Slip Op.25-103
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EDSAL MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES, Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge Defendant, Court No. 24-00108 and
BANGKOK SHEET METAL PUBLIC CO., LTD. AND SIAM METAL TECH CO., LTD.,
Defendant-Intervenors.
OPINION
[Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s affirmative final determination in the less-than-fair-value investigation of boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from Thailand.]
Dated: August 12, 2025
Matthew T. Martin and Joshua R. Morey, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for Plaintiff Edsal Manufacturing Company, Limited. On the brief were Kathleen W. Cannon and Grace W. Kim.
An Hoang, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for Defendant United States. On the brief were Yaakov M. Roth, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, and Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Jesus N. Saenz, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.
Alexandra H. Salzman, The Inter-Global Trade Law Group, PLLC, of Washington, DC, argued for Defendant-Intervenors Bangkok Sheet Metal Public Co., Ltd. and Siam Metal Tech Co., Ltd. On the brief were Gregory S. Menegaz and Vivien Jinghui Wang. Court No. 24-00108 Page 2
Barnett, Chief Judge: Edsal Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Edsal”)
challenges the final affirmative determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce
(“Commerce” or “the agency”) in the less-than-fair-value investigation of boltless steel
shelving units prepackaged for sale from Thailand. See Boltless Steel Shelving Units
Prepackaged for Sale From Thailand, 89 Fed. Reg. 28,738 (Dep’t Commerce Apr. 19,
2024) (final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value) (“Final
Determination”), ECF No. 18-6, and accompanying Issues and Decision Mem., A-549-
846 (Apr. 12, 2024) (“I&D Mem.”), ECF No. 18-5. 1 The court has jurisdiction pursuant to
section 516A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i) (2018), and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). 2 For the reasons discussed below,
the court denies Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the agency record and sustains
Commerce’s determination.
BACKGROUND
On May 19, 2023, based on a petition from Edsal, Commerce initiated an
investigation to determine whether boltless steel shelving from Thailand was being or
was likely to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Boltless Steel Shelving
1 The administrative record filed in connection with the Final Determination is divided
into a Public Administrative Record (“PR”), ECF No. 18-2, and a Confidential Administrative Record (“CR”), ECF No. 18-3. Parties submitted joint appendices containing record documents cited in their briefs. Confid. J.A. (“CJA”), ECF Nos. 33 through 33-6; Public J.A., ECF Nos. 34, 34-1; Suppl. Confid. J.A., ECF No. 38; Suppl. Public J.A., ECF No. 39. The court references the confidential version of the relevant record documents, unless otherwise specified. 2 All citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to Title 19 of the U.S. Code,
and references to the U.S. Code are to the 2018 edition unless otherwise specified. Court No. 24-00108 Page 3
Units Prepackaged for Sale From India, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, 88 Fed. Reg. 32,188 (Dep’t Commerce May 19, 2023) (initiation of
less-than-fair-value investigations). The period of investigation for Thailand was April 1,
2022, through March 31, 2023. Id. at 32,189. Commerce selected Bangkok Sheet
Metal Public Co., Ltd. (“Bangkok Sheet”) and Siam Metal Tech. Co., Ltd. (“Siam Metal”)
as mandatory respondents. Resp’t Selection Mem. (June 7, 2023), CR 18, PR 42, CJA
Tab 5.
To determine the dumping margin, Commerce usually compares the normal
value (the price in the home market) to the export price or constructed export price (the
price in the United States). 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35); see also 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(A)–
(C). Bangkok Sheet and Siam Metal, however, did not have a viable home market or
third-country market for purposes of determining normal value. Decision Mem. for the
Prelim. Affirmative Determination (“Prelim. Mem.”) (Nov. 21, 2023) at 7, PR 237, CJA
Tab 21. In this scenario, the agency may use constructed value (“CV”) based on the
cost of production, selling expenses, and profit of the relevant merchandise. See 19
U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(4), (e). Relevant here, Commerce may use “any other reasonable
method” to determine the CV for profit and selling, general, and administrative expenses
(“selling expenses”). 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B)(iii).
