United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

SAHA THAI STEEL PIPE (PUBLIC) COMPANY 

LTD., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

ALLIED TUBE AND CONDUIT CORP. 

AND WHEATLAND TUBE COMPANY 

Defendants-Cross Appellants. 

__________________________ 

2010-1220, -1244 

__________________________ 

Appeals from the United States Court of International 

Trade in consolidated case nos. 08-CV-0380 and 08-CV0392, Senior Judge R. Kenton Musgrave. 

___________________________ 

Decided: February 14, 2011 

___________________________ 

KRISTINA MEDIC, O’Melveny & Meyers LLP, of Washington, DC, for the plaintiff-appellant. With him on the 

brief was GREGORY BRYAN. 
SAHA THAI STEEL v. US 2

JANE C. DEMPSEY, Attorney, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, for the defendant-appellee. 

With her on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVISION, Director, and PATRICIA 

M. MCCARTHY, Assistant Director 

ROGER B. SCHAGRIN, Schagrin Associates, of Washington, DC, for defendant-cross appellant. 

__________________________ 

Before BRYSON, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge MOORE. 

DYK, Circuit Judge. 

In this antidumping case, plaintiff-appellant Saha 

Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company Ltd. (“Saha”) and 

defendants-cross appellants Allied Tube and Conduit 

Corp. and Wheatland Tube Company (collectively “domestic producers”) appeal from a final judgment of the United 

States Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”) which 

sustained a decision by the Department of Commerce 

(“Commerce”). Commerce (1) granted Saha a duty drawback adjustment, increasing its export price to reflect the 

implied cost of exempted import duties; and (2) included 

the exempted import duties in Saha’s cost of production 

and constructed value. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND 

This case concerns the final results issued by Commerce in its administrative review of an antidumping 

duty order covering carbon steel pipes from Thailand. See

Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from 
3 SAHA THAI STEEL v. US

Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 Fed. Reg. 61,019 (Dep’t of Commerce 

Oct. 15, 2008) (period of review: Mar. 1, 2006 – Feb. 28, 

2007) [hereinafter Final Results]. Saha, the sole respondent in the administrative review, is a Thai producer of 

carbon steel pipes that exports its product to the United 

States. The domestic producers are interested U.S. 

manufacturers. 

I 

Understanding the nature of the issues in this case 

requires a brief overview of certain aspects of antidumping law, as defined by the Tariff Act of 1930. 

Dumping occurs when a foreign firm sells a product in 

the United States at an export price (“EP”) that is lower 

than the product’s normal value (“NV”); the amount by 

which NV exceeds EP is the dumping margin. See 19 

U.S.C. § 1673. For exporters based in market economy 

countries such as Thailand, NV is generally calculated to 

be “the price at which the foreign like product is first sold 

. . . for consumption in the exporting country . . . .” 19 

U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i). However, in determining that 

sale price, Commerce may disregard sales made at less 

than the manufacturer’s cost of production (“COP”). Id. § 

1677b(b)(1). If no sales in the exporting country remain 

after disregarding sales below COP, then Commerce will 

alternatively base NV on the constructed value (“CV”) of 

the merchandise. Id. § 1677b(b)(1). COP and CV are 

closely related. The major components of COP are (1) the 

cost of manufacture; (2) “selling, general, and administrative expenses”; and (3) packaging expenses. Id. § 

1677b(b)(3). CV generally includes the same or similar 

elements as COP, but with the additional component of 

profit. Id. § 1677b(e). 
SAHA THAI STEEL v. US 4

Commerce determines a respondent’s dumping margin by calculating the amount by which NV exceeds EP. 

Commerce generally calculates EP to be the price at 

which the subject merchandise is first sold to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, subject to several 

possible adjustments. 19 U.S.C. § 1677a. At issue in this 

case is what is known as the “duty drawback adjustment.” 

The statute provides that EP “shall be . . . increased by . . 

. the amount of any import duties imposed by the country 

of exportation which have been rebated, or which have not 

been collected, by reason of the exportation of the subject 

merchandise to the United States . . . .” Id.

