Deacero S.A. de C v. v. United States, 2013 CIT 126

Deacero challenges DOC's final affirmative circumvention finding for 4.75–5.00 mm wire rod under the antidumping duty order on Mexican wire rod.
The Order covers subject merchandise 5.00 mm or more but less than 19.00 mm in diameter; 4.75 mm was outside the scope yet existed pre-investigation and was not within the Order's scope.
DOC initiated a minor alteration inquiry to determine if 4.75 mm wire rod could be included as a minor alteration; it had previously refused a scope inquiry.
The court applies Chevron two-step review and considers whether Congress spoke directly to the issue or whether a permissible agency interpretation exists.
The court remands to DOC to reconsider its finding that 4.75 mm wire rod is a circumventing minor alteration, and to explain why the record supports that conclusion under the law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can pre-existing 4.75 mm rod be covered as a minor alteration?	Deacero argues § 1677j(c) cannot apply to pre-existing merchandise excluded from the investigation.	Commerce contends no explicit temporal limitation prevents minor alterations from reaching pre-existing products.	Statute not unambiguously limited by time; remanded for reconsideration.
Is Commerce's interpretation of § 1677j(c) as allowing minor alterations reasonable?	Deacero asserts Commerce improperly expands the order to include pre-existing merchandise.	Commerce reasonably applies the minor alteration provision to address circumvention.	Commerce's interpretation deemed permissible but remand is required to address record-specific flaws.
Was the final circumvention determination an unreasonable expansion of the order's scope based on the facts?	Deacero contends 4.75 mm rod was commercially available before the Order and outside its scope, so not a minor alteration.	Commerce found the 4.75 mm rod sufficiently similar to subject merchandise to warrant circumvention analysis.	Yes; Court finds the determination an unreasonable expansion and remands for proper justification.

Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (min. alteration statute cannot override the order's terms; absurd results if misapplied)
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 219 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (distinguished Wheatland; scope differences)
Target Corp. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (implied exclusions not equivalent to explicit exclusions)
NSK Ltd. v. United States, 115 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (use of statutory tools to interpret ambiguous provisions)
Timex V.I., Inc. v. United States, 157 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (courts consider statutory text and history when interpreting agency actions)