Commerce sought financial statements from fiscal year 2022 to determine the
profit and selling expenses for CV purposes. As relevant to this litigation, Edsal
submitted financial statements for Sahamitr Pressure Container PLC (“Sahamitr”), a
Thai company making “liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and other pressure containers,” Court No. 24-00108 Page 4
and for PNS Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“PNS”), a Thai company making “steel shelving
products.” Pet’r’s Cmts. on Constructed Value Profit and Selling Expenses (“Pet’r’s CV
Cmts.”) (Aug. 25, 2023) at 3–4, PR 132–34, CJA Tab 13. Bangkok Sheet and Siam
Metal contested the use of Sahamitr’s financial statements. [Bangkok Steel and Siam
Metal] Rebuttal CV Profit and Selling Expenses Cmts. (Sept. 5, 2023) at 1–3, PR 148–
51, CJA Tab 14.
Commerce determined that PNS’s statements were the most appropriate
surrogate financial statements for calculating CV profit and selling expenses. I&D Mem.
at 5–7; Prelim. Mem. at 11–12. Commerce explained that “PNS’s financial statements
are contemporaneous with the [period of investigation], reflect the experience of a
profitable Thai producer of steel shelving, and do not contain evidence of
countervailable subsidies.” I&D Mem. at 5. In particular, Commerce rejected
Sahamitr’s financial statements noting that “Sahamitr does not produce shelving; it
produces LPG cylinders.” Id. at 6; see also Prelim. Mem. at 11. Commerce did not
initially mention any subsidies in Sahamitr’s financial statements, see Prelim. Mem. at
11–12, but Commerce later “note[d] that Sahamitr received countervailable subsidies
from the Thai government,” I&D Mem. at 7. Thus, Commerce explained that “it would
be equally inappropriate to include Sahamitr’s profit rate in any averaging of a CV profit
ratio.” Id.
Meanwhile, to determine the relevant universe of U.S. sales subject to the
investigation, Commerce relied on the commercial invoice date as the date of sale. Id.
at 9. Specifically, Commerce used the date of the invoice “issued by the affiliated Court No. 24-00108 Page 5
trading company to the unaffiliated trading company.” Id. Commerce explained that
“the price paid by the U.S. customer is listed in the invoice issued to the unaffiliated
trading company.” Id. at 10. Commerce rejected Edsal’s argument that the material
terms of the sale were established earlier in the sales process, on the date of the sales
contract. Id. at 11. 3
Commerce also considered and rejected Edsal’s argument that the reported total
cost of manufacturing (“TOTCOM”) for both Bangkok Sheet and Siam Metal did not
reflect the actual cost of producing the merchandise in the companies’ “normal books
and records.” Id. at 12–13. Edsal argued that the inventory values that each company
recorded “reflect[ed] the companies’ respective actual ‘GAAP-compliant’ costs.” Id. at
14. 4 Commerce explained that, because neither company used a “formal cost
accounting system,” “the companies relied on the actual costs as recorded in the
financial accounting systems to derive the material, labor and overhead costs
associated with the production of the [merchandise under consideration].” Id. Based on
its verification of the two respondents, Commerce concluded that the TOTCOM reported
3 In the Final Determination, Commerce used the second commercial invoice date,
rather than the initial commercial invoice date that the agency had used in the preliminary determination. I&D Mem. at 9. Although Edsal argues generally that the material terms of sale “were established in writing prior to the issuance of the second commercial invoice,” Edsal does not specifically contest Commerce’s choice between the two commercial invoices but rather argues that the sales contract contains the appropriate date of sale. [Confid.] Rule 56.2 Br. in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for J. on the Agency R. at 32, ECF No. 23. 4 “GAAP” refers to generally accepted accounting principles. See 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677b(f)(1)(A). Court No. 24-00108 Page 6
to the agency “reasonably reflect[ed] the costs associated with the production and sale
of the merchandise.” Id. at 17 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A)).
