CIT Should Uphold Remand Redetermination on Steel Pipes and Tubes, Despite Ongoing Scope Issue, Government Argues

A Commerce remand determination on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes should be upheld by the Court of International Trade despite a separate Commerce remand redetermination that dual-stenciled pipe and tube is not covered by an antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes, the government argued in a brief filed Feb. 17 (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company, Limited v. United States, CIT # 21-00627).

The case concerns the 2019-2020 administrative review of the AD order on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, in which Saha Thai served as a mandatory respondent. During the case, Commerce requested a remand to “recalculate the weighted-average dumping margin without making a cost-based particular market situation adjustment,” and Saha Thai assented. On remand, Commerce dropped its particular market situation adjustment from the sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value, citing a ruling against the practice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The decision dropped Saha Thai's antidumping margin from 36.97% to 14.74% (see 2211290082).

In its May 2022 motion for judgment, Saha Thai argued that Commerce should revise its final antidumping duty calculations to remove sales for dual-stenciled pipe and tube because of CIT's judgment sustaining the remand redetermination that dual-stenciled pipe and tube is not covered by the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand.

But Saha Thai never showed that it would have been futile to raise the issue of including dual-stenciled pipe before Commerce, DOJ said. Because Saha Thai failed to raise the issue at any point during the underlying administrative review, it cannot pursue this claim before this Court, DOJ said. DOJ also noted that CIT's ruling that dual-stenciled pipe and tube is not covered by the AD order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand is currently being challenged at the Federal Circuit. Any action citing that scope should be delayed until the appeals court issues a ruling, DOJ argued.