Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S. Inc. v. United States, 1:20-cv-00012

Section 232 tariffs were imposed on certain steel imports by Presidential Proclamation(s); Commerce implemented a process for domestic parties to request exclusions and for others to object.
Borusan Mannesmann Pipe U.S., Inc. (a domestic welded steel/OCTG producer and importer) submitted 19 exclusion requests arguing the products were not available in sufficient quantity or quality domestically.
Commerce denied Borusan’s 19 exclusion requests on July 15, 2019; Borusan sued under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging those denials.
The Government moved for a voluntary remand to Commerce (without confessing error) so the agency could complete/clarify the administrative record and reconsider the denials.
Borusan opposed remand, pointing to (1) a Commerce Inspector General report suggesting off‑record communications, (2) Commerce’s high FOIA cost estimate (implying extensive communications), and (3) Mercatus Center studies purporting delays and low approval rates for objected exclusion requests—arguing these show prejudgment or improper influence.
The Court granted the voluntary remand, finding the agency’s concerns about record adequacy substantial and legitimate, applying the presumption of regularity to Commerce, rejecting Borusan’s bad‑faith/prejudgment showing, and ordering Commerce to correct the record and fully reconsider within specified deadlines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a voluntary remand to Commerce is appropriate	Borusan: remand would be futile because the record shows likely prejudgment and improper influence	U.S.: remand is proper because the administrative record is incomplete and Commerce needs to reconsider	Granted: court found Government’s remand request substantial and legitimate and remanded for reconsideration
Whether Borusan showed Commerce acted in bad faith or prejudged requests	Borusan: IG report, FOIA cost, and Mercatus studies reasonably suggest off‑record communications and prejudgment	U.S.: evidence is speculative and the record’s gaps justify correcting the record, not denial of remand	Denied: court held Borusan failed to show clear and convincing evidence of prejudgment; presumption of regularity applies
Whether remand promotes judicial economy	Borusan: remand could allow Commerce to avoid meaningful review or perpetuate error	U.S.: remand avoids duplicative litigation and allows the agency to address record deficiencies first	Granted: court concluded early remand promotes judicial economy and may expedite relief sought by Borusan

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (remand appropriate when record does not support agency action or agency must consider additional factors)
SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (court has discretion to remand on agency request; remand inappropriate only for frivolous or bad‑faith requests)
Jazz Photo Corp. v. United States, 439 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discussing presumption of regularity for government officials)
Bernklau v. Principi, 291 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (presumption that public officers properly discharge duties)
Am‑Pro Prot. Agency, Inc. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (requiring clear and convincing evidence to overcome presumption of good faith)