UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 25-126

In Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd., v. United States and Wheatland Tube Company and Nucor Tubular Products, Inc. Court No. 21-00081, (September 25, 2025), Plaintiff made a motion for judgment on the agency record of Blue Pipe Steel Center Co., Ltd. The court denied the motion and sustained the evasion determination of Customs.

On October 4, 2019, domestic producers of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes filed an evasion allegation with Customs. After Customs investigated, Commerce ruled that dual- stenciled pipe is within the scope of the order. Further, Customs made an evasion determination stating that “there is substantial evidence that [BluePipe] entered merchandise covered by [the Order] into the customs territory of the United States through evasion.” After the Saha Thai decision, plaintiff revised their position and acknowledged that the duty evasion determination should be affirmed, but they still disagree with the effective date of the determination. Plaintiffs argue that the date should begin from the initiation of the Commerce’s scope inquiry.

The court finds that the date which Customs began to suspend liquidation of Blue Pipe’s entries is the proper effective date. The court explains that the purpose of 19 U.S.C. § 1517(b)(4) is to help counter evasion at earlier stages. The statute is silent on the effective date of an evasion determination and Custom’s decision to set the date at the beginning of the period of investigation is the best reading of the statute. Further, the Saha Thai court noted that the Order “does not contain any exclusionary language.” Saha Thai, 101 F.4th at 1328. The court rejected Plaintiff’s reading of sunset reviews of the U.S. International Trade Commission, since the reviews summarized the Commission’s assessment of orders from separate investigations resulting in orders with different scope terms. Additionally, the court states that the statute does
not necessitate “reasonable notice” to importers that their merchandise is within the scope of the antidumping order that the importer allegedly evaded.

Slip Op. 25 -129

In Coalition for Fair Trade in Shopping Bags v. United States and Ditar, S.A., Court No. 24-00157, (October 1, 2025), a domestic producer and trade union argue that certain errors by the Department of Commerce caused the reduction of the dumping margin. The court remands for reconsideration.

The Tariff Act of 1930 requires Commerce to impose an antidumping duty “equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price… for the merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1673. To determine a dumping margin, Commerce requires respondents to categorize sales as either “home-market” or “U.S.”, which is where sometimes disputes arise. In these situations, Commerce “tests the extent to which the respondent ‘knew or should have known’ that its sales are ‘for export’ or ‘for consumption’ in the home market.” Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, Slip Op. 24-93, at 14, 2024 WL 3876483, at *5 (CIT 2024) (quoting Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 215 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1330–31 (CIT 2000)). In 2023, the Coalition for Fair Trade in Shopping Bags petitioned to impose antidumping duties on imports of paper sacks from Colombia. Commerce opened an investigation and selected Ditar, S.A., as a mandatory respondent. In a certain transaction, Commerce concluded that it was a home-market sale, which is challenged by the Coalition.

The Coalition argues that an admission in the verification report shows the company’s actual knowledge that the sale was bound for export. Commerce did not find any further evidence of documents stating that the merchandise was bound for the United States. The Court acknowledged that Commerce did not confront whether there was an admission; whether they had knowledge; nor whether the company should have known. Therefore, the court remands and requires the agency to address the “actual” prong of the knowledge test.