Plaintiff moves for judgment on the agency record pursuant to U.S. Court of
International Trade Rule 56.2. [Confid.] Rule 56.2 Br. in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for J. on the
Agency R. (“Edsal Br.”), ECF No. 23; [Confid.] Pl.’s Reply Br. (“Edsal Reply”), ECF No.
31. The United States (“Defendant” or “the Government”), with Bangkok Sheet and
Siam Metal as Defendant-Intervenors, defends Commerce’s decision. Def.’s Resp. to
Pl.’s Mot. for J. Upon the Agency R. (“Gov’t Resp.”), ECF No. 29; see also Def.-Ints.’
Resp. Br. (“Def.-Ints. Resp.”), ECF No. 30. The court heard oral argument on July 23,
2025. Docket Entry, ECF No. 40.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court will uphold an agency determination that is supported by substantial
evidence and otherwise in accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). “An
agency finding may still be supported by substantial evidence even if two inconsistent
conclusions can be drawn from the evidence.” Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United
States, 776 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383
U.S. 607, 620 (1966)). “Commerce must explain the basis for its decision” such that
“the path of Commerce’s decision must be reasonably discernible.” NMB Sing. Ltd. v.
United States, 557 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n
v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)). Court No. 24-00108 Page 7
DISCUSSION
I. Commerce’s Selection of PNS’s Statements
Commerce determines CV based on “the amounts incurred and realized for
selling, general, and administrative expenses, and for profits, based on any other
reasonable method” for “merchandise that is in the same general category of products
as the subject merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B)(iii). Commerce “will
determine on a case-by-case basis the profits ‘normally realized’ by other companies on
merchandise of the same general category.” Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1 at 841 (1994),
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4176 (“SAA”). Even if financial statements reflect
receipt of countervailable subsidies, Commerce must reasonably explain why the
agency declines to use those statements. Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United
States, 941 F.3d 530, 543–45 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
a. Comparability of Merchandise
Edsal contends that Commerce’s explanation that Sahamitr does not produce
comparable merchandise is conclusory. Edsal Reply at 3; see also Edsal Br. at 21–24
(arguing why Sahamitr’s products are sufficiently comparable). In selecting PNS,
Commerce explained that the company “is a significant Thai producer of shelving,” I&D
Mem. at 6, which is “identical or comparable merchandise,” Prelim. Mem. at 12. In
contrast, Commerce found that “Sahamitr does not produce shelving; it produces LPG
cylinders.” I&D Mem. at 6; see also Prelim. Mem. at 11. While the statement is simple,
the support is evident—PNS and Sahamitr make different products. The product names Court No. 24-00108 Page 8
alone explain that one is more like the subject merchandise than the other. And
although Commerce looks for companies with “merchandise of the same general
category,” SAA at 841, Commerce may reasonably select the financial statements of a
company producing identical or nearly identical merchandise over those of a company
producing non-identical merchandise, even if that non-identical merchandise, such as
the LPG cylinders here, might be considered sufficiently comparable in another case
with fewer alternatives. Thus, Commerce’s selection of PNS over Sahamitr is plainly
reasonable. And while Edsal argues that PNS also makes non-comparable
merchandise, Edsal Br. at 23, Commerce found that PNS’s production of steel shelving
was “significant,” I&D Mem. at 6.
Edsal argues that “the manufacturing of both products [i.e., LPG cylinders and
steel shelving] start with large coils of flat rolled steel that are unwound/unrolled after
which the material is pressed, stamped, and cut into desired shapes and finally welded,
assembled and painted.” Edsal Reply at 4–5 (citation omitted). This argument speaks
to the production process but not to the products themselves, and Commerce
reasonably considered factors other than the production process. 5 Edsal’s reliance on
other administrative proceedings is similarly unpersuasive because the facts of those
5 Defendant-Intervenors explain why the production process is distinct from steel
shelving, emphasizing the end use (holding dangerous liquids) and the required certifications. Def.-Ints. Resp. at 7–8. Commerce did not discuss those reasons, and the court does not rely on them either. Court No. 24-00108 Page 9
cases are distinct 6 and Commerce makes its determinations on a case-by-case basis.
