Slip Op. 08-144 UNI TED STATES COURT OF I NTERNATI ONAL

TRADE

____________________________________ : CORUS S TAAL

BV , : : Plaintiff, : : v . : : UNI TED STATES and : UN I T E S S T AT E S DE P AR T M E NT : Be fo re : J u d i thM
. Barz i l ay , J u d ge OF COMMERCE, : Court No. 07-00221 : De fe nd ants , : : an d : : UNI TED STATES STEEL : CORPOR ATI ON and : ARCEL ORMI TTAL

USA I NC., :

: De fe nd ant- Inte rv e no rs . : ____________________________________:
OPI NI ON AND ORDER [P la inti f f ’ s M o ti o nf

o r Ju d g me n t u

p o nth e A g e n c y

Re c o r d is g r an te d

in p art a n d d e n ie d in p art. ]
Dated: De cembe r 29, 2008
Ste pto e &J oh ns on LLP , (

Joel D. Kaufman ), Richard O. Cunningham , Alice A. Kipel , and J am ie B. Beabe r

for Plaintiff. Gregory G .Kastas , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; JeanneE. Davidson , D ir e c tor ; Patricia M. McCarthy , A ssi sta

nt D ir e c tor ; ( Claudia Burke ), Commercia l L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, Un ite d St a te s D e pa

rtme nt o f Jus tic e fo r D e fe nd ant Unit e d St a te s.Court No. 07- 00221 P age 2

Once an antidumping order has bee n issued, it may

be per iodically

revie wed. See19 1 U.S.C. §§ 1673-1673d (2000). A pe riodic, or “ administrative,” r eview oc curs whe n Commerce, if reque sted, revie ws the orde r for a twelve month period to update the a pplicable duty . 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(1) (B ) (2000) . The orde r automatica lly terminates a fter f

ive y ear s unless (1) Commerce de termines that re vocation of the antidumping or der w ould likely lead to a continuation or re curr ence of dumping , and (2) the I TC determines that r evocation would be likely lead to continuation or r ecur renc e of material injury . § 1675(c) (1) ( 2000). This “five

y e ar, ” or “ suns e t,” re vie w i s c on du c te d p ur su ant t o th e pr oc e dure s e sta bli sh e d und e r 1 9 U .S. C. § 1675a (2000)
. The Issues and De cision Memorandum is also available at 2 http:// ia.ita.doc.g ov/frn/summary /netherla nds/E7-9815-1.pdf. Sk ad de n A rp s S

late Me ag

he r &Flom , LLP , (

John J. M

angan) , J e ffr e yD. Ge rri

sh , and Robert E. Lighthi zer for De fenda

nt-Interve nor United States Steel Corporation. Ste war t an d S

te war t , ( W

ill iam A. Fe nn e ll) and Te re nc e P. Ste war t for De fenda nt-Interve nor Arc elorMittal Steel USA, I nc. BARZILAY, JU DG E: Plaintiff Corus St aal B V (“ Corus”) c halleng es the imposition of
anti dumpi ngdutie s b y

De fe nd ant Unit e d St a te s o n c e rt a in e ntr ie s o f h ot- ro lle d c arb on ste e l (“ HR CS” ) f

lat pr od uc ts f ro m th e Ne the rl and s in

an a dmi nis tr a tiv e re vie w o f a n a nti dumpi ngduty order
. Se e Ce rta in H

ot-Ro lle d Ca rb on Ste e l F lat Pr od uc ts f ro m t heNe the rla nd

s; Fi na l R esu lts 1 of Antidumping Duty Administrati ve R evie w , 72 Fe d. Reg . 28,676 (De p’t Commerce May 22, 2007) (“ Fi na l R esu lts ” ); Ce rta in H ot-Ro lle d Ca rb on Ste e l F lat Pr od uc ts f ro m t heNe the rla nd

s; Amende d Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrat ive Re view , 72 Fe d. Reg . 34,441 (De p’t Commerce J une 22, 2007) ( “ Am e nd e d R esu lts ” ); Issues and De cision Memorandum for the 2004-2005 Administrative Re view of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Ne the rla nd

s; Fi na l R esu lts of A nti du mp ing Du ty Ad mi nis tra tiv e Re v ie w (De p’t Commerce May 15, 2007), Pub. R. Doc. (“ P.R. Doc.”) 111 ( “ Issues and De cision Memorandum ”). United States 2Court No. 07- 00221 P age 3

“Commerce use[s] a methodolog y called zer oing . . . where by only positive dumping 3 marg ins ( i.e. , marg ins for sales of merc handise sold at dumped pr ices) w ere ag g reg ated, a nd ne g a tiv e marg ins ( i.e. , marg ins for sales of merc handise sold at nondumped pr ices) w ere g iven a value of zero.” Corus Staal

BV v. U.S. D ep’t of Commerc e , 395 F.3d 1343, 1345- 46 (F ed. Cir. 2005) (“ Corus Staal

Zeroing ”). See , e.g. , Corus Staal

BV v. United States , 31 CI T ___, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (2007) 4 (“ Corus Staal

1AR ” ); Corus Staal

BV v. United States , 31 CI T ___, 493 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (2007) (“ Corus Staal

5AR ” ); Corus Staal

BV v. United States , 29 CI T 777, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (2005) (“ Corus II

”), aff’d , 186 F. App’ x . 997 (F ed. Cir. 2006), cert. de nied , 127 S. Ct . 3001 (2007); Corus Staal

BV v. U.S. D ep’t of Commerc e , 27 CI T 388, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (2003) (“ Corus I ”). Steel Corporation (“ U.S. Steel”) a nd Arc elorMittal USA, Inc. (“ Arc elorMittal”) join as Def endant- Interve nors. Corus has par ticipated in seve ral proc eeding s befor e this Court contestingthe Depa

rtment of Commerce ’s (“ Commerce” ) use of zeroing to calculate dumping

3 marg ins. Pursuant to USCI T R. 56.2, Corus moves for Judgment upon the Ag ency Record 4 alleg ing that Comm erc e did not act in ac corda nce w ith the law and a cted without substantial evidenc e whe n it (1) used zeroingto calculate Corus’s we ighte d-ave rag e dumping marg in, (2) instructe d Customs and B order Protection (“Customs”) to impose antidumping duties on
su bje c t me rc ha

nd ise imp or

te d d ur ingthe fo ur

th p e ri od of re vie w whe n th e re wa s n o v a lid deter mination of dumping, a

nd (3) c onducted a

duty absorption inquiry

and dete rmined that
anti dumpi ngdutie s r e late d to sa le s o f s ub je c t me rc ha

nd ise we re a

bs or be d b y Cor us . T he c ourt finds that Commerce’ s actions under (1) a nd (2) a re in a ccor dance with law and supporte d by
su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e . H ow e ve r, the c ourt fi nd s th a t Co mme rc e did no t a c t in a c c or da nc e wi th law a s to c la im ( 3) . T he re fo re , f or the re a so ns state d b e low , th e c ourt de nie s in pa rt , a nd g ra nts in part, Corus’s Motion for Judgment upon the Ag ency Record.Court No. 07- 00221 P age 4

“A n t i d u mp i n g l aw s p ro t ec tUn i t edS t at es i n d u s tri es aga i n s tth e d o m es t i c s al e o f f o re i gn 5 manufa cture d g oods at price s below the fa ir marke t value of those g oods in the fore ign c ountry .” Sango Int’l, L.P. v. United States , 484 F.3d 1371, 1372 ( Fe d. Cir. 2007). I f C o m m er ce an d

th e Int ern at i o n al T ra d e C o m m i s s i o n(“ I T C ”) d et erm i n e t h ata f o re i gn 6 exporter or produc er ha s been or is likely to be selling g oods in the United States at L TFVto the detriment of United States pr oducer s, Commerce w ill is sue an a ntidumping orde r asse ssing duties on that fore ign e x porter or produce r. See F

