Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6603
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Union and Dongbu sue Commerce over zeroing in the administrative review of corrosion-resistant carbon steel from Korea; dispute centers zeroing in admin reviews after cessation in investigations.
- Statutory framework: 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) governs dumping margins; prior cases treated language as ambiguous, permitting Commerce's zeroing in both investigations and reviews under Chevron step one.
- WTO findings concluded zeroing in admin reviews violated international obligations; Section 123 (and Section 129) led Commerce to stop zeroing in investigations but not in admin reviews.
- Court of International Trade upheld Commerce’s final admin-review results with zeroing; Union appeals to the Federal Circuit arguing inconsistent interpretation of § 1677(35).
- Federal Circuit vacates and remands, holding Commerce failed to provide a permissible explanation for interpreting the same statutory provision inconsistently across different antidumping proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce’s inconsistent § 1677(35) interpretation is reasonable | Union argues inconsistency is unreasonable and unsupported by statute. | Government argues prior Chevron precedents and WTO context justify inconsistent interpretations. | Not reasonable; vacate and remand for explanation. |
| Chevron step two requires consistent statutory interpretation across contexts | Union asserts no basis in text for different meanings in investigations vs. reviews. | Government contends policy change during WTO response allows change in interpretation. | Commerce must provide a reasonable explanation; failure to do so require remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (statutory ambiguity surrounding zeroing; Chevron analysis applied)
- Corus I, 395 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (ambiguity of § 1677(35) and cross-context application)
- Corus II, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (addressed changes in zeroing policy; agency change not retrospective)
- Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (continues Chevron-based review of inconsistency arguments)
- SKF II, 537 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (WTO decisions cited; administrative-review context feasibility)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 630 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (reaffirms need for consistent statutory interpretation in related contexts)
- U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 621 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholds change in zeroing policy for investigations in response to WTO ruling)
- NSK Ltd. v. United States, 510 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (addressed consistency in zeroing challenges)