Maverick Tube Corp. v. United States, 163 F. Supp. 3d 1345

Background

Commerce investigated antidumping (AD) duties for oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Turkey covering July 1, 2012–June 30, 2013; Çayirova (and its affiliate Yücel) were mandatory respondents.
Yücel had no home‑market sales, so Commerce calculated normal value using constructed value (CV), which includes Selling Expenses and a CV profit component (CV Profit) under 19 U.S.C. §1677b(e).
In the preliminary determination Commerce used alternative (i) for CV Profit; in the final determination it switched to alternative (iii) based on Tenaris financials and largely denied Yücel’s claimed duty drawback, producing a large margin.
The Court in Maverick remanded two issues: (1) Commerce’s CV Profit selection (use of Tenaris and failure to apply a profit cap), and (2) the duty drawback adjustment (changes between preliminary and final).
On remand Commerce used alternative (ii), deriving an aggregate Selling Expenses+CV Profit rate from Borusan’s confidential home‑market data but combined the two components into a single aggregated (7.38%) figure to protect business proprietary information (BPI); Commerce also denied Yücel any duty drawback because the exempted inputs were not suitable for, nor used in, production of the exported OCTG.
The court sustained Commerce’s remand results: it found the aggregation protected BPI and alternative (ii) permissible here; it also found Commerce reasonably denied Yücel’s drawback because the exempted inputs were not related to subject‑merchandise production.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of Borusan home‑market data under alternative (ii) to calculate Selling Expenses and CV Profit	Petitioners (Maverick, U.S. Steel) argued Commerce must not use alternative (ii) when only one other respondent exists because of BPI disclosure risk; Commerce’s aggregation is a novel, untimely practice	Commerce argued it can use Borusan’s data if it sufficiently protects BPI; aggregating Selling Expenses and CV Profit into one figure prevents disclosure and best simulates statutorily preferred data	Court upheld Commerce: aggregation plus APO adequately protects BPI; alternative (ii) permissible here and supported by substantial evidence
Potential ability of Yücel to "back out" Borusan BPI from the aggregate rate	Petitioners contended Yücel could deduce Borusan’s proprietary rates by backing out its own data	Commerce asserted many possible Selling Expense/CV Profit combinations produce the aggregate, so disclosure risk is speculative	Court found petitioners failed to show actual risk; substantial evidence supports Commerce’s conclusion that BPI was protected
Duty drawback adjustment for Yücel	Çayirova (Yücel) argued Commerce improperly imposed a new "suitability for use" threshold and departed from the established two‑part drawback test; argued remand exceeded scope and treated Yücel differently than Borusan	Commerce argued its denial rested on record fact that Yücel admitted the exempted inputs were not used in, and not suitable for, producing OCTG exported to the U.S.; relied on Saha Thai and statutory purpose to deny adjustment	Court upheld Commerce: denying drawback was reasonable where exempted inputs could not have been used to produce subject merchandise; Commerce’s construction of statute is permissible under Chevron and consistent with precedent

Key Cases Cited

Atar S.r.L. v. United States, 730 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (discusses Commerce’s prior reluctance to use alternative (ii) where only one other respondent has home‑market data due to BPI concerns)
Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explains drawback adjustment applies where duties on inputs used to manufacture subject merchandise are rebated or not collected)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes are upheld if reasonable)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (agency must give reasoned explanation when changing course)
Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (agency must calculate the most accurate margins possible and base adjustments on costs related to subject merchandise)