AG Italia, S.p.A. v. United States , 291 F.3d 806, 809 (F ed. Cir. 2002) (c iting §§ 1673-1673d)
. I. Bac kgr ound A. The Original Antidu m pin g Order & Sub sequent Litigation On Novembe r 13, 2000, U.S. Steel and c erta in other domestic stee l produce rs petitioned Comme rc e to d e te rm ine wh e the r H RCS w e re be ingso ld i n th e Un ite d St a te s at le ss t ha n f a ir value ( L TFV ) and, if a

ppropriate , levy

antidumping duties on the subjec t mercha ndise. Notice

5 of I nit iat ion of A nti du mp ing

Du ty In v esti ga tio ns : C

e rta in H ot-Ro lle d Ca rb on Ste e l F lat Pr od uc ts From Argentina, India, Indone sia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the People’s Re public of China, Romania, South Africa, Taiw an, Thailand, and Ukraine , 65 Fe d. Reg . 77,568 (De p’t Commerce De c . 1 2, 20 00 ). Comme rc e c on du c te d a n inve sti g a tio n w he re in i t a pp lie d ze ro ingand

ult imate ly fo un d th a t Co ru s d

ump e d th e su

bje c t me rc ha

nd ise a t a rate of 3. 06 pe rc e nt. Notice of Final

6 De te rm ina tio n o

f Sa le s a t Le ss T ha n F air Va lue ; C e rta in H ot-Ro lle d Ca rb on Ste e l F lat Pr od uc ts From The Netherlands , 66 Fe d. Reg . 50,408, 50,409 (De p’t Commerce Oct. 3, 2001). O n November

29, 2001, Commerce issued a n antidumping duty

order cover ing H RCS from the Nether lands. Antidumping Duty Order: Ce rtain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Netherlands , 66 Fe d. Reg . 59,565, 59,566 (De p’t Commerce Nov. 29, 2001).Court No. 07- 00221 P age 5

The EC cha lleng ed the use of zeroingin fifteen a ntidumping investig ations and six teen 7 a dmi nis tr a tiv e re vie ws . T he inv e sti g a tio n o f H RCS im po rt e d b y Cor us wa s amon g tho se challeng ed bef

ore the dispute settlement panel ( “WTO Panel”)
. SeeRequest for Consultations by the Europe an Communiti es, United States—Laws, Regulati ons and Methodologies for Calc ula tin g D um

ping M ar gin s ( “Ze ro ing ”) , WT/DS 294/1, at 4 (June 19, 2003) (“EC Con su lta tio ns Re qu est ”). H oweve r, none of the administrative re views of HRCS were included in the proce eding
. Se e id
. All documents related to WTO dispute W T/DS294, including the r eports of the Panel 8 and Appe llate B ody , are available at http:// www.wto.or g /eng lish/t ratop_e /dispu_e/cases_e /ds294_e.htm . In its challeng e, the EC spec ifically noted: 9 [U] nlike in a new inve stigation, in an administrative revie w [Com merc e] does not compar e the a

vera g e [U.S.] price (export price) to the aver ag e home mar ket price (normal value) for the whole investig ation period. Instead, [Comm erc e’s] prac tice is to compare the [U.S.] net price for e ach individual [U.S.] transac tion to the most contempora neous monthly aver ag e norma l value. The total value of the dumpingmarg in is then calculated by ag g reg ating only

the transac tion-specific positive dumped values a nd then multiply ing the quantity sold in the [U.S .] m arke t for ea ch model by the unit dumped value to ar rive at the total dollars dumpe d. Com

pa ri so ns of ind ivi du a l [U. S.] tr ans a c tio ns to w e ig hte d- ave ra g e monthl y normal value that yield negative marg ins are ig nored ( eff ectively treated as zero)
. . . . Th e Euro pe an Co mmunit ie s ( “ EC” ) s ub se qu e ntl y ini tiate d a

pr oc e e din g be fo re the Wor ld Trade Org anization (“WTO”) c halleng ing the United States’ use of zeroing to calcula

te dumping
marg ins
. See EC C

on su lta tio ns Re qu est , WT/DS 294/1. On Octobe r 31, 2005, the WTO Panel 7 8
c on c lud e d th a t Co mme rc e ’s us e of zer oin g in a

nti dumpi nginv e sti g a tio ns vio late d U .S. obligations under the WTO Antidumping Agree ment (“ AD Agree ment ” ) w ithre sp e c t to
anti dumpi nginv e sti g a tio ns . SeeReport of the Pane l, United States—Laws, Regulati ons and 9Court No. 07- 00221 P age 6

. . . [C ommerce ’s] methodology of ag g reg ating the values of only the positive dumping mar g ins based on the individual transa ctions means that ther e is no offse t ag ainst the positive values at a ny stag e. EC C on su lta tio ns Re qu e

st , WT/DS 294/1, at 10. By definition, an “a s such” c laim “cha lleng es laws, r egulations, or other instruments of 10 a [W TO] Member that have g ener al and pr ospective a pplication, asser

ting that a Member’ s c on du c t—n ot o nly

in a pa rt ic ula r i ns tanc e that ha s o c c ur

re d, but in

futur e sit uatio ns a s w e ll—

wi ll ne c e ssa ri ly be inc on sis te nt w iththat Me mbe r’ s WT O o bli g a tio ns .” Re po rt of the Ap pe llate Body , United States—Sunset Rev iews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina , WT/DS 268/AB/R, at ¶ 172 (Nov. 29, 2004), available at http:// www.wto.or g /eng lish/t ratop_e /dispu_e/cases_e /ds268_e.htm. By contra st, an “a s applied” claim is a “c halleng e[] to a Member ’s application of a g ener al rule to a specific set of fac ts”—that is, it contests the way in which a Me mber implements or e nforc es a g ener al measur e. Se e id . at 3 n.22. Me tho do log

yfor Calc ula tin g D um

ping M ar gin s ( “Ze ro ing ”) , ¶¶ 8.2- 8.4, WT/DS 294/R (Oct. 31, 2005) (“ Pa ne l R e po rt ” ). Th e WTO Pane l st a te d th a t th e us e of the zer oin g me tho do logy in investigations viol ates the AD Ag re e me nt “ a s su c h, ” and

“ a s a pp lie d” in t

he fi ft e e n s pe c if

ic investigations at issue. Id . Although the United States appe aled c erta in aspec ts of the Panel 10 Re po rt , the deter

mination concer

ning zer oing r emained unc hang ed. SeeRe po rt of the Ap pe llate Body , United States—Laws, Regulati ons and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins ( “Ze ro ing ”) , ¶ 263, WT/DS294/AB/R (Apr. 18, 2006) ( “EC Zeroing Chal lenge ”). Mor eover , the Appellate Body

in EC Zeroing Chal lenge a lso he ld t hat th e us e of

zer oin g by

Comme rc e in administrative re views is impermissible. Se e id . at ¶¶ 132- 35, 263(a) (i). Acc ording ly , the United States starte d the proc ess of implementingthe dec ision outl ined in the Pa ne l R e

po rt . Corus Staal

1AR , 31 CI T at ___, 515 F . Supp. 2d at 1341 (citing Implem entation of the Findings of t he W TO Panel in U.S. Zeroing ( EC) : Notice of Initiation of P r o ce ed i n g

s Un d er S ec t i o n 1 2 9 o

f th e [ Ur ug u a

y R o u n d A gr ee me n t

s A ct (“ UR A A ” )] ;Court No. 07- 00221 P age 7

This Court has previously explained the proce ss by which Cong ress implements an 11 adver se WTO Panel dec ision: Congr ess has e stablished two proce dures by which a ne g ative WTO dec ision may be imp le me nte d into d ome sti c law. Th e fi rs t me tho d, a Se c tio n 1 23 pr oc e e din g , is the me c ha

nis m to ame nd , r e sc ind , o r m od if y an a g e nc y

re g ulatio n o r p ra c tic e in or de r t o im

ple me nt a de c isi on by the WTO that su c h is inc on sis te nt w ithU. S. treaty obligations. S ection 123 re quires the United States Tr ade Re prese ntative (“U STR”) to consult with appropriate cong ressional c ommitt ees, pr ivate sec tor committees, and provide for public c omment before deter mining whe ther a

nd how to chang e an a g ency

regulation or prac tice. . . . [ See§ 3533(g )(1) .] The second method, a Section 129 proc eeding , is discrete. Sec tion 129 sets forth a proc edure to implement a [negative] W TO dec ision with respect to a sp e c ifi c [ a g e n c y] deter mination [ that the WTO found does not support an unf air tra de orde r]. . . . I mportantly , a Section 129 dete rmination is prospective in natur e: it becomes eff ective only

for unliquidated e ntries of mer chandise that are enter ed or wi thd ra wn fr om w are ho us e fo r c on sumpt ion on or a ft e r t he date the UST R di re c ts Commerce to implement that dete rmination. [ See19 U.S.C. § 3538(a)(6) , (b)( 4), ( c ) ( 1 ) ( 2 0 0 0 )
. ] Corus Staal

