Tosçelik Profil ve Sac Endüstrisi A.Ş. v. United States
2017 CIT 107
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Commerce issued a final antidumping duty determination on Welded Line Pipe from Turkey (Final Determination, Oct. 13, 2015). Plaintiffs are Turkish producers/exporters Yucel and Toscelik challenging aspects of that determination.
- Plaintiffs brought a Rule 56.2 action in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging (1) Commerce’s treatment of duty drawback claims (both plaintiffs) and (2) Commerce’s date-of-sale determination (Yucel only).
- Commerce conceded (and requested an unopposed remand) on the duty-drawback issue; the government asked the court to remand for further consideration.
- On date-of-sale, Commerce applied its regulatory presumption using invoice date, finding Yucel failed to show contract date was the single date when material terms were firmly and finally fixed.
- Yucel argued contract date (and alternatively the letter-of-credit opening) should be the date of sale; Commerce and petitioners countered that terms (e.g., timing of LC opening and delivery) varied after contract date, defeating the firm/final standard.
- The court remanded the duty-drawback issue to Commerce, and sustained Commerce’s invoice-date determination for date of sale, rejecting Yucel’s arguments and finding failure to exhaust certain alternative arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty drawback treatment | Commerce misapplied/failed to properly consider duty-drawback claims (Yucel & Toscelik) | Commerce requested remand to reconsider duty-drawback on the record | Remanded to Commerce for further consideration (unopposed remand granted) |
| Date of sale (Yucel) | Contract date (or alternatively LC opening) was the date when material terms were fixed | Invoice date presumptively controls; Yucel failed to show contract date firmly and finally fixed material terms; some terms changed after contract date | Sustained Commerce’s use of invoice date; Yucel failed to meet burden to identify a single reasonable alternative date; some arguments not exhausted administratively |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir.) (describing substantial-evidence/agency-review standard)
- DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (U.S.) (classic substantial-evidence language)
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (U.S.) (substantial-evidence and inconsistent inferences do not defeat agency findings)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir.) (on voluntary remands to agency)
- Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir.) (administrative exhaustion principle)