Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. v. United States

101 F.4th 1310

SAHA THAI STEEL PIPE PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellee v. UNITED STATES, DefendantWheatland Tube Company, Defendant-Appellant

2022-2181

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

Decided: May 15, 2024

Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:20-cv-00133-SAV, Judge Stephen A. Vaden.

James P. Durling, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by James Beaty, Daniel L. Porter.

Christopher Cloutier, Schagrin Associates, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by Michelle Rose Avrutin, Nicholas J. Birch, Elizabeth Drake, William Alfred Fennell, Jeffrey David Gerrish, Luke A. Meisner, Roger Brian Schagrin.

Before Lourie, Reyna, and Chen, Circuit Judges.

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Chen.

Reyna, Circuit Judge.

Wheatland Tube Company appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade, which affirmed the U.S. Department of Commerce's remand determination as to the scope of an antidumping duty order concerning certain steel pipes imported from Thailand. For the following reasons, we reverse.

BACKGROUND

This appeal concerns whether certain imports of steel pipes from Thailand fall within the scope of an existing antidumping duty order. As background, we provide a brief overview of the antidumping duty framework and the initial, underlying antidumping duty investigation, before turning to the scope of the order at issue.

The U.S. trade statutes generally provide that an interested party may petition the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce") and the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC") to initiate antidumping duty investigations and, if the investigations result in affirmative determinations, impose antidumping duties on the particular imported merchandise that was subject to the investigations. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673,¹ 1673a(b). Commerce's role in an antidumping investigation is to determine whether the merchandise subject to the investigation (subject merchandise) is being, or likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value ("LTFV"), an unfair trade practice commonly referred to as dumping. Id. §§ 1673, 1673b(b)(1)(A). Concurrently, the ITC investigates whether a U.S. domestic industry producing like or similar merchandise as those under Commerce's investigation is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by virtue of the dumped imports. Id. §§ 1673, 1673b(a)(1)(A). If Commerce's and the ITC's investigations both lead to affirmative final determinations, namely Commerce's final LTFV determination and the ITC's final determination of material injury or threat of material injury, Commerce issues an antidumping duty order imposing antidumping duties on the imports of the subject merchandise. Id. §§ 1673, 1673d(c)(2).

An antidumping duty order describes the specific merchandise subject to the order and antidumping duties. This description is paramount. Given the realities in the marketplace and everchanging varieties of merchandise, questions frequently arise as to whether a particular product is subject to or falls within the scope of an antidumping duty order. 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(a). Consequently, U.S. trade law provides that an interested party may request that Commerce issue a scope ruling to clarify whether a particular product falls within the scope of the order. Id. This appeal involves such a ruling.

I. The Initial Antidumping Duty Investigation

In February 1985, a coalition of domestic manufacturers of steel pipes, including Appellant Wheatland Tube Company ("Wheatland"), petitioned Commerce and the ITC to initiate antidumping duty investigations on certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes ("CWP") imported from Thailand. Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties[:] Certain Welded Carbon Steel Circular Pipes and Tubes from Thailand (Feb. 28, 1985), J.A. 40519-56.² The petition identified Thai manufacturers producing the imported pipes, including Appellee Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Company Limited ("Saha"). J.A. 40563.

In the original February 1985 petition, as required under the regulations, the petitioners provided a detailed description of goods the petitioners believed should be investigated, including their technical characteristics, uses, and tariff classifications. J.A. 40536-39. Specifically, the petition asserted that the subject merchandise was "certain circular welded carbon steel circular pipes and tubes, .375 inch or more but not over 16 inches in outside diameter." J.A. 40536. The petition continued to state,

The product includes "standard pipe," which is a general-purpose commodity used in such applications as plumbing pipe, sprinkler systems and fence posts and is commonly referred to in the industry as a standard pipe. . . . (These products are generally produced to [the American Society for Testing & Materials ("ASTM")] specifications A-120, A-53, or A-135.) The product also includes "line pipe," which is produced to [the American Petroleum Institute ("API")] specifications for line pipe, API-5L or API5X.³

. . . Small diameter pipes with a wall thickness greater than .065 inch are now classified [under the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated ("TSUSA")] in 610.3208, 610.3209, 610.3231, 610.3234, 610.3241, 610.3242, 610.3243, 610.3252, 610.3254, 610.3256, and 610.3258. Circular pipe with a wall thickness less than .065 inch is now classified in 610.4925.