1AR , 3 1 C I T at_

_ _ n . 8 , 5 1 5 F. S u

p p . 2 d at1 3 4 1 -4 2 n . 8 (q u o t i n g Corus Staal 5AR , 31 CI T at ___ n.2, 493 F . Supp. 2d at 1280 n.2). Opportunity to Request Administrative ProtectiveOrders; and Propose d Timetable and Procedure

s , 72 Fe d. Reg . 9306 (De p’t Commerce Mar. 1, 2007) ). “The administrative proce dures f

or implementing such a de cision are contained in Sec tions 123 and 129 of the URAA, codifie d at 19 U.S.C. §§ 3533(g ) and 3538 ( 2000), re spectively .” Corus Staal 1AR , 31 11 CI T at __ _, 51 5 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 13 41 -4 2 ( fo otn ote s o mitte d) ; see also 19 U.S.C. § 3511 (2000) (implementing the URAA). O n Marc h 6, 2006, Commerce issued a notice under

Section 123 of the URAA re questing comments from the public on its proposal to implement the Pa ne l R e po rt with respec t to the use of zeroingin antidumping investig ations. An tid um ping Pro c e e dings : Calc ula tio n o

f th e W e igh te d A v e rageDu mp ing Ma rg in D ur ing

an An tid um ping D uty Inve stigati on , 71 Fe d. Reg . 11,189, 11,189-90 (De p’t Commerce Mar. 6, 2006) . In Dec emberCourt No. 07- 00221 P age 8

The e ffe ctive date of the Section 123 De termination was c hang ed fr om J anuar y 16, 12 2007 to Febr

uary 22, 2007. Corus Staal

1AR , 31 CI T at ___ n.9, 515 F . Supp. 2d at 1342 n.9 (c i t i n g An tid

um ping Pro c e e dings : C

alc ula tio n o

f th e W e igh te d- Av e rageDu mp ing

Ma rg ins in Antidumping Investigations; Change in EffectiveDate of Final Modification , 72 Fe d. Reg . 3783 (De p’t Commerce J an. 26, 2007))
. 20 06 , Co mme rc e ann ounc e d th a t it wo uld no lon g e r u se zer oin g to c a lc ulate dumpi ngmarg ins in “cur rent a nd future inve stigations” as of F ebrua ry 22, 2007. Se e An tid

um ping Pro c e e dings : 12 Calc ula tio n o

f th e W e igh te d- Av e rageDu mp ing

Ma rg in D ur ing

an An tid um ping D uty Inve stigati on; Final Modification , 71 Fe d. Reg . 77,722, 77,725 (De p’t Commerce Dec . 27, 2006) (“ Section 123 De termination ” ). Comme rc e no te d th a t th e mod if ic a tio n w ou ld a

pp ly on ly to sp e c if ic inv e sti g a tio ns
— i.e. , i n v es t i gat i o n s i n v o l v i n g we i gh t ed -a v er age -t o -a v er age compar isons—and, there fore , not to any other ty pes of investig ations or administrative re views. Id . at 77,723-24. On Fe bruar

y 22, 2007, Commerce initiated pr ocee dings pur suant to Section 129 of the URAA to rec alculate dumping mar g ins in each a ntidumping investig ation without z eroing
. Implem entation of the Findings of t he W TO Panel in US Zeroing ( EC) : Notice of Initiation of Procee dings Under Sec tion 129 of the URAA; Opportunity to Reque st Administrat ive Protec tive Orders; and Propose d Timetables and Procedure s , 72 Fe d. Reg . 9306, 9306 (De p’t Commerce Mar. 1, 2007) . In these Sec tion 129 procee dings, Commerc e re calc ulated the dumpingmarg in on HRCS i mported by

Corus. When Comm erc e issued the f inal deter mination of the rec alculate d dumping mar g in, it found the marg in to be zero and a ccor dingly revoke d the antidumping or der on HRCS. Implem entation of the Findings of t he W TO Panel in US—Zeroing ( EC) : Notice of Determ inations Under Section 129 of the [URAA] and Rev ocations and Partial Revocations ofCourt No. 07- 00221 P age 9

The SAA state s: 13 Con sis te nt w iththe pr inc ipl e tha t G AT T p ane l r e c omm e nd a tio ns a pp ly on ly pr os pe c tiv e ly , . . . [Sec tio n 1 29 ] de te rm ina tio ns have pr os pe c tiv e e ff e c t on ly . T hat is , they apply to unliquidated entries of me rcha ndise enter ed . . . on or a fter the date on which the [USTR] direc ts impl ementation. . . . [E] ntries made pr ior to the date of [ U S T R ’ s ] d i r e c t i o nw o u l d r e m a i ns u

b j e c tt o p o t e n t i a l d

u ty l i a b i l i ty. See U ruguay Round Agree ments Act, Stateme nt of Administr ative Ac tion , H.R. Rep. No. 103- 316, at 1026 (1994), re

pr inte d in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4313 (“ SAA ”). Ce rta in A nti du mp ing

Du ty Or de rs , 72 Fe d. Reg . 25,261, 25,262 (De p’t Commerce May 4, 2007) (“ Section 129 De termination ”). The USTR directed Commerc e to implement its determination on April 23, 2007. Id
. Whil e Commerce revoke d the antidumping or der on H RCS , it ex pressly reje cted Corus’s
argume nt t

hat th e re su lts of

a Se c tio n 1 29 pr oc e e din g a pp ly to e ntr ie s ma de pr ior

to t he date USTR directs Commerce to implement the determination. Issues and De cision Memorandum at 12-14. Commerce noted that the cle ar, una mbiguous languag e of Sec tion 129 of the URAA and the Statement of Administrative Action (“ SAA ” ) p ro vid e s th a t de te rm inatio ns re su lti ngfr om a Section 129 proce edingwill not affec t entries made befor e the date of the U STR’s direction. 13 Id . at 14. Commerce emphasized it would instruct Cust oms to li quidate only those entries of

the subject merc handise that “ enter ed, or [wer e] withdrawn fr om ware house, for consumption on or afte r April 23, 2007 . . . .” Section 129 De termination , 72 Fe d. Reg . at 25,263 (e mphasis added)
. On April 25, 2007, Corus filed a n action with this Court to preclude the a pplication of antidumping duties on its entries of subject merc handise in the fif th administrative revie w
cover ing e ntries from Nove mber 1, 2005 to Oc tober 31, 2006. In that case , Corus challeng ed the instructions give n by

Commerce to Customs to li quidate entr ies of the subjec t mercha ndise madeCourt No. 07- 00221 P age 10

Th e Court

he ld t hat Co ru s’ s c la im w a s unli ke ly to s uc c e e d o n th e me ri ts b e c a us e 14 “Section 129 spec ifically

say s that any

deter mination made pursuant to that provision applies pr os pe c tiv e ly , i.e. , to mercha

ndise enter ed or w ithdrawn fr om ware house for consumption on or afte r the date of

implementation.” Id . at 1286 (c iting § 3538(c )(1) ). While the Section 129 Deter mination was implemented on April 23, 2007, the e ntries in question entere d betwee n November

1, 2005 and Oc tober 31, 2006. Thus, the Court noted that the implementation of the Section 129 De termination on April 23, 2007 had no impac t on the subject entrie s beca use they enter ed or w ere withdrawn f rom war ehouse pr ior to the revoc ation date. Se e id . at 1279-80 n.2, 1286. by Cor us duri ngthe re vie w p e ri od a t th e a s- e nte re d r ate , w hic h in c lud e d a nti dumpi ngduty deposits. See Corus Staal 5AR , 3 1 CI T at __ _, 49 3 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 12 81 . Co ru s so ug ht a temporar y restra ining or der ( “TRO”) and a pr eliminary injunction to enjoin the liqui dation of the entries. The Court denied the motion for a TRO afte r Corus fa iled to show a likelihood of
su c c e ss o n th e me ri ts. SeeOrde r De nying T RO at 1-3, Corus Staal 5AR , 3 1 C I T _

__ , 4 93 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (No. 07-134). The Court also denied Corus’s r equest for a pre liminary

injunction and dismissed the ac tion in it s entirety for lac k of jurisdiction. Corus Staal 5AR , 31 CI T at ___, 493 F. Supp. 2d at 1278. The Court further noted that eve n if it did possess jurisdi ction over Corus’s claims, Corus had fa iled to show a likelihood of succ ess on the mer its and, theref ore, would not be entitled to a pre liminary injunction. Id . at 1286.