See SAA at 841.
b. Countervailable Subsidies
Edsal’s arguments that Commerce erred in rejecting Sahamitr’s financial
statements because of countervailable subsidies are unpersuasive. Commerce
rejected Sahamitr’s financial statements because the company’s products were less
comparable than PNS’s, not simply because they contained evidence of receipt of
countervailable subsidies. Prelim. Mem. at 11; I&D Mem. at 6. In fact, Commerce did
not discuss the receipt of countervailable subsidies in its preliminary determination. See
Prelim. Mem. at 11. Rather, Commerce emphasized that Sahamitr did not produce
shelving, while PNS did. Id. at 11; see also I&D Mem. at 6 (continuing to rely on
comparability of merchandise, in addition to countervailable subsidies). Edsal’s further
contention that Commerce failed to consider the minimal distortive effects of any
6 See Prelim. Decision Mem. for Utility Scale Wind Towers from Malaysia, A-557-821
(Dec. 28, 2023) at 14 (determining that steel pipe was comparable to utility scale wind towers, but no company produced identical merchandise); Issues & Decision Mem. for Boltless Steel Shelving United Prepackaged for Sale from the People’s Republic of China, A-570-018 (Aug. 14, 2015) at 16–17 (using comparable merchandise rather than identical merchandise when the companies were from countries with different levels of economic development); Issues & Decision Mem. for Mattresses from Indonesia, A-560- 836 (Mar. 18, 2021) at 23 (using information from a producer of exclusively comparable merchandise because the producer of identical merchandise also made non- comparable merchandise and its identical merchandise made up only six percent of the company’s revenue); Issues and Decision Mem. for Certain Nails from Taiwan, A-583- 854 (May 13, 2015) at 13 (rejecting a company producing comparable merchandise because it also produced non-comparable merchandise, but also because the company was from a different country than the respondent). Commerce’s decision memoranda are publicly available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx, with separate links for pre- and post-June 2021 memoranda. Court No. 24-00108 Page 10
countervailable subsidies received by Sahamitr is similarly misplaced because
Commerce reasonably relied on the nature of the products to select PNS over Sahamitr.
Moreover, while the size and distortive effect of subsidies may be relevant to the
agency’s selection, so too are the “comparative deficiencies of the alternative sources.”
Mid Continent, 341 F.3d at 544. Here, nothing in the record suggests any comparative
deficiencies (i.e., subsidies) in the PNS financial statements.
c. Lack of Detail
Edsal’s contentions that Commerce erred by using PNS’s financial statements
because those statements are “less detailed and comprehensive” than Sahamitr’s
financial statements, Edsal Br. at 25, are not well supported. Edsal avers that in a
previous administrative proceeding, Commerce rejected financial statements “because
they did not provide a sufficient ‘level of detail to reasonably breakdown selling
expenses between direct and indirect.’” Edsal Br. at 25 (citing Issues and Decision
Mem. for Steel Nails from Oman, A-523-808 (Feb. 24, 2021) (‘Steel Nails from Oman
Mem.”). What Commerce actually found in that proceeding was that the financial
statements provided “no level of detail to reasonably breakdown selling expenses
between direct and indirect.” Steel Nails from Oman Mem. at 15 (emphasis added).
Here, in contrast, PNS’s financial statements included sufficient details about its
expenses for Commerce’s purposes. See Pet’r’s CV Cmts., Attach. 3 (listing 18
categories of selling and administration expenses). To the extent that Edsal suggests
that Commerce did not adequately address this argument, given the weakness of the
argument, any failure by Commerce to address it more specifically does not amount to Court No. 24-00108 Page 11
error. See Husteel Co. v. United States, 49 CIT __, __, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1315, 1359
(2025) (“Because this argument and accompanying evidence were not significant,
Commerce did not err in failing to specifically address them.”).
d. Averaging Financial Statements
The court finds no error on Commerce’s part for declining Edsal’s alternative
request to average both PNS’s and Sahamitr’s financial statements. Edsal Br. at 27;
see also I&D Mem. at 7. The point of averaging is to “normalize any potential
distortions” and “account for flaws in both datasets.” Edsal Br. at 27–28 (quoting
administrative and court decisions). Here, as explained above, PNS’s statements had
no comparative deficiencies that warranted Commerce considering whether to average
its financial statements with Sahamitr’s statements.
