Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01744/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01744-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BORUSAN MANNESMANN BORU SANAYI VE 

TICARET A.S.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES STEEL 

CORPORATION,

Defendants- Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1744

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:13-cv-00001-JMB, Senior Judge Judith M. 

Barzilay.

______________________ 

Decided: June 24, 2015

______________________ 

JULIE MENDOZA, DONALD CAMERON, JR. Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by R. WILL PLANERT,

BRADY MILLS, MARY HODGINS, SARAH SUZANNE SPRINKLE. 

JOSHUA E. KURLAND, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United 

Case: 14-1744 Document: 57-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/24/2015
2 BORUSAN MANNESMANN BORU SANAYI v. US

States. Also represented by JOYCE R. BRANDA, JEANNE E.

DAVIDSON, FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR; WHITNEY MARIE 

ROLIG, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. 

JENNIFER HILLMAN, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United 

States Steel Corporation. Also represented by JOHN D.

GREENWALD, JONATHAN M. ZIELINSKI, THOMAS M. BELINE, 

JAMES R. CANNON, JR. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. 

(“Borusan”) appeals the decision of the Court of International Trade sustaining the Department of Commerce’s 

(“Commerce”) determination that Borusan engaged in 

targeted dumping.1 Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi 

ve Ticaret A.Ş., 990 F. Supp. 2d 1384 (Ct. Int’l Trade 

2014); see also Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 

Tubes from Turkey; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010 to 2011, 78 Fed. 

Reg. 286 (Dep't of Commerce Jan. 3, 2013). The Court of 

International Trade found that Commerce was justified in 

using the average-to-transaction comparison methodology 

described in 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B) (2012) to calculate the appropriate dumping margin to apply to Bo1 Targeted dumping occurs when “comparable merchandise ‘differ[s] significantly among purchasers, regions, or periods of time.’” U.S. Steel Corp. v. United 

States, 621 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting 19 

U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B) (2012)).

 

Case: 14-1744 Document: 57-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/24/2015
BORUSAN MANNESMANN BORU SANAYI v. US 3

rusan’s circular welded carbon steel pipe and tube products. Borusan, 990 F. Supp. 2d at 1388–89. Borusan on 

appeal challenges Commerce’s decision to use the average-to-transaction method of § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B) because, 

according to Borusan, Commerce failed to consider if the 

observed “pattern of export prices . . . that differ significantly among . . . periods of time,” 19 U.S.C. § 1677f1(d)(1)(B), in Borusan’s products occurred due to increases 

in raw material costs, and not due to Borusan’s pursuit of 

any intentional targeted dumping scheme. Borusan does 

not challenge Commerce’s statistical analysis under 

§ 1677f-1(d)(1)(B) as applied to Borusan’s products, and 

only contests Commerce’s decision to perform the averageto-transaction targeted dumping analysis without also 

considering Borusan’s alternate explanation for the 

observed pricing pattern.

Our court recently addressed this issue in JBF RAK 

LLC v. United States, No. 14-1774, slip op. at 15–17 (Fed. 

Cir. June 24, 2015). The panel in JBF RAK concluded 

that § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B) does not require Commerce to 

consider alternate explanations for a “pattern of export 

prices . . . that differ significantly among . . . periods of 

time,” and upheld Commerce’s approach to analyzing 

targeted dumping. Id. at 16 (“Section 1677f-1(d)(1)(B) 

does not require Commerce to determine the reasons why 

there is a pattern of export prices for comparable merchandise that differs significantly among purchasers, 

regions, or time periods . . . .”). We agree with that holding. Section 1677f-1(d)(1)(B) is silent regarding Commerce’s consideration of alternate explanations, beyond 

targeted dumping, for a pattern of export prices that 

differs significantly among purchasers, regions, or time 

periods. Under the two-part test of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. 

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 

842–43 (1984), because Congress has not “directly spoken 

to the precise question at issue” here, we must determine 

if Commerce’s interpretation of § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B) “is 

Case: 14-1744 Document: 57-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/24/2015
4 BORUSAN MANNESMANN BORU SANAYI v. US

based on a permissible construction of the statute.” 

Nothing in the language of the statute requires Commerce to take the extra analytical step proposed by Borusan—consideration of Borusan’s alternate explanations 

for the pricing patterns observed through use of the Nails

test. See also Borusan, 990 F. Supp. 2d at 1389 (“The 

court cannot identify any language in the statute . . . that 

might require Commerce to investigate whether a given 

respondent has a legitimate commercial reason for such a 

pricing practice.”). We thus agree with the JBF RAK 

panel that Commerce’s interpretation of § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B) 

is reasonable.

In light of our decision in JBF RAK, and because Borusan has merely challenged Commerce’s failure to consider Borusan’s alternate explanation for the observed 

pricing patterns, we affirm the Court of International 

Trade’s judgment sustaining Commerce’s calculation of a 

3.55% dumping margin using the average-to-transaction 

comparison methodology. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1744 Document: 57-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/24/2015