14 On July 19 , 2 00 7, Cor

us c ha lle ng e d Co mme rc e ’s fi na l de te rm inatio n in the fi rs t administrative re view, and sought a TRO and pr eliminary injunction to enjoin the liqui dation of entries made duringthat period. Corus Staal 1AR , 31 CI T at ___, 515 F . Supp. 2d at 1339-40. Acc ordingto Corus, there wa s no valid determination of dumpingbeca use the Sec tion 129 pr oc e e din g s r e vo ke d th e anti dumpi ngor de r o n H RCS a nd , th e re fo re , Co mme rc e ha d n o a uth or ity under § 1673 to impose antidumping duties on entries of the subject merc handise made duringCourt No. 07- 00221 P age 11

The Court noted that the statutory languag e is unequivoca lly clea r—re vocation orde rs 15 iss ue d und e r S e c tio n 1 29 on ly a pp ly pr os pe c tiv e ly

to u nli qu idate d e ntr ie s o f s ub je c t me rc ha

nd ise from the date of the r evocation order. Se e id . at 1346-47. More over, the Court also stated that “this case could re asonably be cha rac terized as a w aste of judicia l resourc es. Ther e is nothing unclea r about Sec tion 129 or the [ SAA ] which ex plains it.” SeeTr. of O ral Ar g ument at 46, Corus Staal

1AR , 31 CI T ___, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (No. 07- 270). The four th administrative revie w cove rs entrie s of HRCS made betwee n November 1, 16 2004 and Oc tober 31, 2005. the re view per iod. Se e id . at 1343-44. Althoug h the Court initially g rante d Corus’s reque st for a TRO , it de nie d Co ru s’ s mo tio n f

or a pr e lim ina

ry inj un c tio n, ho ldi ngtha

t Co mme rc e pr op e rl y levied antidumping duties on the entries of the subject mer chandise made dur ing the revie w period in ac corda

nce w ith Section 129 of the URAA and the Section 129 De termination. See 15 id. at 1346-47. B. Th e F ourth Adm inis trat ive Revie w & Duty Absorption Inq uiry This case conce rns the entr ies of HRCS made by Corus during the fourth a dminist rative
re vie w. In July

20 07 , Co ru s f

ile d a c omp la int

c ha lle ng ing

Comme rc e ’s (1 ) u se of

zer oin g in 16 calc ulating the dumping mar g in for entr ies of HRCS made duringthe fourth a dminist rative revie w, (2) subse quent liquidation inst ructions issued to Customs that imposed antidumping duties on the subject mer chandise , and (3) duty absorption inquiry

and dete rmination. On De c e mbe r 2 2, 20 05 , Co mme rc e ann ounc e d th a t it wo uld ini tiate the fo ur

th administrative re view for entries of HRCS because it had r ece ived re quests for r eview pur suant to § 1675. Initiation of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrat ive Re views and Re qu est f or Re v oc ati on in Par t , 70 Fe d. Reg . 76,024, 76,024 (De p’t Commerce Dec . 22, 2005) (“ Notice of 4AR ”). Comme rc e pu bli sh e d a no tic e of Cor us ’s re c a lc ulate d d

ump ingmarg inCourt No. 07- 00221 P age 12

Commerce, if

reque sted, may

perf orm a duty

absorption inquiry

duringthe sec ond or 17 f o urtha dm i n i s tr a t i v e r e v i e wa f t e r th e p u b l i c a t i o no f

anan t i d u mp i n g o r d e r . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, C o m m er ce “s h al l d et erm i n e w h et h er an t i d u mp i n g d u t i es h av e b ee nab s o rb edb y a f o re i gn produce r or e x porter . . . if the subject mer chandise is sold in t he United States through an importer who is af

filiated with the for eig n produce r or e x porter.” Agro Dutch Indus. Ltd. v. United States , 508 F.3d 1024, 1028 ( Fe d. Cir. 2007) (citing§ 1675(a) (4)) (“ Agro Dutch ”). without z eroingpursuant to the g ener al cha ng e in policy

flowingfrom the EC Zeroing Chal lenge decision. Section 129 De termination , 72 Fe d. Reg . at 25,262. Afte r re calc ulating the dumping marg in, Comm erc e dete rmined that the subjec t mercha ndise had not bee n dumped and r evoked the antidumping or der on H RCS , eff ective A pril 23, 2007. Id . Howeve r, on May 22, 2007, Commerce instruc ted Customs t o levy antidumping duties at the assessed r ate on e ntries of HRCS m ade by

Corus during the re view per iod presumably beca use they enter ed bef

ore the eff ective da te of the c hang e in policy
. Am e nd e d R esu lts , 72 Fe d. Reg . at 34,441. Usingthe zeroing methodology , Commerce c alculate d a we ighte d-ave rag e dumping marg in of 2.26 perc ent for HRCS. Am e nd

e d R esu lts , 72 Fe d. Reg . at 34,442. Duringthis period, Def

endant- Interve nor U.S. Steel reque sted that Commerce deter mine wh e the r C or

us a bs or be d a nti dumpi ngdutie s im

po se d o n H RCS. See United States Steel 17 Corporati on’s Reque

st to Commerce with Respec t to Duty Absorption (Jan. 23, 2006), P.R. Doc. 10. Commerce e x amined whe ther a ntidumping duties wer e absor bed af ter it rec eived r equeste d inf or matio n f ro m Co ru s and

de te rm ine d th a t Co ru s a

bs or be d th e anti dumpi ngdutie s o n a ll o f i ts sales made at L TFV
. See Commerce ’s Reque st for Information w ith Respect to Duty A bsorption (Jan. 24 , 2 00 6) , P. R. D oc . 1 1; Corus ’s Re sp on seto C

om me rc e ’s Re qu est f

or In for ma tio n wi th Respec t to Duty Absorption (F eb. 9, 2006), P.R. Doc. 17 ( “ Du ty Ab so rp tio n R esp on se ”); Final Re su lts , 72 Fe d. Reg . at 28,677.Court No. 07- 00221 P age 13

Plaintiff argues that this court has jurisdiction principa lly under § 1581( i) and, 18 alternatively , under § 1581( c). Pl. Br . 1-2, 8-9. The issues here clea rly fall within the ambit of our jurisdiction under § 1581( c). When a party challeng es the re sults of an administrative re view of an a ntidumping orde r, our Court has jurisdiction over the claim pursua

nt to § 1581(c). See Corus Staal

5AR , 31 CI T at ___, 493 F . Supp. 2d at 1285. Only when a party alleg es that Commerce a cts inconsistently with the results underly

ing a n administrative re view of a n antidumping or der, or

in other limited circumstanc es not applica ble her e, is § 1581(i) the pr oper jurisdictional base for

its claim. Se e id
. In r e le va nt p art , s e c tio n 1 51 6a

pr ov ide s f

or jud ic ia l r e vie w o f a

fi na l de te rm inatio n in 19 an administrative r eview of an antidumping order
. See§ 1516a(a )(2) (B )(iii). De fe nd ant f

ile d a Mo tio n to Di smi ss, wh ic h a lle g e d th a t Co ru s’ s c ha lle ng e to Commerce’ s administration of the fourth a dminist rative r eview unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) was i d e n t i c a l t o C o r

u s ’ s c h a l l e n g e t o th e f

i n a l r e s u l t s o f

th a tr e v i e wun d e r

2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 5 8 1 ( c )
. In De c e mbe r 2 00 7, thi s c ourt de nie d th e Mo tio n to Di smi ss w ith out op ini on . Co ru s su bs e qu e ntl y moved for Judgme nt upon the Ag ency Record. II. Jurisd iction & Standard of Review Pursuant to § 1581(c), this Court has ex clusive jurisdiction over a ny civil action 18
commence d under se ction 516A of the Ta riff A ct of 1930, a s amende d, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a (2000). See§ 1581(c) . The Court, in revie wing one of Commerc e’s a dminist rative

19 deter minations, will hold unlawful any deter mination that is “unsupported by substantial evidenc e on the r ecor d or otherw ise not in acc ordanc e with law . . . .” § 1516a(b) (1)( B) (i). The Court will find that Com merc e’s f actua l determinations ar e supported by “substantial evidenc e” if the re is “ ‘s uc h r e le va

nt e vid e nc e a s a

re a so na ble min d mi g ht a c c e pt a s a de qu a te to s up po rt a conclusion.’” Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB , 3 4 0 U. S
. 4 7 4 , 4 7 7 (1 9 5 1 ) ( qu o t i n g Con so l. Edison Co. v. NLRB , 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).Court No. 07- 00221 P age 14

