CIT Upholds Decision Not to Collapse Italian Steel Maker With Romanian Input Supplier
The Commerce Department properly decided not to collapse an Italian antidumping duty respondent with its Romanian input supplier on the grounds that the input supplier isn't a "producer" of subject merchandise as defined by the AD statute, the Court of International Trade held on Sept. 15. Judge M. Miller Baker said Commerce's justification isn't impermissibly post hoc, despite the fact that it wasn't established during the challenged AD review, since the issue is "one of statutory construction."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The "statute's plain language precluded Commerce" from collapsing the two entities, Baker held.
In the 2021-22 administrative review of the AD order on mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy, Commerce declined to collapse respondent Dalmine with its affiliated Romanian input provider Silcotub. The agency said that although "certain requirements for collapsing were 'present' here," including the fact that the companies are affiliates, collapse wasn't established, since Silcotub is located in Romania and thus unable to make subject merchandise, and there was no "significant potential for manipulation" of price or production.
After the petitioners, led by ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, filed suit, Commerce asked for a voluntary remand to reconsider its decision and accept information it previously rejected (see 2409270011). On remand, the agency stuck with its guns and said Silcotub couldn't make subject merchandise at all, precluding it from a collapsing determination (see 2412200027).
ArcelorMittal argued that Commerce imposed a "heightened standard for collapsing two entities that does not exist in the regulatory language," since nothing in the agency's regulation in effect during the review requires that both affiliated parties must be located in the subject country or make covered merchandise to be treated as a collapsed entity. The U.S. replied that Commerce's regulation limits collapsing to "two or more affiliated producers," adding that the statute defines producer as a "producer of subject merchandise."
Subject merchandise is determined by the product's country of origin, barring Romania-based Silcotub from being a producer, the U.S. said.
Baker said the petitioner can't challenge the statutory argument, dubbing it "unimpeachable." Instead, ArcelorMittal said the analysis was made impermissibly post hoc. The judge rejected this argument, finding it doesn't apply when "the sole issue is one of statutory construction," since it's not a decision an "administrative agency alone is authorized to make."
Where a statute's "plain language" compels action, that interpretation doesn't require the exercise of "discretion in applying subtle and complex statutory standards to particular facts," Baker said. The court is allowed to "rely on such a clear legal command to affirm on an 'alternative ground' not articulated by the agency."
Since the statute's plain text barred Commerce from collapsing Silcotub with Dalmine, because Silcotub is based in Romania and thus not a producer of subject merchandise, the court has an "alternative ground" on which "to sustain the Department’s decision not to collapse these entities," Baker said.
While ArcelorMittal said this is inconsistent with Commerce's "fact-based conclusion," Baker held that this is "no cause for upsetting this ruling," since remand would be an "idle and useless formality." And while the rationale may be "incompatible with past agency practice," it's "also no reason to remand," since "Commerce has no discretion to ignore a statute" or its own regulations. Any issue with previous rulings is just that and not an issue "with the agency’s belated decision to follow the law," Baker said.
(ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. United States, Slip Op. 25-121, CIT # 24-00039, dated 09/15/25; Judge: M. Miller Baker; Attorneys: R. Alan Luberda of Kelley Drye for plaintiffs led by ArcelorMittal Tubular Products; Yaakov Roth for defendant U.S. government; Gregory Spak of White & Case for defendant-intervenor Dalmine S.p.A.)