J.A. 40536-37 (emphasis added). According to the petition, the subject merchandise was produced using the same process worldwide, and the finished products were identical. J.A. 40538-39; see also J.A. 40537-38 (quoting description of the manufacturing process the ITC formulated in previous CWP investigations).

The petition described the U.S. domestic industry producing the subject merchandise as consisting of U.S. producers of both standard pipes and line pipes. J.A. 40545-46. Most domestic producers, according to the petition, produced both standard and line pipes using the same equipment. Id.

In March 1985, the petitioners partially withdrew their petition "insofar as they concern line pipe, TSUS numbers 610.3208 and 3209."⁴ J.A. 40612 (emphasis added). According to the petitioners, they had ascertained that no Thai company was licensed at that time to produce steel pipes to API specifications. Id. Despite the partial withdrawal, the petitioners maintained that "the appropriate domestic industry for injury determination purposes [was] the industry producing [both] standard and line pipe[s]." J.A. 40613.

Commerce and the ITC initiated and conducted their respective investigations. See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand; Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 50 Fed. Reg. 12068, 12608 (Mar. 27, 1985) ("Commerce Initiation Notice"); Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand and Venezuela, 50 Fed. Reg. 10866, 10866 (Mar. 18, 1985). Commerce's LTFV investigation reached an affirmative preliminary determination in September 1985, and an affirmative final determination in January 1986. Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand; Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 50 Fed. Reg. 40427, 40428 (Oct. 3, 1985); Antidumping: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 51 Fed. Reg. 3384, 3384 (Jan. 27, 1986) ("Final LTFV Determination"). In the Final LTFV Determination, Commerce described the subject merchandise under its investigation as encompassing

certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes, also known as "standard pipe" or "structural tubing," which includes pipe and tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more but not over 16 inches, or any wall thickness, as currently provided in items 610.3231, 610.3234, 610.3241, 610.3242, 610.3243, 610.3252, 610.3254, 610.3256, 610.3258 and 610.4925 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated.

Final LTFV Determination, 51 Fed. Reg. at 3384. Commerce determined that imports of the subject merchandise from Thailand were being, or were likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Id.

The ITC's injury investigation resulted in an affirmative preliminary determination in April 1985. Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand and Venezuela, Determinations of the Commission, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-242, 731-TA-252, -253, USITC Pub. 1680 (Apr. 1985) (Preliminary) ("Preliminary Injury Determination"). Subsequently in February 1986, the ITC issued an affirmative final determination that the investigated imports from Thailand materially injured or threatened material injury to a domestic industry. Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey and Thailand, Determinations of the Commission, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-253, 731-TA-252, USITC Pub. 1810 (Feb. 1986) (Final) ("Final Injury Determination"). In the Final Injury Determination, the ITC evaluated the injury effects of standard pipes imported from Thailand, and the injury effects of both standard pipes and line pipes imported from Turkey. Id. at I-1, II-1.

Following its practice in previous CWP investigations, the ITC treated standard and line pipes as two separate like products, and correspondingly, found two domestic industries, a domestic standard pipe industry and a domestic line pipe industry. Final Injury Determination at 6-7; see also Preliminary Injury Determination at 6-8. The ITC concluded that "domestically produced standard pipe[s] [were] like imported standard pipe[s]" and that the domestic standard pipe industry included domestic producers of standard pipes, some of which simultaneously produced line pipes. Final Injury Determination at 6-7, I-5-I-6, II-4; see also Preliminary Injury Determination at 8-9, A-8-A-9.

In its analysis, the ITC described how steel pipes are manufactured, used, and classified in the...