Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited v. United States

Slip Op. 21-119
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
SAHA THAI STEEL PIPE PUBLIC
COMPANY LIMITED,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
WHEATLAND TUBE COMPANY
and NUCOR TUBULAR
PRODUCTS INC.,
Defendant-Intervenors.
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Court No. 19-00208
OPINION
[Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s remand results in the 2017–2018
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon
steel pipes and tubes from Thailand.]
Dated: September 17, 2021
Daniel L. Porter, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, of Washington, D.C.,
for Plaintiff Saha Thai Steel 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,
Case 1:19-cv-00208-JCG Document 61 Filed 09/17/21 Page 1 of 5

Court No. 19-00208 	Page 2
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.
Alan H. Price, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor
Nucor Tubular Products Inc.1
Choe-Groves, Judge: Plaintiff Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company
Limited (“Saha Thai” or “Plaintiff”) filed this action challenging the final results
published by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) in the 2017–2018
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”), 84 Fed. Reg. 64,041 (Dep’t of Commerce
Nov. 20, 2019) (final results of antidumping duty admin. review; 2017–2018); see
also Issues and Decision Mem. for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin.
Review; 2017–2018 (Nov. 13, 2019) (“Final IDM”), PR 121. Before the Court are
the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to CIT Order, ECF No. 53
(“Remand Results”), which the Court ordered in Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v.
United States (“Saha Thai I”), 44 CIT __, 476 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (2020). For the
reasons discussed below, the Court sustains the Remand Results.
1 Nucor Tubular Products Inc. was formerly Independence Tube Corporation and
Southland Tube, Incorporated. [Revised] Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations and
Financial Interest, ECF No. 34.
Case 1:19-cv-00208-JCG Document 61 Filed 09/17/21 Page 2 of 5

Court No. 19-00208 	Page 3
BACKGROUND
The Court presumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history set
forth in its prior opinion and recounts the facts relevant to the Court’s review of the
Remand Results. See Saha Thai I, 44 CIT at __, 476 F. Supp. 3d at 1380–81.
The Court concluded in Saha Thai I that Commerce’s particular market
situation adjustment to the cost of production while basing normal value on home
market sales was not in accordance with the law and remanded. Id. at __, 476 F.
Supp. 3d at 1386. Plaintiff had challenged in the alternative the underlying
determination that a particular market situation distorted the cost of production,
arguing that “[e]ven assuming that Commerce has the statutory authority to alter a
respondent’s actual costs of production (for purposes of the below-cost test),
Commerce’s determination in this case is still contrary to law because Commerce
did not apply the appropriate legal criteria for determining the existence of a
particular market situation.” Pl. Saha Thai’s Opening Br. Supp. Its Mot. J. Agency
R. at 15–20, ECF Nos. 32, 33. Because the Court remanded the particular market
situation adjustment as not in accordance with the law, the Court did not consider
whether the particular market situation adjustment was supported by substantial
evidence, whether Commerce should have made a duty drawback adjustment in
calculating the particular market situation adjustment, Plaintiff’s alternative
argument that Commerce’s particular market situation determination was not in
Case 1:19-cv-00208-JCG Document 61 Filed 09/17/21 Page 3 of 5

Court No. 19-00208 	Page 4
accordance with the law, or whether the particular market situation determination
was supported by substantial evidence. See Saha Thai I, 44 CIT at __, 476 F.
Supp. 3d at 1385–86.
On remand, under respectful protest, Commerce recalculated Saha Thai’s
dumping margin without a particular market situation adjustment. Remand Results
at 2–4.
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
Plaintiff and Defendant United States ask the Court to sustain the Remand
Results. Pl.’s Comments Supp. Remand Redetermination Results at 2, ECF No.
56; Def.’s Comments Supp. Remand Results at 2, ECF No. 57. Defendant-
Case 1:19-cv-00208-JCG Document 61 Filed 09/17/21 Page 4 of 5

Court No. 19-00208 	Page 5
Intervenor Wheatland Tube Company supports Commerce’s Remand Results filed
under protest. See Def.-Interv. Wheatland Tube Company’s Comments
Commerce’s Redetermination Remand at 3, ECF No. 55. No party filed comments
opposing the Remand Results.
Commerce’s Remand Results are consistent with the Court’s prior opinion
and order in Saha Thai I. Commerce has recalculated, under protest, the weighted-
average dumping margin for Saha Thai without a particular market situation
adjustment. Remand Results at 4. The weighted-average dumping margin for
Saha Thai changed from 5.15% to 0%. Id.
Because the Court concludes that the Remand Results are in accordance with
the law and comply with the Court’s remand order, the Court sustains the Remand
Results.
CONCLUSION
The Court sustains the Remand Results.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: 	September 17, 2021
New York, New York
Case 1:19-cv-00208-JCG Document 61 Filed 09/17/21 Page 5 of 5