Union Steel v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7554
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Appeal challenges Commerce's use of zeroing in sixteenth administrative review of anti-dumping duty order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel from Korea.
- Court of International Trade had sustained Commerce's explanatory remand justification for continuing zeroing in administrative reviews while ceasing it in investigations due to WTO obligations.
- URAA-era change: Commerce shifted away from average-to-average in investigations but continued average-to-transaction and used zeroing in reviews to compute final margins.
- Statute 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) is ambiguous about zeroing; Commerce provided an explanation reconciling different practices across proceedings.
- Higher courts previously vacated/remanded for explanation (Dongbu, JTEKT); remand results described Commerce’s reasoning and related methodological distinctions.
- Court applies de novo review to assess whether Commerce’s explanation is a reasonable interpretation under Chevron.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether zeroing in administrative reviews is reasonable under § 1677(35). | Union Steel argues statute ambiguous but requires uniform approach. | Commerce justifies different interpretations for reviews vs investigations. | Yes; Commerce's explanation reasonable. |
| Whether Commerce may modify zeroing practice to suit WTO obligations. | Dongbu/JTEKT required explanation; changes must be justified. | Commerce may adapt to international obligations with adequate justification. | Yes; modification deemed permissible with explanation. |
| Whether Commerce’s explanation satisfies Chevron deference standards. | Statute ambiguous and Commerce must justify conflicting interpretations. | Agency’s permissible construction supported by analysis of methodologies and goals. | Yes; explanation found to be reasonable construction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (ambiguous statute; defer to agency's reasonable interpretation)
- Corus Staal BV v. Dep’t of Commerce, 395 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (ambiguous statute allows differing interpretations)
- U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 621 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (endorsed distinct approaches for investigations vs reviews; allowed zeroing in some contexts)
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (remand for Commerce to explain reasoning; Chevron framework applied)
- Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (required explanation for inconsistent interpretations; remand and explanation required)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 630 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (acknowledges zeroing can remain in administrative reviews despite other changes)