Thai Steel Manufacturer Didn't Exhaust Administrative Remedies in AD Case, Intervenors Say

The Court of International Trade should deny steel manufacturer Saha Thai's request for a revised dumping margin because the company failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, defendant-intervenors Wheatland Tube and Nucor Tubular said in a March 3 brief (Saha Thai Steel Pipe v. U.S., CIT # 21-00627).

The brief endorsed the government's Feb. 17 filing (see 2302210037) and also argues that Saha Thai should have pushed for Commerce to exclude sales of dual-stenciled pipe and tube from the dumping margin calculations in its administrative case brief but did not, and can't raise the issue now. Saha Thai has failed to demonstrate that it's entitled to an exception to the exhaustion doctrine, Wheatland and Nucor said.

Saha Thai said in its motion for judgment that it lacked an opportunity to seek an administrative remedy because, at the time case briefs were due, dual-stenciled pipe was within the scope of the order. However, Wheatland and Nucor said that Saha Thai appealed Commerce’s original in-scope determination regarding dual-stenciled pipe and tube several months before the company submitted its questionnaire response in the review at issue and one year before the company submitted its administrative case brief.

Saha Thai is challenging a 2019-2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, in which Saha Thai served as a mandatory respondent. In May, Saha Thai argued that Commerce should revise its AD calculations to remove sales of dual-stenciled pipe and tube because of 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. That ruling is currently being challenged at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

"Saha Thai was well aware that the state of the law was in flux and there was a possibility that dual-stenciled pipe and tube would be found outside the scope of the order as a result of litigation," the intervenors said.