Apex Exports v. United States
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1806
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee appeals a Court of International Trade decision sustaining Commerce's refusal to deduct antidumping duties when calculating export price (EP).
- EP is the price paid by the first unaffiliated U.S. buyer; NV is the exporting-country price used as fair value. If EP is lower than NV, a dumping margin is assessed.
- Commerce deducts costs incident to bringing merchandise to the U.S. from EP under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(2); the issue is whether antidumping duties are such costs.
- Apex Exports and Falcon Marine Exports Limited were assessed dumping margins in a fifth administrative review; Ad Hoc challenged the treatment of antidumping duties in EP.
- Apex and Falcon argued that antidumping duties should be deducted from EP; Ad Hoc argued they should be deducted as costs and that Commerce’s approach is unreasonable.
- The CIT rejected Ad Hoc’s position and the court affirms, holding Commerce’s interpretation is reasonable and entitled to deference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1677a(c)(2) is ambiguous on deducting antidumping duties from EP | Ad Hoc: statute unambiguously requires deduction of duties. | Commerce: statute is ambiguous; deducting duties would cause circularity and double counting. | Ambiguity found; not unambiguously requiring deduction. |
| Whether Commerce's deduction approach is a permissible construction of the statute | Ad Hoc: deduction is required and other interpretations are unreasonable. | Commerce's approach is reasonable, aligns NV/EP, avoids double counting, and follows practice. | Commerce's interpretation is reasonable and entitled to deference. |
| Whether antidumping duties paid by importers should be treated as costs to be deducted from EP | Ad Hoc: duties are costs incident to importation and must be deducted. | Treating duties as costs would distort comparisons and cause circularity; duties are remedial. | Not deducted as costs; deduction not required. |
| Whether the reimbursement regulation requires deduction of antidumping duties in this case | Ad Hoc: regulation supports deducting duties when exporters reimburse importers. | Regulation applies only to reimbursements; facts here involve importers paying duties; regulation not controlling here. | Regulation not controlling; distinction maintained; deduction not required here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (two-step framework for reviewing agency statutory interpretations)
- DuPont Teijin Films USA, LP v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (appellate review of agency determinations under substantial evidence and law)
- Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (application of Chevron framework to agency statutory interpretations)
- Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 495 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (ambiguity in 'United States import duties' under § 1677a(c)(2) and deferential review of agency interpretation)