Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. v. United States, 277 F. Supp. 3d 1346

Background

Commerce conducted a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of steel reinforcing bar from Turkey and issued a Final Determination finding certain benefits from provision of lignite coal for less than adequate remuneration (LTAR).
ledas Celik (ledas), a Turkish respondent, challenged Commerce’s benchmark selection for valuing government‑provided lignite and certain procedural actions (an ex parte meeting and acceptance of two late photographs).
Commerce uses a three‑tier hierarchy to select market‑price benchmarks: (1) in‑country actual transactions (tier one), (2) world market prices available to purchasers in the country (tier two), (3) an assessment of market consistency (tier three).
Commerce concluded that the government supplied lignite (not hard steam coal), that domestic lignite prices were distorted (so no tier‑one domestic benchmark was appropriate), and therefore used GTIS world lignite export data (tier two) to construct the benchmark.
ledas argued Commerce should have used tier‑one import steam‑coal prices (or otherwise challenged the GTIS data’s reliability) and that Commerce’s late ex parte meeting and acceptance of photographs prejudiced it.
The court reviewed the record for substantial evidence and whether Commerce followed law and procedure, and ultimately sustained Commerce’s Final Determination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Choice of benchmark: rejection of tier‑one steam‑coal import prices	ledas: Steam coal and lignite are interchangeable; Commerce should have used tier‑one import steam‑coal prices per regulation	Commerce: Record shows GOT supplied only lignite; lignite and hard steam coal are not interchangeable; therefore steam‑coal import prices were inappropriate	Court: Sustained Commerce—reasonable to distinguish lignite from hard steam coal and to decline tier‑one steam‑coal data
Choice of benchmark: use of GTIS world lignite data (tier two)	ledas: GTIS prices were not reasonably available to ledas, not commercially realistic, and produced distorted margin	Commerce: GTIS was on the record; ledas failed to timely raise substantive challenges before the agency; arguments are waived	Court: Sustained Commerce—ledas failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not raising GTIS objections in its rebuttal; waiver bars relief
Procedural fairness: ex parte meeting and acceptance of untimely photographs	ledas: Meeting and acceptance of late evidence prejudiced ledas and violated fairness	Commerce/Defendant: Ex parte meetings are authorized; Commerce documented and disclosed meeting materials; the photos were not material and ledas had opportunity to comment	Court: Sustained Commerce—statutory authority for ex parte meetings, record kept, and no showing that photos affected outcome
Standard of review (substantial evidence / law)	ledas: Agency decisions were unsupported or unlawful	Commerce: Decisions were reasonable and supported by the record	Court: Applied substantial‑evidence standard and found Commerce’s determinations reasonable and supported by the administrative record

Key Cases Cited

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir.) (describing substantial‑evidence review of agency findings)
DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir.) (defining substantial evidence)
Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (U.S.) (classic substantial‑evidence formulation)
Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (U.S.) (noting possibility of drawing inconsistent inferences does not defeat substantial evidence)
Boomerang Tube LLC v. United States, 856 F.3d 908 (Fed. Cir.) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies for arguments not raised before Commerce)
Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir.) (discussing exhaustion and administrative proceedings)
Trust Chem. Co. v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (Ct. Int’l Trade) (noting issues of notice to agency, cited regarding exhaustion)