Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A. S. v. United States
990 F. Supp. 2d 1384
Ct. Intl. Trade2014Background
- Borusan challenges Commerce's final antidumping duty results for welded carbon steel pipe and tubes from Turkey (period May 1, 2010–April 30, 2011).
- Commerce initially assigned zero to Borusan under average-to-average; later adopted targeted-dumping analysis after Nails test and switched to average-to-transaction methodology for Tariff period.
- Final results sustained a targeted-dumping finding with a final margin of 6.05%, amended to 3.55% after ministerial error correction.
- Borusan argues Commerce violated statute by not considering its explanations and by requiring intent behind pricing patterns; argues for motive behind targeted dumping.
- Statutory framework: review under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a; targeted-dumping analysis under 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B) with Nails two-step test; case involves jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c).
- Court sustains Commerce's Final Results, rejecting Borusan's arguments to impose an intent/motive requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether targeted dumping analysis required consideration of motive. | Borusan relies on intent; cites SAA to require motive consideration. | Statute requires price pattern analysis, not motive. | No intent requirement; Nails-based pattern suffices. |
| Whether Nails test and statutory framework properly support targeted-dumping finding. | Borusan disputes the use of Nails and the transition from A-A to A-T. | Nails test reasonably determines pattern of significant price differences; statute permits this methodology. | Nails test is reasonable; targeted dumping finding upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (standard for substantial evidence review of agency determinations)
- Viraj Group v. United States, 476 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (rejects an implicit intent requirement in targeted dumping analysis)
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 383 U.S. 607 (1966) (substantial evidence framework; classification of agency findings)
- United States v. Eurodif S.A., 555 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court 2009) (administrative deference in statutory interpretation of antidumping)