Steel Pipe Producer Withheld Information, Impeded Administrative Review, Government Argues

The Court of International Trade should deny a motion by Saha Thai Steel Pipe for judgement and sustain The Commerce Department's 2019-2020 administrative review of an antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, the government said in a July 15 opposition motion (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. Ltd. v. United States, CIT #21-00627).

The government said that Commerce appropriately applied partial facts available with adverse inferences because of the "uncooperative nature" of Saha Thai during the review. It also argued that the court should grant the government’s request for a voluntary remand in order for Commerce to recalculate the dumping margin.

The items at issue are pipe and tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not exceeding 16 inches. In March 2020, Saha Thai requested an administrative review of itself and Wheatland Tube Company, a domestic producer, requested a review of multiple Thai producers and exporters. For the review, Commerce issued Saha Thai a series of questionnaires, which the government said Saha Thai returned without correctly reporting its affiliations with home-market customers.

Commerce issued its final determination in December, 2021 with a calculated dumping margin of 7.23%. That margin, argued Saha Thai, "contrasted with the rate of zero percent applied in prior reviews and resulted from Commerce's upward adjustment to the reported cost of hot-rolled coil involved in the production of circular welded pipe. Commerce applied this cost-based particular market situation adjustment "despite Saha Thai submitting voluminous factual information and economic analysis... ." Saha Thai then filed suit challenging the results of the administrative review and on May 9, filed a motion, which asked Judge Stephen Vaden to grant a summary judgment instructing Commerce to reissue its determination.

The government said that such a determination would be inappropriate because the calculated rate was based on adverse inferences due to Saha Thai's misleading and incomplete information. Commerce determined that by not reporting its ties with home-market customers, Saha Thai withheld information and significantly impeded the review process. The government notes that Commerce is authorized to use adverse inferences when a party to an investigation is not cooperative.

Commerce "must know whether parties are affiliated and what the sale prices are to make an effective assessment on normal value and implement the arm’s length test'," the government said. By withholding that information, Saha Thai impeded Commerce’s ability to investigate how the relationships between Saha Thai and its home-market customers affected the pricing of the subject merchandise.