Maverick Tube Corp. v. Toscelik Profil Ve Sac Endustrisi A.S.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11786
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Çayirova (Turkish pipe producers) exported oil country tubular goods (OCTG) to the U.S. during Commerce’s antidumping investigation but did not import the specific J55 coils required to make OCTG; it purchased J55 domestically.
- Turkey operates a duty-drawback regime allowing import duties on imported coils to be rebated if an exporter produces and exports finished goods; the regime permits substitution of “equivalent goods.”
- Turkish authorities treated Çayirova’s imported non-J55 coils as “equivalent” to domestic J55 coils, and Çayirova obtained duty drawbacks on those imported coils by using its OCTG exports to the U.S.
- Commerce denied a duty-drawback adjustment under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(B), reasoning the duty-exempted goods (non-J55 coils) could not have been used to produce the subject merchandise (OCTG).
- The U.S. Court of International Trade upheld Commerce’s determination; Çayirova appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing the statute plainly requires a drawback adjustment whenever duties were rebated “by reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1677a(c)(1)(B) requires a duty-drawback adjustment whenever duties were rebated “by reason of” U.S. exportation | Çayirova: plain statutory text entitles it to an adjustment because it received drawbacks solely by reason of exporting OCTG to the U.S. | Commerce/U.S.: statute requires a nexus between the drawback and inputs capable of producing the subject merchandise; Commerce reasonably limits adjustments to duties on potential inputs | The statute is silent on this specific issue; Commerce’s interpretation limiting adjustments to duties on potential inputs is reasonable and sustained |
| Whether Saha Thai compels a contrary, unambiguous reading | Çayirova: Saha Thai interpreted the statute as plain and unambiguous, so no deference to Commerce | Commerce: Saha Thai addressed a different question (rebated vs. uncollected duties) and did not resolve the inputs-capability issue | Saha Thai does not preclude Chevron deference here; it does not resolve the inputs question |
| Whether allowing drawback for unrelated goods would violate statutory purpose | Çayirova: (implicit) drawback granted because duties were rebated by reason of export | Commerce: adjusting for costs unrelated to subject merchandise undermines apples-to-apples comparison required by antidumping law | Court agrees with Commerce that adjustments must relate to subject-merchandise production to preserve fair comparison |
| Standard of review for Commerce’s statutory interpretation | Çayirova: statutory text is unambiguous so de novo application | Commerce: where statute is ambiguous, Chevron applies and Commerce’s interpretation should be upheld if reasonable | Court applies Chevron; Commerce’s interpretation is reasonable and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (discusses duty-drawback adjustment when duties are rebated or not collected)
- Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (substantial-evidence standard for reviewing Commerce findings)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (framework for judicial review of agency statutory interpretation)
- Torrington Co. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (antidumping adjustments for apples-to-apples price comparison)
- Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Chevron deference to Commerce on ambiguous antidumping terms)
- Agro Dutch Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 508 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (reviewing Commerce’s statutory interpretations under Chevron)