Commerce Switched Back to Original Unlawful Position on Remand, Pipe Exporter Says
In remand comments, exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe said that the Commerce Department wrongly reverted back to its original position on affiliation it had taken despite all parties agreeing with its revised one -- and despite the fact that Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden had only remanded the decision so that Commerce could provide a reasoned explanation for it (Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00627).
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.
Further, the court had already found Commerce's original position was unlawful, and Commerce hadn't provided any new evidence or reasoning for it, the exporter said.
Vaden recently left the trade court for a role as deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture (see 2507080020), and Saha Thai’s case was reassigned to Judge Gary Katzmann.
“Commerce has wasted enough of the Court and the Parties’ time and limited resources,” it said.
In his June 2025 order remanding the final results of an antidumping duty review on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, Vaden said Commerce had “falsely claimed” the department’s rationale for applying adverse facts available to Saha Thai hadn’t changed, when it “quietly” had (see 2506090017).
At issue are two prompts from the initial questionnaire provided to Saha Thai. Question five asked if the exporter has any “current or previous shared employees” with a customer, BNK. Question six asked if Saha Thai and BNK “share not just any employee but one that also 'has an equity or a debt position in any other company’ that sells related merchandise.”
Commerce hit the exporter with AFA initially because Saha Thai failed to disclose that it shares a human resources manager with the customer, in its response to question six, reasoning that Vaden found unlawful in a prior November 2023 remand order (see 2311140036), his second of the case. In that order, he said the basis for finding affiliation couldn’t be the one shared manager and “bare speculation.”
The department therefore found in October 2024 that Saha Thai and BNK weren’t affiliated (see 2410110015). Vaden remanded that finding for the third time in June 2025 because, when it did, Commerce claimed that its initial determination had been based on Saha Thai’s response to question five, not question six.
In its most recent remand results, Commerce claimed to correct itself, saying it had “inadvertently” referenced question six initially rather than question five. But it also again found Saha Thai and BNK were affiliated. “Plaintiff is incredulous with Commerce’s approach and conclusion,” Saha Thai said Sept. 17.
It described the decision Commerce reached after the most recent remand as “the exact same one that this Court already found to be unlawful and unsupported by substantial evidence.” Just as it had two remands ago, the department was wrongly basing its finding on a single shared employee and speculation, it said.
Not only that, but the department was attempting to disguise its change in position, from basing AFA on Saha Thai’s question six response to its question five response, as an “inadvertent error,” the exporter said. That meant it was still ignoring the principles of administrative law.