Whether an a dminist rative de termination by Commerce c omports with law is prescr ibed by the two-step a

naly sis in Chevron U.S.A., I nc. v. Natural Resource

s DefenseCouncil, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (“ Chevron ”). Under the first step, the Court “c onsiders whe ther Cong ressional intent on the issue is clear . . . .” Target Corp. v. United States , Sl ip O p . 0 8
- 1 0 1 , 2 0 0 8 WL 4279535 at *5 (Sept. 18, 2006). To a scer tain Congr ess’s intention, the Court employ s the traditional tools of statutory construction. The first and f o r e mo s t t o o l t o b e u s e d

is th e s tatute ’ s te xt, g iv in g it it s p la in me an in g . . . . [I ]f the text answers the que stion, that is t he end of the matter. B eyond the statute’s text , the tools of statutory construction include the statute’s structure , canons of statutory construction, and le g islative history
. W indmill Int’l Pte. v. United States , 26 CI T 221, 223, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1305-06 ( 2002) (citations & quotations omit ted). “ [Only i] f, af ter e mploy ing the first prongof Chevron , the Court determines that the statute is silent or ambiguous with re spect to the spec ific issue, . . . [t hen must the Court decide , under the second pr ong ,] whether Commerce ’s construc tion of the statute is [ rea sonable].” W ind mi ll I nt’ l P te ., 26 CI T at 223, 193 F . Supp. 2d at 1306 (citing Chevron , 467 U.S. at 843). “I n deter mining whe ther Commerc e’s inter pretation is reasonable , the Court considers the following non-exclusive list of factors: the e x press ter ms of the provisions at issue, the objectives of those provisions and the objec tives of the antidumping scheme as a whole.” Id
. III. Discussion Corus alleg es that Commerce acte d not in accor dance with the law and w ithout substantial evidence when it (1) use d the zeroingmethodology to calculate Corus’s we ighte daver ag e dumping marg in, (2) instructed Customs to impose antidumping duties on entries of theCourt No. 07- 00221 P age 15

Ad dit ion a lly , Co ru s a lle g e s th a t Co mme rc e a c te d unr e a so na bly wh e n it a lle g e dly 20 interpre ted § 3538(c ) inconsistently at the WTO and in domestic cour ts. Pl . Br . 21-25. Howe ver, beca use the languag e of § 3538( c) is unequivoc ally clea r, this court nee d not proce ed to a Chevron s te p tw o an a ly s is o f w h e th e r Co mm e r c e ’ s c o n s tr

u c ti o no f th e s tatute is r e a s o n a

b le
. We are g uided by

the Fe dera l Circuit, which has upheld Commerc e’s dissimilar interpre tation of a U.S. statute at the WTO, on the one ha nd, and in domestic cour

ts, on the other. See Timken Co. v. United States , 354 F.3d 1334, 1343- 45 (F ed. Cir. 2004) (where the Court acknow ledg ed the persua siveness of a

repor t from the WTO Appellate Body , but refuse d to overturn Commerc e’s longsta nding a nd consistent administrative interpre tation). su bje c t me rc ha

nd ise ma de duri ngthe fo ur th a dmi nis tr a tiv e re vie w whe n th e re wa s n o v a lid deter mination of dumping, a

nd (3) c onducted a

duty absorption inquiry

and dete rmined that
anti dumpi ngdutie s r e late d to sa le s o f s ub je c t me rc ha

nd ise we re a

bs or be d b y Cor us . T he c ourt finds that Commerce’ s actions under (1) a nd (2) a re in a ccor dance with law and supporte d by
su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e . H ow e ve r, the c ourt fi nd s th a t Co mme rc e did no t a c t in a c c or da nc e wi th law as to c laim (3). A. Z e r oin g a nd t he Liqui dat ion Ins tr uc ti ons The c entra l question underlying the first two issues befor e this court is whethe r the
revoc ation of an a

ntidumping orde r under

Section 129 of the URAA a ffe cts prior unliquidated entries of subject merc handise, i.e. , whether a re vocation orde r applies r etroa ctively to entries that took place pr ior to the revoc ation date. Corus c ontends that a re vocation of a n antidumping order applies to all future liquidations, reg ardle ss of the date of entry of imports. Pl. Br. 22. As Corus Staal

5AR conclude d and as se vera l decisions of this Court have af firmed, ther e is nothing ambiguous in the statutory text on the issue of whe ther Sec tion 129 has retroa ctive
rea ch. This matter, the ref ore, r equire s the court to g ive ef fec t to one, clea

r Cong ressional intent pursuant to step one of Chevron
. See Target Corp. , 2 00 8 WL 42 79 53 5, a t *5 . T he pla in 20Court No. 07- 00221 P age 16

The SAA is technica lly

not leg islative history

for pur poses of a Chevron step one 21 analy sis. However , this Court and the Fe dera l Circuit have re peate dly held that the SAA is “an authoritative e x pression by the United States conc erningthe interpre tation and application of the [URAA] . . . in any

judicial proce edingin which a que stion arises conc erningsuch interpr etation or application.” See Timken Co. , 354 F.3d at 1338 n.1 (citation & quotation omitt ed). languag e of § 3538( c) pr ovides that a Sec tion 129 determination has prospe ctive ef fec t, thereby applying only

to entries made on or

afte r the date U STR directs Commerce to implement the deter mination. See § 3538(a) (6), ( b)(4) , (c) (1). Ac cordingto § 3538(c), de terminations that
are implemented under

[S ection 129] shall apply with respec t to unliqui dated e ntries of the subject mer chandise . . . that are enter ed, or w ithdrawn fr om ware house, for consumption on or

afte r . . . th e date on

wh ic h [U STR ] dir e c ts [Co mme rc e ] . . . to implement that determination. § 3538(c) , (c) (1)( B) . Moreove r, Cong ress’ intent is buttressed by the SAA , wh ic h une qu ivo c a lly

21 state s th a t: [c]o ns ist e nt w ith

the pr inc ipl e that G AT T p ane l r e c omm e nd a tio ns a pp ly on ly prospec tively , [S ection 129] determinations . . . have pr os pe c tiv e e ffe c t on ly . T hat is , they apply to unliquidated entries of me rcha ndise enter ed, or w ithdrawn fr om ware house, for c onsumption on or

afte r the date on which [USTR ] di rec ts impl ementation. . . . [W here ] i mplementation of a WTO re port should result in the revoc ation of an anti dumpi ngor

c ounte rv a ili ngduty

or de r, e ntr ie s ma de pr ior to t he date of [UST R’ s] d i r e c t i o nw o u l d

r e m a i ns u

b j e c tt o p o t e n t i a l d

u ty l i a b i l i ty. SAA , H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 1026, reprinted in 19 94 U. S.C. C.A .N . at 43 13 (e mph a sis added)
. In addition to the unambiguous w ords of § 3538(c ) and the insight provided by the SAA , thi s Co ur t ha s r e pe a te dly

he ld t hat Se c tio n 1 29 de te rm inatio ns do no t a ff e c t e ntr ie s ma de pr ior

to the date that the USTR directs implementation. In Corus II , this Court ex amined the languag e of § 3538(c) and held that Sec tion 129 determinations do not affe ct entrie s made be fore the
e ff e c tiv e date of

imp le me ntatio n. 29 CI T at 78 6, 38 7 F . Su pp . 2 d at 12 99 -1 30 0. F ur the r, inCourt No. 07- 00221 P age 17

Th a t w e have a dd

re sse d th is v e ry

iss ue wi th P la int if

f o n at le a st thr e e se pa

rate 22 occa sions sugg ests not only this case is a w aste of judicia l resourc es, but also that Corus has failed to e x erc ise a modicum of due diligenc e and ig nored this cour t’s war nings a bout presenting these c laims to thi s court despite the exis tence of incontrove rtible opposing a uthority
. SeeTr. of Ora l Argument at 45-47, Corus Staal 1AR , 31 CI T ___, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (No. 07- 270) (“[P] laintiff petitioned this court for r elief de spite the exist ence of incontrove rtible opposing authority . This strikes the court a s an example of questionable judgme nt.”). The statute is clear and, as suc h, any

chang es must come in the leg islative, rather than judicial, ar ena. Corus Staal

