United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 21-65

            Before the Court in Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane Ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S., et. al., v. United States, et. al., Consol. Court No. 18-00143, Slip Op. 21-65 (May 20, 2021) was Defendant-Intervenor’s challenge against Commerce’s Second Remand Results in an antidumping investigation on imports of carbon and alloy steel wire rod imported from Turkey, which the Court had previously ordered, so that Commerce could recalculate its duty drawback adjustment in accordance with the Court’s instructions. Plaintiffs did not contest the methodology used by Commerce in the Second Remand Results, contending that it complied with the statute and caselaw. However, Defendant-Intervenor (“Nucor”) claimed that Commerce’s duty drawback methodology in the Second Remand Results “distorts the normal value to export price comparison by disproportionately accounting for duties on the export price.” Id. at 7. Nucor contended that Commerce should have selected another duty-neutral methodology — specifically, “adjust[ing] the cost-side drawback methodology approved … to ensure that, consistent with the principles espoused …, per-unit costs are duty-reflective to the same degree as per-unit [export price].” Id. The Government responded that “Nucor cites no authority [that] would permit Commerce to artificially allocate the exempted duty only to those home market sales used for dumping matches or artificially increase the actual drawn back duty burden on each home market sale to equal that included in the United States price.” Id. For the following reasons, the Court affirmed Commerce’s duty drawback methodology and entered judgement for the Government.

“The court shall hold unlawful any determination, finding or conclusion found . . . to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. at 5. The court also reviews the determinations pursuant to remand “for compliance with the court’s remand order.” Id. Here, the Court concluded that, “by recalculating normal value to exclude the COS adjustments related to the duty drawback adjustment to U.S. price, Commerce complied with its remand order … and acted in accordance with the statute. Id. at 6. In this case, because the Court concluded that the Second Remand Results complied with its remand order, the Court sustained them. Id. The Court explained that while Nucor argued that the Federal Circuit’s decision in Saha Thai allowed a duty-neutral methodology, Nucor had not identified any basis that would require Commerce to employ such a methodology. Id. at 7-8. Rather the Federal Circuit in Saha Thai stated that the statute is “ambiguous as to whether ‘costs’ may include ‘implied’ costs in addition to ‘actual costs’” and, thus, deferred to Commerce’s permissible construction of the statute. Id. at 8. The Court concluded that “Commerce implemented a duty drawback methodology and calculation of AD margins as set forth in its Second Remand Results are in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence.” Id. As such, the Court affirmed Commerce’s Second Remand Results. Id.