Tosçelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.Ş. v. United States
348 F. Supp. 3d 1321
Ct. Intl. Trade2018Background
- Commerce imposed antidumping duties on welded line pipe from Turkey; plaintiffs are Turkish producers/exporters challenging Commerce’s duty-drawback adjustment rules.
- Turkey’s Inward Processing Regime (IPR) issues DIIB certificates exempting import duties for inputs used in exports; DIIBs record intended imports and actual exports.
- Commerce requires (1) DIIBs be “closed” and (2) DIIBs reflect exports to the U.S. for a drawback adjustment; Commerce further applied a closure-during-the-POI limitation (the POI limitation).
- Plaintiffs submitted several verified DIIBs; Commerce rejected some because they closed after the period of investigation (POI).
- On remand, Commerce defended the POI limitation as necessary to (a) treat duty liabilities like POI costs, (b) prevent manipulation/double-counting, and (c) improve administrability; the court found these justifications unsupported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce reasonably limited usable DIIBs to those closed during the POI | POI limitation is arbitrary; DIIBs verified on the record and reflect duties tied to POI exports should be used even if closed after POI | POI limitation is reasonable: duty liabilities are like POI costs; limitation prevents manipulation/double-counting and aids administrability | Commerce’s POI limitation is unsupported by substantial evidence; remand ordered to include specified DIIBs and recalculate drawback ratios |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir.) (describes substantial-evidence review)
- DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir.) (defines substantial evidence)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (Sup. Ct.) (formulation of substantial evidence)
- Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (Sup. Ct.) (agency findings and inconsistent conclusions)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (Sup. Ct.) (two-step framework for agency statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Eurodif S.A., 555 U.S. 305 (Sup. Ct.) (Commerce’s interpretive deference)
- Far East Machinery Co. v. United States, 699 F. Supp. 309 (Ct. Int’l Trade) (duty-drawback context and two-prong test)