines to do so here.
II. Commerce Reasonably Rejected the Alternative Surrogate Values
on the Record
Finally, 	Plaintiffs 	argue 	that 	Commerce 	“wrongly
dismissed” 	the 	other 	alternative 	surrogate 	values 	on 	the 	record.
Pls.’ 	Cmts. 	at 	21. 	Incorporating 	by 	reference 	their 	pre-draft
remand 	comments, 	Plaintiffs 	insist 	that 	the 	price 	data 	for 	P1110
and 	J/K 	55, 	as 	well 	as 	the 	adjusted 	values 	for 	alloyed 	steel
billets and seamless tubes, are all superior to the data Commerce
selected. 	Id. 	at 	21–23. 	Plaintiffs 	add 	that, 	contrary 	to
Commerce’s 	findings, 	the 	data 	from 	these 	sources 	would 	require
little if any adjustment to calculate a surrogate value for DPGT.
See id. at 23.
As 	noted 	above, 	when 	selecting 	a 	surrogate 	value,
Commerce “normally will use publicly available information” from a
single country, see 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(1), (2), and it “prefers
data that reflects a broad market average, is . . . contemporaneous
with the period of review, specific to the input in question, and
exclusive of taxes on exports.” 	Fuwei Films, 36 CIT at __, 837 F.
Supp. 	2d 	at 	1350–51. 	Here, 	Commerce 	reasonably 	determined 	that
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 16 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 17
IHTS 	7304.59.20 	import 	data 	satisfied 	more 	of 	its 	selection
criteria than the flawed alternatives on the record.
Commerce rejected Metal Bulletin Research price data for
J/K 	55 	because 	J/K 	55 	is 	not 	an 	input 	for 	drill 	pipe 	and 	was 	“at
best comparable” to DPGT. 	Draft Results at 8 (unchanged in Remand
Results). 	Moreover, the J/K 55 data did not reflect actual sales
prices, was not contemporaneous with the period of investigation,
and 	covered 	only 	one 	month 	of 	prices. 	Id. 	(unchanged 	in 	Remand
Results). 	Therefore, 	Commerce 	reasonably 	concluded 	that 	J/K 	55
data did not satisfy its selection criteria. 	See Fuwei Films, 36
CIT at __, 837 F. Supp. 2d at 1350–51.
Commerce 	rejected 	the 	P1110 	price 	data 	for 	similar
reasons, finding that P1110 is not representative of DPGT because
it is a “finished OCTG product” that cannot be used as an input for
drill 	pipe. 	Draft 	Results 	at 	9 	(unchanged 	in 	Remand 	Results).
Additionally, the P1110 data was based on offers and only covered
one 	month 	of 	price 	information. 	Id. 	at 	9 	(unchanged 	in 	Remand
Results). 	Accordingly, 	Commerce 	reasonably 	determined 	that 	the
P1110 	data 	was 	not 	the 	best 	available 	information. 	See 	Fuwei
Films, 36 CIT at __, 837 F. Supp. 2d at 1350–51.
Commerce 	also 	rejected 	adjusted 	values 	for 	alloy 	steel
billets 	and 	seamless 	tubes, 	finding 	that 	the 	record 	lacked
sufficient 	information 	to 	adjust 	the 	values 	for 	the 	required
alloying 	costs 	and 	that 	calculating 	such 	adjustments 	required
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 17 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 18
proprietary information. 	See Draft Results at 9–12 (unchanged in
Remand Results). 	Plaintiffs contest this finding, arguing that the
cost of alloying elements for steel billets and seamless tubes is
minimal 	and 	therefore 	the 	values 	for 	these 	products 	are 	the 	most
accurate on the record. 	See Pls.’ Cmts. at 22–23. 	Plaintiffs fail
to 	address 	Commerce’s 	finding 	that 	these 	adjustments, 	however
small, require proprietary information. 	See Remand Results at 17.
Because 	its 	regulations 	direct 	it 	to 	use 	“publicly 	available
information,” 	19 	C.F.R. 	§ 	351.408(c)(1), 	Commerce 	reasonably
rejected these adjusted values.
In contrast, Commerce found that the IHTS 7304.59.20 data is
“contemporaneous with the [period of investigation], represent[s]
a 	broad 	market 	average, 	[is] 	tax 	and 	duty 	exclusive, 	and 	[is]
publicly available, thus comporting with [its] selection criteria.”
Draft Results at 16; see also Remand Results at 14. 	And, as noted
above, Commerce determined that IHTS 7304.59.20 was the surrogate
value 	most 	representative 	of 	DPGT. 	See 	Draft 	Results 	at 	5–6,
15–16; Remand Results at 14–18. 	Accordingly, Commerce reasonably
concluded that IHTS 7304.59.20 was the best available information
on the record. 	See 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(1), (2); Fuwei Films, 36
CIT at __, 837 F. Supp. 2d at 1350–51.
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 18 of 19

Court No. 11-00081 	Page 19
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	Commerce’s 	remand
redetermination 	is 	sustained 	in 	its 	entirety. 	Judgment 	will 	be
entered accordingly.
/s/ Nicholas Tsoucalas
Nicholas Tsoucalas
Senior Judge
Dated:
New York, NY
1RYHPEHU
Case 1:11-cv-00081-NT Document 120 Filed 11/04/13 Page 19 of 19