Thai Exporter Contests Revisions to Model Match Methodology in Propane Cylinder AD Review
Thai exporter Sahamitr Pressure Container is challenging the Commerce Department's decision to reclassify certain cylinders as outside the scope of the antidumping duty order on steel propane cylinders from Thailand as part of its model match methodology. In its complaint, filed at the Court of International Trade April 24, Sahamitr also challenged Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test to detect "masked" dumping in the 2021-22 review of the AD order (Sahamitr Pressure Container v. U.S., CIT # 24-00064).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
In the review, Commerce constructed a "model-match" methodology to identify identical cylinders in the Thai market to compare with U.S. cylinders. It created a hierarchy of characteristics used to sort the goods into groups. Each group was assigned a control number (CONNUM) used to match home market sales with U.S. sales. Sahamitr said that since the underlying AD investigation, Commerce has used a CONNUM field to "measure the gas capacity of" the company's cylinders, which was "placed second in the hierarchy."
Sahamitr said in the original investigation and each review after it has "reported its nominal gas capacity" in line with the agency's instructions: "based on customer information and sales and technical documentation, rather than a nominal gas capacity converted from water capacity." At the start of the third review, petitioner Worthington Industries filed a bid to add a new "Type of Gas" characteristic to the methodology on the grounds that "industry standards establish that the cylinders designed for different gases 'are not interchangeable' and have 'important, physical differences.'"
The exporter disagreed, saying cylinders made for use with propane are "physically interchangeable with cylinders produced for other gases." Sahamitr said "gas type should not be used to distinguish in-scope and out-of-scope cylinders because 'the final end-use of a steel cylinder, or the type of gas for which a steel cylinder is ultimately intended, are not related at all to a steel cylinder’s nominal gas capacity or any other physical characteristic of the steel cylinder.'"
Commerce found "gas type does affect the physical characteristics of a cylinder" and excluded non-liquid propane gas (non-LPG) cylinders from the margin calculation.
At the trade court, Sahamitr said its "reporting of nominal gas capacity was supported" by the evidence and in line with Commerce's prior instructions. It also said the petitioner's bid to revise the model match criteria is "refuted by clear record evidence confirming" that liquid propane gas and non-LPG cylinders "are physically interchangeable." As a result, the decision to exclude the cylinders at issue was made without substantial evidence, the complaint said.
As for the exporter's Cohen's d claim, the company echoed a host of lawsuits challenging the test in arguing that Commerce failed to adhere to basic statistical assumptions in evoking the test. That question is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (see 2401110037).