5AR , th is C ourt

e xplic itl y

state d a g a in t

hat § 3 53 8( c ) r e qu ir e s Co mme rc e to imp le me nt S e c tio n 1 29 de te rm inatio ns so that th e y ha ve pr os pe c tiv e e ff

e c t on ly on “ me rc ha nd ise enter ed or w ithdrawn fr om ware house for consumption on or after

the date of

implementation.” 31 CI T at ____, 493 F . Supp. 2d at 1286. Finally , in Corus Staal 1AR , th is C ourt

state d th a t on ly HR CS f ro m th e Ne the rl and s th a t e nte re d o n o r a ft e r A pr il 2 3, 20 07 are no t su

bje c t to
anti dumpi ngdutie s. 31 CI T at __ _, 51 5 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 13 47 (c iti ng§ 3 53 8( c ); Section 129 Determ ination , 72 Fe d. Reg . at 25,261). In other wor ds, our Court has consistently and unequivoca lly

held that the re vocation of a n antidumping duty

order does not aff

ect e ntries made befor e the e ffe ctive date of that re vocation. There fore , the cour t must reject Corus’s c laim that 22 its entries here are not subject to Commerce’ s application of the zer oing me thodology
. 1. Z e r oin g Cor us c on te nd s th a t Co mme rc e ’s int e rp re tatio n o f 1 9 U .S. C. § 16 77 (3 5) (A )- (B ) i s
unre a so na

ble and , th e re fo re , n ot i n a c c or da nc e wi th l aw. F ir st, Cor

us a lle g e s th a t F e de ra l Cir c uit decisions upholding the use of zeroingare not binding bec ause Commerc e’s inter pretation of § 1677(35)( A)-( B) —which prohibits zeroing in investigations, but not administrative revie ws—is inconsistent and, there fore , unrea sonable. Pl. Br . 11-14. Second, Corus avers that the unambiguous body

of international decisions prohibiting the use of zeroingin administrativeCourt No. 07- 00221 P age 18

See , e.g. , Appellate B ody Report, European Communities—Anti-dumping Duties on 23 Im po rts of C

otton -T y peBe d Li ne n from In dia , WT/DS 141/AB/R (Mar . 12, 2001) (r ejec ting EC’s use of zeroing ); Appellate B ody Report, United States—Sunset Rev iew of Anti-dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant C arbon Steel Flat Products from Japan , WT/DS 244/AB/R (De c. 15, 2003); Appellate Body

Report, United States—Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT /D S26 4/A B /R ( Au g . 1 1, 20 04 ); EC Zeroing Chal lenge , WT/D S29 4/A B /R ( Ap r. 18 , 2 00 6) ; App e llate B od y Re po rt , Un ite d S

tates—M e as ur es R e lat ing

to Ze ro ing an d S un se t R e v ie ws , WT/DS 322/AB/R (Jan. 9, 2007); Report of the Pane l, United Sta te s—L aws , R e

gu lat ion s a nd

Me tho do log

yfor Calc ula tin g D um

ping M ar gin s ( “Ze ro ing ”) , WT/DS 294/RW (De c. 17, 2008). Specifica lly , Corus alleg es that the Cha rm ing Be tsy canon of claim construc tion does 24 not permit the United States to interpre t the underly ing dome stic statute in such a wa y that makes it inconsistent with t he AD Agree ment unless no other statutory construction re mains. Pl. Br. 19; se e Mu rra

yv . S c ho on e r Ch ar

mi ng Be tsy , 6 U.S. (2 Cranc h.) 64, 118 (1804) (“ Cha rm ing Be tsy ”) (sug g esting that courts should interpre t domestic law, whe never possible, in a manner

consistent with the international oblig ations of the United States). Section 1677(35)( A) de fines the ter m “dumping ma

rg in” as “ the amount by

which 25 normal value exceeds the e x port price or construc ted export price of the subject mer chandise .” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A) . Section 1677(35)( B) define s the term “w eig hted ave rag e dumping marg in” as “ the per centa g e dete rmined by dividing the a g g reg ate dumpingmarg ins determined for a specific exporter or produc er by the ag g reg ate e x port price s and construc ted export prices of such exporter or pr oducer .” § 1677(35) (B ). revie ws demonstrate s that Commerce’ s curr ent interpre tation of § 1677(35)( A)-( B) is no longe r
rea sonable. Pl. Br. 14-19. In light of the se dec isions, C orus ar g ues that the Cha rm ing Be tsy 23 doctrine c ompels this court to interpret § 1677(35) (A)- (B ) in confor mance with the international ob lig a tio ns of

the Un ite d St a te s and

pr oh ibi t th e us e of

zer oin g in a dmi nis tr a tiv e re vie ws . Pl. 24 Br . 19-20. The F eder al Circuit has noted that the w ords of § 1677(35) (A)- (B ) do not direc tly speak to the issue of g iving ne g ative dumping marg ins a value of zero, i.e. , z er o i n g. See Timken Co. , 25 354 F.3d at 1341-42. Thus, under the second step in the Chevron ana ly sis , w e mus t e va luate whether Commerce’ s interpre tation of the statute is based on a permissible statutory

construction.Court No. 07- 00221 P age 19

See Che vron , 467 U.S. at 843. The F eder al Circuit has re peate dly found Commerce ’s use of zeroing in administrative revie ws to be re asonable
. See NSK Ltd. v. United States , 510 F.3d 1375, 1380 (F ed. Cir. 2007) (“ ‘we . . . ref use to overtur

n Commerce’ s zeroing pr actice based on
any ru lin g by the WTO or

oth e r i nte rn a tio na l bo dy

un le ss a nd un til such rulinghas bee n adopted p urs u an tt o [ § 3 5 3 3 (g) ]
. ’” (q u o t i n g Corus Staal Zeroing , 3 95 F .3 d at 13 49 )) ; Corus Staal BV v. United States , 502 F.3d 1370, 1375 ( Fe d. Cir. 2007) (holding that Commerce’ s policy of zeroing is r e a so na ble and us ingComme rc e ’s Issues and De cision Memorandum in t he fo ur th administrative re view, at issue in this case , to support its conclusion); Timken Co. , 354 F.3d at 1344. In other wor ds, Commerce’ s interpre tation of § 1677(35)( A)-( B) is reasona ble. Fur ther, Commerc e has not prohibited the use of zeroingin administrative revie ws pursuant to § 3533(g ). The Section 123 De termination states only that Commerce w ill no longer permit the use of

zeroing in investigations invol ving w eig hted-avera g e-to-a vera g e compa

risons. 71 Fe d. Reg . at 77,723-24 (“ [C ommerce ] proposed only that it would no longer

make avera g e-toaver ag e compa

risons in inv esti

ga tio ns without providing off sets for non- dumped compar isons. [C ommerce ] m ade no pr oposals with respec t to any other c omparison methodolog y or any other seg ment of an a

ntidumping proc eeding. . . .”) ( emphasis adde d). More over, e ven if the Section 123 Determ ination wer e to apply to administrative revie ws, the entrie s at issue in the curr ent revie w would be una ffe cted by the Section 129 De termination that revoke d the antidumping order on HRCS. Beca

use the Section 129 De termination has prospe ctive ef fec t only , entries
ma de be fo re the imp le me ntatio n d a te of Ap ri l 23 , 2 00 7, lik e tho se duri ngthe fo ur th administrative re view, would not be a ffe cted. Conseque ntly , Commerce’ s interpre tation ofCourt No. 07- 00221 P age 20

The issue of whether

the Section 123 De termination , which per mits t he use of

zeroing 26 in a dmi nis tr a tiv e re vie ws but no t w e ig hte d- ave ra g e -t o- ave ra g e inv e sti g a tio ns , is in a c c or d w ith law and suppor

ted by substantial evidence is not before the cour t at this ti me. Spe c if ic a lly , th e UST R, a

n a rm of the Exe c uti ve br anc h, wo rk s in c on su ltatio n w ith 27 various congressional a

nd executive bodies and a g encie s to determine whe ther a nd to what deg ree to implement W TO re ports and dete rminations. See id . (citing§§ 3533(f) -(g ), 3538). Plaintiff has petitioned the F eder al Circuit for r elief ba sed on the ve ry same c laim—that 28 is, a g rowingbody

of international decisions require s the Fe dera l Circuit to employ the Charming Betsy canon of

claim construc tion to harmoniz e domestic lawwith the international oblig ations of the United States. Corus made such a c laim despite the existence of opposingauthority and was de nied re lief. See Corus Staal Zeroing , 395 F.3d at 1347-49. § 1677(35)( A)-( B) , which per mits t he use of

zeroing in administrative revie ws, is rea sonable a nd in acc ord with law. 26 There is no doubt that W TO Panel a nd Appellate B ody

decisions explicate the duties and obligations owed by

member nations under WTO compac ts like the AD Agree ment , but the international a g ree ments are not identical to the cor respondingdomestic statutes and a re not subject to identical rule s of interpre tation. As the Fe dera l Circuit has repe atedly noted, WTO decisions ar e “‘ not binding on the United States, muc h less this court.’” Corus Staal Zeroing , 3 9 5 F. 3 d at1 3 4 8 (q u o t i n g Timken Co. , 354 F.3d at 1344). I f statutory provisions of the United States are inconsistent with the AD Agree ment , it is s tr ic tly a matte r f or Con g re ss. See id
.