Therefore, the court sustains Commerce’s determination to use PNS’s financial
statements to determine profit and selling expenses for CV purposes.
II. Date of Sale for Siam Metal
To determine the date of sale, Commerce “normally will use the date of invoice,
as recorded in the exporter or producer’s records kept in the ordinary course of
business.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(i). Commerce may, however, use a different date if the
agency “is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or
producer establishes the material terms of sale.” Id.; see also SAA at 810 (defining the
date of sale as “a date when the material terms of sale are established”). “Material
terms of sale may include price, quantity, and delivery and payment terms.” Eregli Court No. 24-00108 Page 12
Demir ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S v. United States, 42 CIT __, __, 308 F. Supp. 3d 1297,
1306–07 (2018).
Here, Commerce reasonably followed its normal practice and used the date of
invoice. No party disputes that the sales contract does not identify the destination of the
shipment; however, the parties contest whether the destination is a material term.
Commerce may deviate from invoice date if another date “better reflects” the date on
which the material terms of sale are established. In this case, though, Commerce found
that the proffered alternative, the sales contract, did not better reflect the establishment
of the material terms of sale. Commerce explained that the sales contract “does not
identify the destination of the shipment and cannot be relied upon to determine whether
[the] shipment was bound for the United States or a third country or whether a sale
should be included in the U.S. sale database.” I&D Mem. at 11. At no point does Edsal
recognize, and grapple with, the fact that it is not just the destination that is unknown but
the destination country.
Edsal argues that the fact that the price and quantity did not change between the
sales contract and the commercial invoice demonstrates that the material terms were
set earlier. Edsal Br. at 33–36. While price and quantity are certainly material, see,
e.g., Eregli Demir, 308 F. Supp. 3d at 1306–07, Commerce reasonably explained that,
because the agency is gathering information on U.S. sales, the destination is also
material, I&D Mem. at 11. Indeed, the quantity and price are only relevant to Court No. 24-00108 Page 13
determining U.S. sales if the sales are, in fact, destined for the United States. 7 While
Edsal suggests that the destination was not material to the contracting parties, the
regulation does not limit the question to terms that are material to the parties. See Atar,
S.r.L. v. United States, 33 CIT 658, 664, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 1076 (2009) (“The
pertinent question, therefore, is whether substantial evidence of record supports
Commerce’s finding that the Sale Agreement established the material terms of [the
respondent’s] entire selling activity in [the third country] during the period of review.”
(emphasis added)).
Edsal relies on a single previous administrative proceeding in which Commerce
determined that the destination was not a material term of sale to argue that Commerce
has a practice of treating destination as not material. Edsal Br. at 37 (citing Issues and
Decision Mem. for Shrimp from Thailand, A-549-822 (Dec. 23, 2004) (“Shrimp from
Thailand Mem.”)). In that case, Commerce determined that the changes in shipping
and freight expenses based on a change to the delivery location were “simply passed
on to the customer” and, therefore, the alternative destination was not a material term.
Shrimp from Thailand Mem. at 36. Nothing in that decision memorandum suggests that
the change in the delivery location involved a country other than the United States. In
contrast, here Commerce explained that the sales contract did not establish whether the
7 It is not clear to the court that it is accurate to say that the quantity did not change
between the sales contract and the commercial invoice for the purposes of Commerce’s analysis. While it may be true that the aggregate quantity to a particular customer was consistent with the contracted quantity, the quantity to be reported in the U.S. sales database for any given sale was subject to change based upon whether the sale was to be shipped to the United States or a third country. See I&D Mem. at 11. Court No. 24-00108 Page 14
sales were to a third country or the United States. I&D Mem. at 11. Because the
destination country is material to determining whether a sale is a U.S. sale for
antidumping purposes, Commerce did not err when it denied Edsal’s request to use the
sales contract as the date of sale.
