AMERICAN TUBULAR PRODUCTS, LLC, JIANGSU CHENGDE STEEL TUBE SHARE CO., LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants
UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, TMK IPSCO, WHEATLAND TUBE COMPANY, V & M STAR L.P., Defendants-Appellees
from the United States Court of International Trade in No.
1:13-cv-00029-RWG, Senior Judge Richard W. Goldberg.
Cameron, Jr., Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, Washington,
DC, for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by Mary
Hodgins, Julie Mendoza, Brady Mills, R. Will Planert, Sarah
Misha Preheim, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued
for defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by
Benjamin C. Mizer, Jeanne E. Davidson, Claudia Burke; Whitney
Marie Rolig, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade
Enforcement and Compliance, United States Department of
Commerce, Washington, DC.
Charles Sternhell, Quinn Emanuel Ur-quhart & Sullivan,
LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United
States Steel Corporation. Also represented by Debbie Leilani
Shon, Jonathan Gordon Cooper, Jon David Corey, Kelsey Rule.
Brian Schagrin, Schagrin Associates, Washington, DC, for
defendants-appellees TMK IPSCO, Wheat-land Tube Company, V
& M Star L.P. Also represented by John W. Bohn, Jordan
Newman, Mayer, and Lourie, Circuit Judges.
Lourie, Circuit Judge.
Tubular Products, LLC ("ATP") and Jiang-su Chengde
Steel Tube Share Co., Ltd. ("Chengde")
(collectively, "the Appellants") appeal from the
decisions of the United States Court of International Trade
("the Trade Court") affirming the Department of
Commerce's ("Commerce") antidumping duty
calculations in the first administrative review of an
antidumping duty order directed to certain oil country
tubular goods ("OCTG") from the People's
Republic of China. See Am. Tubular Prods., LLC v. United
States, No. 13-00029, 2015 WL 5236010 (Ct. Int'l
Trade Aug. 28, 2015) ("ATP II") (affirming
Commerce's remand results); Am. Tubular Prods., LLC
v. United States, No. 13-00029, 2014 WL 4977626 (Ct.
Int'l Trade Sept. 26, 2014) ("ATP I")
(affirming in part and remanding in part Commerce's final
results). In that administrative review, Commerce ultimately
calculated a weighted average dumping margin of 137.62% for
Cheng-de. See Am. Tubular Prods., LLC v. United
States, No. 13-00029, ECF No. 102 (Ct. Int'l Trade
Jan. 28, 2015) ("Remand Results"). Because
we agree with the Trade Court that Commerce's antidumping
duty calculations were supported by substantial evidence and
otherwise in accordance with law, we affirm.
are steel tubing products used in oil and gas drilling.
Chengde is a Chinese producer and exporter of OCTG, and ATP
is the importer of record during the relevant period. In June
2011, Commerce initiated the first administrative review of
the antidumping duty order directed to OCTG from China.
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 76 Fed. Reg. 37, 781 (Dep't
of Commerce June 28, 2011); Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 Fed. Reg.
53, 404 (Dep't of Commerce Aug. 26, 2011) (correcting the
period of review). Commerce selected Chengde as a mandatory
China is considered a nonmarket economy ("NME")
country, Commerce selected Indonesia, a market economy
("ME") country, as the primary surrogate country
from which it would use surrogate values to ascertain
Chengde's factors of production. Certain Oil Country
Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China,
77 Fed. Reg. 34, 013 (Dep't of Commerce June 8, 2012)
("Preliminary Results"). In the Final
Results, as later amended, Commerce assigned Chengde a
dumping margin of 162.69%. Certain Oil Country Tubular
Goods from the People's Republic of China, 77 Fed.
Reg. 74, 644 (Dep't of Commerce Dec. 17, 2012)
("Final Results"), as amended by
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's
Republic of China, 78 Fed. Reg. 9, 033 (Dep't of
Commerce Feb. 7, 2013). The Appellants appealed to the Trade
Court, raising three issues that are relevant in this appeal.
We provide further factual and procedural background for each
of those issues in turn.
first issue pertains to Commerce's valuation of steel
billets used in the production of OCTG. Steel billets may be
composed of carbon steel or the more expensive alloy steel.
In its initial questionnaire, Commerce requested Chengde to
"[d]escribe each type and grade of material used in the
production process." J.A. 168. Chengde responded that it
consumed steel billets, and its counsel listed a Harmonized
Tariff Schedule ("HTS") subheading that covers
products of alloy steel as the proper tariff subheading for
its steel billets. J.A. 669.
then issued supplemental questionnaires, requesting sample
mill test certificates for various control numbers
("CONNUMs"). A CONNUM is a code used to identify
distinct products within the class of subject merchandise
under review. Chengde submitted the sample mill certificates.
J.A. 1720-25, 3161-71. Those certificates contained
information on the chemical composition of the sampled OCTG,
which constituted a portion, but not all, of OCTG sold in
sixteen of nineteen sales made by Chengde during the period
of review. In addition, Commerce requested clarification of
the technical descriptions of Chengde's raw material
inputs. J.A. 886. Chengde again responded with a general
description of its steel billet input. J.A. 950-51.
Preliminary Results, Commerce valued steel billets
using a surrogate value for alloy steel. Chengde then argued
that Commerce should have used a surrogate value for carbon
steel. Chengde explained that its counsel's prior
reference to the HTS number for alloy steel was an
inadvertent error, and that it in fact used carbon steel
billets. Chengde called Commerce's attention to the mill
certificates on the record, which showed that the tested OCTG
were all made of carbon steel.
Final Results, as amended, Commerce used a
carbon-steel surrogate value, but only for the portion of
OCTG directly shown to be made of carbon steel by the mill
certificates. For the remaining OCTG, Commerce continued to
value the steel billet input using an alloy-steel surrogate
appeal, the Trade Court remanded Commerce's selection of
surrogate values for steel billets. For the sixteen sales
partially supported by the mill certificates, the court
directed Commerce to "explain whether Chengde's mill
certificates prove the chemical properties of OCTG not
specifically tested." ATP I, 2014 WL 4977626,
at *7. Moreover, the court found that Commerce had failed to
consider a Customs entry summary relating to an additional
(seventeenth) transaction, [*] which classified the OCTG as