27 Thus, the Cha rm ing

Be tsy doctrine doe s not apply

in this case g iven the cle ar r equire ments of § 3 53 3( g ) a

nd F e de ra l Cir c uit

pr e c e de nt. 28 2. Liqui dat ion Ins tr uc ti ons Cor us a lle g e s th a t Co mme rc e a c te d unla wf ull y wh e n it

ins tr uc te d Cu sto ms t o a sse ss antidumping duties on e ntries of the subjec t mercha ndise made dur ing the fourth administrativeCourt No. 07- 00221 P age 21

re vie w b e c a

us e the re wa s n o v a lid

fi nd ingof

dumpi ng . Pl . B r. 21 -3 0. Whe n a dumpi ngor de r i s revoke d beca

use of a chang e in law, Corus c ontends that the newlaw is to apply in all future liquidations, reg ardle ss of the date of entry of the subjec t mercha

ndise. Pl. Br. 22. When Commerce r eca lculated Corus’s dumpingmarg in using a non-zeroingmethodology and found that un de r t

he ne w p ro c e dure Cor

us did no t ha ve a po sit ive dumpi ngmarg in f or HR CS, i t revoke d the antidumping or der on A pril 23, 2007 . Section 129 De termination , 72 Fe d. Reg . at 25,262. Corus alleg es that the Section 129 De termination , which Commerce issued befor e the Fi na l R esu lts and the Am e nd e d F ina l R esu lts , is the controlling le g al authority that g uides Commerce in r eca lculating the dumping ma rg in on HRCS . Acc ording ly , beca use there was no valid finding of dumping pursuant to the Section 129 De termination , Corus aver s that Commerce
err ed whe n it inst ructe d Customs to impose antidumping duties on entrie s of the subjec t
merc handise made duringthat revie w per iod. Se c tio n 1 67 3 p ro vid e s th a t anti dumpi ngdutie s a re imp os e d o n s ub

je c t me rc ha

nd ise wher e (a ) the for eig n merc handise is, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at L TFV , such that it causes ( b) an industry in the United States to suffer a mater ial injury , or to be thre atene d with a mater ial injury
. See§ 1673(1)- (2). In essenc e, to levy antidumping duties on subjec t
merc handise, Commerc e must show that the g oods were dumped in the United States, and the I TC m us t de mon str a te the e xiste nc e , o r c og niza ble thr e a t, o f a

ma te ri a l in jur y to a do me sti c industry that is caused by

the merc handise at issue. Se e id . Witho ut b oth statut or y re qu ir e me nts , no antidumping duty

is proper.Court No. 07- 00221 P age 22

Th is c ourt

mus t no te y e t a g a in t

hat a Se c tio n 1 29 de te rm inatio n a ff e c ts o nly tho se 29 entries made on or after

the date on which the USTR direc ts Comm erc e to implement the deter mination. See§ 3 53 8( c )( 1) -( 2) ; SAA , H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 1026, re pr inte d in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4313. I t is undisput ed that the e ntries at issue ente red be fore the date on which the antidumping or der w as re voked, Apr il 23, 2007. See Noticeof 4AR , 70 Fe d. Reg . at 76,025. In an administrative r eview, Commerc e re calc ulates the dumpingmarg in to update the
a pp lic a ble duty . § 16 75 (a )( 1) (B ). Th e inj ur y , o r t hr e a te ne d in

jur y , to the do me sti c ind

us tr y is presumed in a

n administrative re view, and is not re examined until t he sunset re view. § 1675(c) (1). He re, Commerc e dete rmined that HRCS were dumpe d in the United States during the fourth a dminist rative r eview. Fi na l R esu lts , 72 Fe d. Reg . at 28,677. Usingthe zeroing methodology , Commerce c alculate d a we ighte d-ave rag e dumping marg in of 2.26 perc ent for Corus. Am e nd

e d R esu lts , 72 Fe d. Reg . at 34,442. Cor us ’s c on te nti on

that Co mme rc e ’s us e of

zer oin g in t

he fo ur th a dmi nis tr a tiv e re vie w i s
un lawf ul c on tr ave ne s a

pp lic a ble pr e c e de nt. Th e F e de ra l Cir c uit ha s r e pe a te dly

up he ld Commerce’ s use of zeroingas re asonable when c alculatingthe dumping ma rg in in administ rative revie ws. See , e.g. , NSK L td. , 5 10 F .3 d 1 37 5; Corus Staal BV , 502 F.3d 1370; Corus Staal Zeroing , 3 95 F .3 d 1 34 3; Tim k e n Co , 354 F.3d 1334. More over, the Section 129 De termination has no ef fec t on the entries at issue here
. That Commerce used zeroingto calculate the 29 dumping mar g in for Corus’s e ntries of HRCS made duringthe fourth a dminist rative r eview doe s not rende r Commerce ’s af firmative dumpingdeter

mination unlawful. Thus, Commerce did not
err when it instructed Customs to im pose antidumping duties on Corus’s entries of HRCS given the valid deter

mination of dumping a

nd assumption of injury

at the time these e ntries wer e made
.Court No. 07- 00221 P age 23

The Section 123 De termination un ambi g uo us ly state s th at it

wo uld on ly a pp ly to 30 specific current and future inve stigati ons , namely , investigations invol ving w eig hted-avera g e-toaver ag e compa

risons, and not to any

other ty pe of inve stigation or administrative revie w. See71 Fe d. Reg . at 77,723-24. Additionally , the languag e of Sec tion 129 and the SAA is clear : deter minations under that provision do not apply retroa ctively

to unliquidated entries made be fo re the imp le me ntatio n d a te , li ke Cor us ’s e ntr ie s o f H RCS ma de duri ngthe fo ur th administrative re view. See § 3 53 8( c )( 1) -( 2) ; SAA , H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 1026, re pr inte d in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4313. Finally , Corus’s relianc e on Pa rk da le Int’l , in which the cour t examined whether a chang e in policy

was impermissible re troac tive, is mispl ace d. See Parkdale Int’ l v. United States , 475 F.3d 1375, 1378- 79 (F ed. Cir. 2007). The plaintiff had a rgued that the a

pplication of Comme rc e ’s ne w r e se lle r r ule to i ts i mpo rt s, wh ic h s ub je c te d th e pla int if

f t o th e highe r, “ a llother” rate of antidumping duties, was impermissibly retroa ctive. Id . T he F e de ra l Cir c uit he ld that it was not, based in par t on the principle that liquidation is the determinative e vent for the retroa ctive ana ly sis. Id . at 13 79 . In th is c a se , h ow e ve r, Comme rc e ’s c ha ng e in m e tho do logy

is pr os pe c tiv e on ly , n ot r e tr oa c tiv e . Cor us mis take s Pa rk

da leIn t’ l fo r a

ta lis man th a t r e qu ir e s th is 30 court to re troac tively

apply a cha ng e in methodolog y

whene ver r etroa ctivity

is not barre d. Pa rk da leIn t’ l stands for no suc h proposition, but rather me re ly re c og nize s th a t Co ur

ts mus t
c on sid e r s e ve ra l f

a c tor s w he n a sse ssi ngwh e the r t he re tr oa c tiv e a

pp lic a tio n o f a

c ha ng e in methodology

in the antidumping c ontext is permissible. Id . at 1378-80. In s umm ary , Co mme rc e did no t e rr wh e n it us e d th e zer oin g me tho do logy to c a lc ulate Cor us ’s we ig hte d- ave ra g e dumpi ngmarg in, and the liq uid a tio n in str

uc tio ns iss ue d to Cus tom s
wer e base d on a valid dumping deter mination. The court f

inds Comm erc e’s a ctions at issue to be in acc ord with law a

nd supported by

substantial evidence
.Court No. 07- 00221 P age 24

“[T] he purpose of a duty absorption inquiry

is to ensure that for eig n exporters subject 31 to antidumping orde rs do not undermine the purpose of the antidumping la