The court sustains Commerce’s determination to use the commercial invoice to
determine the date of sale.
III. Total Cost of Manufacturing
a. Additional Background
“Costs shall normally be calculated based on the records of the exporter or
producer of the merchandise, if such records are kept in accordance with the generally
accepted accounting principles of the exporting country (or the producing country,
where appropriate) and reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and
sale of the merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A).
Bangkok Sheet and Siam Metal do not keep formal cost accounting systems and
do not calculate product-specific costs in the normal cost of business. I&D Mem. at 14.
Therefore, Bangkok Sheet and Siam Metal relied on actual costs as recorded in their
financial accounting systems to report TOTCOM to Commerce. Id. They were able to
distinguish costs relevant to the merchandise under consideration. Id.
Each company also provided a monthly inventory movement schedule in the
course of the investigation. Id. Edsal argued that those schedules should be used in
place of the companies’ reported costs because the schedules were reconciled to the
normal books and records, unlike, Edsal claimed, the reported costs. Id. at 12. Court No. 24-00108 Page 15
Commerce rejected Edsal’s arguments, finding that the reported costs reflect the actual
cost of manufacturing of the foreign like product as recorded in the companies’ normal
books and records. Id. at 13. Commerce further found that each company’s inventory
schedule was flawed and, therefore, a poorer option than the reported costs. For
Bangkok Sheet, Commerce explained that certain inventory values were calculated
based on the company as a whole, not the individual products, and that the
merchandise under consideration had a distinct production process, resulting in a
different cost. Id. at 15. For Siam Metal, Commerce explained that the schedule was
based on information from stock card reports, which record additions based on
purchase prices, rather than costs. Id. at 15–16.
b. Bangkok Sheet
Bangkok Sheet reported that the company “relies on actual costs as recorded in
the financial accounting system to derive the costs associated with production.”
[Bangkok Sheet] Sec. D. Questionnaire Resp. (Aug. 4, 2023) (“Bangkok Sheet Sec. D
Resp.”) at 9, CR 50–52, PR 108, CJA Tab 10. Bangkok Sheet further noted that the
company “produces only one product to the United States that falls within this
investigation,” though the product “accounts for significant sales revenue.” Id. Bangkok
Sheet then explained that the inventory movement schedule represented the “monthly
estimated production costs [that] are based on finished goods value.” Id. at 23; see also
[Bangkok Sheet] Sec. D Suppl. Questionnaire Resp. (Oct. 31, 2023) (“Bangkok Sheet Court No. 24-00108 Page 16
Sec. D Suppl.”) at 1–2, CR 115–21, PR 218, CJA Tab 17 (explaining that the finished
goods value was “a value of finished goods that [the company] estimated”).
Edsal argues that when Commerce asked Bangkok Sheet to explain and
demonstrate how the costs reflected in the finished goods inventory movement
schedule could differ so significantly from the company’s reported TOTCOM, the
company “failed to do so.” Edsal Br. at 43 (citing Bangkok Sheet Sec. D Suppl. at 1–3).
Edsal cites Bangkok Sheet’s supplemental questionnaire response in support of its
conclusion; however, that response contains a direct explanation from Bangkok Sheet.
Specifically, Bangkok Sheet noted that the subject merchandise is mass produced,
whereas other products are individually produced and therefore have higher per unit
costs, thus explaining the difference. Bangkok Sheet Sec. D Suppl., Ex. S4-D1.
Edsal next pursues a line of transitive reasoning. Edsal points out that although
Bangkok Sheet averred that its inventory schedule contained estimates, Bangkok Sheet
also stated that its financial statements reflect actual costs, and the financial statements
match the inventory schedule; therefore, the inventory schedule must not be based on
estimates and Commerce should have rejected that claim. Edsal Reply at 20–21 (citing
Bangkok Sheet Sec. D Resp. and Bangkok Sheet Sec. D. Suppl.). Edsal’s reasoning,
however, is flawed because financial statements reflect the aggregate costs, which
Bangkok Sheet roughly allocated, using estimates, in its inventory schedule, as
compared to the bottom-up calculation of product-specific costs in its questionnaire
response. Commerce ultimately weighed the evidence, and the agency reasonably Court No. 24-00108 Page 17
explained its reliance on the reported costs rather than the inventory schedule. See I&D
Mem. at 15.
