Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. v. United States, 1:21-cv-00140

Commerce conducted an antidumping administrative review of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey for the period May 1, 2018–April 30, 2019 and issued final results in 2021.
During the review Commerce deducted Section 232 steel tariffs (Proclamation 9705 and the later temporary Turkey increase in Proclamation 9772) from U.S. price as “United States import duties” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(2)(A).
Noksel challenged Commerce’s treatment of the Section 232 duties (arguing the temporary 9772 increase was remedial/temporary and not a deductible import duty) and Commerce’s refusal to grant a duty-drawback adjustment under Turkey’s Inward Processing Regime (IPC/DIIB) because Noksel had only applied for IPC closure and had no GOT confirmation of forgiveness.
Commerce denied the duty-drawback adjustment because its practice (as applied recently) requires record evidence that the Turkish government has approved/forgiven the IPC duties rather than just an application to close.
The Court applied the Federal Circuit’s proclamation-specific approach from Borusan Mannesmann and concluded that Proclamation 9772’s text is analogous to Proclamation 9705; it sustained Commerce’s deduction of Section 232 duties and sustained Commerce’s denial of the drawback adjustment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Section 232 duties (including Proclamation 9772’s temporary increase) qualify as "United States import duties" deductible from EP/CEP	9772’s temporary/remedial 25% increase is distinct and should not be treated as a deductible U.S. import duty	Binding Federal Circuit authority and the proclamation text support treating the assessed 232 duties as U.S. import duties deductible from U.S. price	Court sustained Commerce: followed Borusan Mannesmann II’s proclamation-specific approach and found 9772 analogous to 9705, so deduction is proper
Whether Noksel is entitled to a duty-drawback adjustment under Turkey’s IPR when it only had an application to close an IPC (no GOT approval/forgiveness on record)	An application to close the IPC suffices or Commerce should accept other verified record evidence	Commerce requires evidence that the GOT has approved/forgiven the IPC (i.e., closure or explicit forgiveness) and Noksel lacked such documentation	Court sustained Commerce: requiring GOT confirmation of closure/forgiveness is reasonable; Noksel did not meet Commerce’s (recent) evidentiary standard

Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 63 F.4th 25 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (adopting a proclamation-specific approach; upheld treatment of certain §232 duties as deductible U.S. import duties)
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 494 F. Supp. 3d 1365 (CIT 2021) (district/court opinion addressing antidumping adjustments and pricing comparability)
Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 495 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (upheld Commerce’s treatment of certain remedial duties under §1677a(c)(2)(A))
Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Pub.) Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining duty-drawback two-prong test)
Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, 348 F. Supp. 3d 1321 (CIT 2018) (discussing IPC closure timing and Commerce’s practice)
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. v. United States, 439 F. Supp. 3d 1342 (CIT 2020) (upholding Commerce’s requirement for evidence the GOT forgave duties to allow drawback)
Huvis Corp. v. United States, 570 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Commerce need only show its methodology is permissible and reasoned)
United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 621 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (usage of EP/CEP as U.S. price in dumping margin comparisons)