ws by absorbingthe duty rathe r than pa ssing the duty on to the United States purcha sers in the for m of hig her pr ices.” Agro Dutch , 508 F.3d at 1028 (citation & quotation omitt ed). “ A findingof duty absorption . . . does not aff

ect the duty

imposed as a r esult of such re view. . . . Rather , Commerce r eports the finding s made duringthe absorption inquiry to the I TC for conside ration duringthe sunset revie w.” Id . at 1028 (c itation omit ted). “ [T] he conse quence of a f inding of duty absorption by Commerce is that the a

nti-dumping orde r is less likely to be re voked as a

result of a

sunset re vie w, a s su c h a

fi nd ing[wo uld ] ind ic a te [] that th e fo re ig n p ro du c e r o r e xpor te r w ou ld b e a

ble to market more ag g ressively should the order

be re voked . . . .” Id . at 10 28 (c itatio ns & quotations omit ted). B. Duty Absorption Cor us a lle g e s th a t Co mme rc e did no t satis fy

the statut or

y c ri te ri on tha t w ou ld p e rm it i t to conduct a duty absorption inquiry

and er red in findingthat Corus absorbe d the antidumping duties on HRCS . Pl. Br. 31-39. Corus notes that § 1675(a)( 4) authorizes Commerce to conduct a duty absorption inquiry

only if there exis ts an importer who is af filiated with the produc er or exporter of the subjec t mercha ndise. Pl. Br. 31. It is undisput ed that Corus is the produc er a nd exporter, as we ll as the importer, of the subject merc handise. Du ty Ab so rp tio n R esp on se , P. R. Doc. 17 at 2, 5. Accor dingly , Corus aver s that the Fe dera l Circuit decision in Agro Dutch , which fo un d th a t an e nti ty

c ann ot b e a ff

ili a te d w ithits e lf

, p re c lud e s Co mme rc e fr om c on du c tin g a duty absorption inquiry

or findingthat Corus absorbe d antidumping duties. Pl. Br . 33-35. Absorption occur s when a produce r or e x porter of

subject merc handise re imburses an aff iliated importer for

the cost of a

ntidumping duties. Section 1675(a) (4) pr ovides that Commerce ma

y proce ed with a duty

absorption inquiry duringany revie w 31 initiated [ two] y ear s or [four] y ear s after the publication of a

n antidumping duty

order under § 1673e (a) . . . , if reque sted, [and] shall determine whether antidumping duties have be en absor

bed by a for eig n produce r or e x porter subje ct to the orde r if the subjec tCourt No. 07- 00221 P age 25

Pursuant to § 1677(33), the f ollowing pe rsons are considere d to be “a ffiliated” or 32 “af filiated per sons”:

(A) Me mbers of a

family , including br others and sister s (whethe r by the whole or ha lf blo od ), sp ou se , a

nc e sto rs , a

nd lin e a l de sc e nd ants
. (B ) Any office r or dire ctor of a

n org anization and such org anization. (C ) P art ne rs . (D) E mploy er a

nd employ ee. (E) A ny person dire ctly

or indirec tly

owning , controlling , or holding with power to vote, 5 perc ent or more of the outstandingvoting stock or share s of any org anization and such org anization. (F ) Two or

more pe rsons direc tly

or indirec tly

controlling , controlled by , or under common control with, any person. (G) Any person who c ontrols any other pe rson and suc h other pe rson. F or purp os e s o f t

his pa ra g ra ph , a pe rs on sh a ll b e c on sid e re d to c on tr ol a no the r p e rs on

if the per son is lega lly

or oper ationally

in a position to ex erc ise restra int or direction over the other pe rson. § 1677(33). me rc ha nd ise is s old

in t he Un ite d St a te s through an importer who is affili ated with such foreign producer or ex

porter . § 1675(a) (4) ( emphasis adde d). The F eder al Circuit has found the te rms “af filiated” a nd “af filiated per sons,” def

ined under

19 U.S.C. § 1677(33) (2000), to connote the pr esenc e of two 32
or more e ntities. See A gro Dutch , 508 F.3d at 1031. To be sure , “[e]very dictionary

. . . define s [the te rm “ a ff ili a te d” ] suc h th a t th e c on c e pt o f a pe rs on or or g anizatio n a ff

ili a tin g wi th i tse lf

is excluded or, at the ve ry

least, hig hly

implausible.” Id . As such, “a n org anization can no more aff iliate with itself than a man c an adopt himself a s his own son.” Id
. Duringthe fourth a dminist rative r eview, Commerc e conduc ted an inquiry to determine wh e the r C or

us a bs or be d a nti dumpi ngdutie s. Comme rc e re je c te d Co ru s’ s a

rgume nt t hat it c ou ld
no t a ff ili a te wi th i tse lf

a s b oth the pr od uc e r o r e xpor

te r a nd imp or te r o f t he su bje c t me rc ha

nd iseCourt No. 07- 00221 P age 26

In Agro Dutch , the sole conte ntion on appeal wa s whether Commerce w as empowe red 33 to conduct a duty

absorption inquiry

when the pr oducer

or exporter a

nd importer of the subject merc handise wa s the same e ntity —that is, whether a

n entity could be “ aff

iliated” with itself. See 508 F.3d at 1028-29. Arc elorMittal respe ctfully disag ree s with the Fe dera l Circuit’s conclusion in Ag ro 34 Dutch and re serve s its right to cha lleng e any reve rsal of Commerc e’s f inding of duty absorption. Def .-Interve nor Arc elorMittal Br . 25-26. De fenda nt-Interve nor U.S. Steel did not discuss the issue of duty

absorption. and, ther efor e, that the inquiry was unlaw ful. Issues and De cision Memorandum at 24. Afte r the Fi na l R esu lts and Am e nd e d R esu lts wer e issued, the F eder al Circuit held that § 1675(a )(4) pe rm its a duty a bs or pti on inq uir y by Comme rc e on ly

wh e n th e su

bje c t me rc ha

nd ise is s old throug h a sepa

rate , aff iliated importer. See A gro Dutch , 508 F.3d at 1031-33. Acc ording ly , the 33 Court in Agro Dutch found that Commerce err ed whe n it conducted a duty absorption inquiry beca use the produc er or

exporter and importer

wer e the same entity
. Id . at 1033. In the instant challeng e, Corus, like the plaintiff in Agro Dutch , is the produce r or exporter and importer

of the subjec t mercha

ndise, i.e. , the same e ntity
. Duty Absorption Re sp on se , P.R. Doc. 17 at 2, 5. Moreove r, Corus did not sell the subject merc handise to a separ ate, a ffiliated importer in the United States duringthe fourth a dminist rative r eview. Id . at 5-6. In other wor ds, there w as no importer a ffiliated with Corus. B eca use of the a

bsence of an aff iliated importer, Commerce err ed whe n it (a) initiated the duty absorption inquiry

and (b) f ound Corus absorbe d the antidumping duties imposed on HRCS. Comm erc e must theref ore rende r a de cision consistent with the Fe dera l Circuit’s interpretation of § 1675(a) (4) in Ag ro Dutch . Def

endant ha s acknow ledg ed as muc h and re quested a voluntary

rema nd on this iss ue. 34 Def . Br . 22-23.Court No. 07- 00221 P age 27
IV. Conclusion F or the re a so ns state d h e re in, Pla int if f’ s Mo tio n f

or Judg me nt u

po n th e Ag e nc y

Re c or d is DENI ED in p art

a nd GR AN TE D i n p art
. The c ourt here by AFF I RMS C ommerce ’s use of zer oing to r eca lculate Corus’s dumpingmarg in during the subject administrative re view; and AFF I RMS C ommerce ’s instructions to Cust oms to levy antidumping duties on e ntries of the subject mer chandise made by Corus during the fourth a dminist rative r eview; a nd GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for J udg ment upon the Ag ency Record w ith respec t to the iss ue s und e rl yingthe duty a bs or pti on inq uir y . Sp e c if ic a lly , th e c ourt

fi nd s th a t Co mme rc e did not act in ac corda

nce w ith law when it (a ) initiated the duty absorption inquiry

and (b) found Corus absorbe d the antidumping duties imposed on the subje ct merc handise. Acc ording ly , this court rema nds the issues underly

ing the duty

absorption inquiry

and deter mination to C ommerce so that it may issue a dec ision consistent with t he F eder al Circuit’s interpre tation of § 1675(a) (4) in Agro Dutch
.

D a t e d : D e c e mb e r

2 9 , 2 0 0 8 / s /J u d i thM
. B ar z i l ay Ne w Y o rk , NY J u d i thM
. Barz i l ay , J u d ge