c. Siam Metal
Edsal argues that Commerce did not adequately address the argument regarding
Siam Metal that “nothing on the record supports the conclusion that the finished goods
inventory values were recorded at purchase price.” Edsal Br. at 40 (quoting I&D Mem.
at 16). Not only did Commerce specifically identify this argument, see I&D Mem. at 16
(“According to the petitioner, there is nothing on the record which supports the
conclusion that the finished goods inventory values were recorded at purchase price.”),
Commerce then cited to the evidence supporting its decision and explained that the
“per-unit amount recorded as the inventory value (after converting to [U.S. dollars]) ties
to the per-unit sales price from an invoice,” id. at 16 n.69.
The parties also debate whether the court may review the verification report as
sufficient evidence to support Commerce’s finding. Namely, Edsal asserts that the
Government “claim[s] that [Commerce’s] factual conclusions and findings stemming
from the verification report are somehow beyond scrutiny.” Edsal Reply at 22. To the
contrary, the court reads the Government’s response simply to recognize that the
verification report is part of the record as a whole. Commerce conducts verifications “to
verify the accuracy and completeness of submitted factual information.” 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.307(d). Here, Commerce relied on its verification to confirm its understanding of
the data in the finished good inventory schedule. See I&D Mem. at 16. Edsal did not
seek to submit rebuttal information regarding any of the verification findings. Court No. 24-00108 Page 18
Consequently, Edsal is left with nothing other than speculation, because nothing in the
record suggests any flaw in Commerce’s verification regarding the inventory schedule. 8
Edsal also disputes Commerce’s reliance on Siam Metal’s reports of direct
materials, asserting that nothing in the record justifies that reliance such that Commerce
should not have used Siam Metal’s cost reporting. Edsal Br. at 41. Again, Commerce
explained that it verified Siam Metal’s direct materials costs by reviewing reported costs
and comparing them with source records which, in turn, reconciled to the audited
financial statements. See I&D Mem. at 17. Edsal’s speculation that Commerce’s
verification was somehow flawed or insufficient does not detract from the substantial
evidence that supports Commerce’s determination.
d. Remaining Argument
Edsal argues that Commerce disregarded its practice of accounting for
discrepancies between reported costs and recorded costs by increasing reported costs.
Edsal Br. at 38–39 (quoting and citing various administrative proceedings). As
discussed with respect to each respondent company, in this case, Commerce
determined that the reported TOTCOM reflected the costs recorded in the normal books
8 Edsal also asserts that, because “TOTCOM should reflect the cost of finished goods,
not the cost of raw materials purchased,” Siam Metal’s recording of “the production cost of raw materials based on their purchase price is not material.” Edsal Reply at 23; see also Edsal Br. at 41. This argument is inapposite and underdeveloped. Commerce noted that, “[i]n its inventory system, [Siam Metal] records the production cost of raw materials based on the purchase price.” Verification of the Cost Resp. of Siam Metal (Mar. 11, 2024) at 11, CR 305, PR 303, CJA Tab 25. Accepting that TOTCOM should not reflect the cost of raw materials, if the inventory system reflects the cost of raw materials, then Edsal’s argument supports Commerce’s decision not to rely on the finished goods inventory schedule. Court No. 24-00108 Page 19
and records. I&D Mem. at 12. Any differences between those costs and the
companies’ inventory schedules were found to be based on the manner in which those
schedules were developed rather than constituting discrepancies with the reported
costs. Id. at 15–16. Thus, there was no need for Commerce to adjust the reported
TOTCOMs.
For these reasons, the court sustains Commerce’s determination to use Bangkok
Sheet’s and Siam Metal’s reported costs to calculate TOTCOM.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the court will sustain Commerce’s Final
Determination. Judgment will enter accordingly.
/s/ Mark A. Barnett Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge
Dated: August 12, 2025 New York, New York