§ 1677a(c)(1)(B). In other words, if a foreign country 

would normally impose an import duty on an input used 

to manufacture the subject merchandise, but offers a 

rebate or exemption from the duty if the input is exported 

to the United States, then Commerce will increase EP to 

account for the rebated or unpaid import duty (the “duty 

drawback”). 

The purpose of the duty drawback adjustment is to 

account for the fact that the producers remain subject to 

the import duty when they sell the subject merchandise 

domestically, which increases home market sales prices 

and thereby increases NV. That is, when a duty drawback is granted only for exported inputs, the cost of the 

duty is reflected in NV but not in EP. The statute corrects this imbalance, which could otherwise lead to an 

inaccurately high dumping margin, by increasing EP to 

the level it likely would be absent the duty drawback. See

Hornos Electricos de Venezuela v. United States, 285 F. 

Supp. 2d 1353, 1358 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003); see also S. Rep. 

No. 67-16, at 12 (1921) (“In order that any drawback 

given by the country of exportation upon the exportation 

of merchandise shall not constitute dumping, it is necessary also to add such items to the purchase price.”). 
5 SAHA THAI STEEL v. US

II 

Saha manufactures carbon steel pipe in Thailand using inputs of hot-rolled steel coil and zinc that it imports 

into Thailand. The Thai government normally imposes 

import duties on hot-rolled steel coil (5%) and zinc 

(3.25%). However, since 1997, Saha has participated in 

Thailand’s bonded warehouse program under which 

imported materials that are incorporated into final products to be exported are exempt from import duties. Under 

this program, a manufacturer that imports and stores 

goods in an approved bonded warehouse need not pay any 

import duties at the time of entry into Thailand. The 

duty exemptions become permanent if the manufacturer 

exports the imported materials—incorporated into finished products or otherwise—within one year. 

In the administrative review here, Commerce determined that Saha received duty exemptions under Thailand’s bonded warehouse program for its inputs of hotrolled steel coil and zinc that Saha incorporated into the 

carbon steel pipes it exported to the United States. See

Final Results at 61019 (adopting Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Circular 

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 73 

ITADOC 61019, 2008 WL 4619781 (Oct. 6, 2008), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/thailand/E8-

24481-1.pdf [hereinafter I & D Memorandum]); I & D 

Memorandum at 3–4. Commerce accordingly granted 

Saha a duty drawback adjustment pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1677a(c)(1)(B) and increased Saha’s EP to account for 

the unpaid duty. Final Results at 6,1019–20; I & D 

Memorandum at 3-7. In calculating the adjustment, 

Commerce used Saha’s actual yield factors (the input 

amounts of hot-rolled steel and zinc used to manufacture 
SAHA THAI STEEL v. US 6

each unit of carbon steel pipe, the subject merchandise). 

Final Results at 6,1019–20; I & D Memorandum at 10–11. 

In addition to increasing EP, Commerce included the 

exempted import duties in Saha’s cost of manufacture, 

thereby increasing both Saha’s COP and CV. Final 

Results at 6,1019–20; I & D Memorandum at 14–16. In 

deciding to include the exempted import duties in COP 

and CV, Commerce reasoned that, “since we are adjusting 

EP for the duty exemption, we must account for the 

related duties that would have been incurred on [Saha’s] 

imported inputs.” I & D Memorandum at 14. Moreover, 

because of its policy of calculating a single COP both for 

exported and domestically sold products, and because 

there were no duty exemptions for the inputs of carbon 

steel pipe sold in Thailand, Commerce reasoned that the 

cost of the exempted duties should be included in Saha’s 

cost of manufacture. Id. 

III 

Both Saha and the domestic producers challenged 

Commerce’s final results in the Trade Court. The domestic producers contended that Commerce erred in granting 

a duty drawback adjustment—thereby raising Saha’s 

EP—to account for exempted import duties that Saha 

never actually paid. Saha argued that Commerce properly raised its EP, but erred in including the exempted 

import duties in its COP and CV. Saha additionally 

challenged Commerce’s application of Saha’s actual yield 

factors when calculating the drawback adjustment instead of the yield factors established by the Thai government. 

The Trade Court sustained Commerce’s decision in all 

respects save for the yield factor issue, and it remanded to 

Commerce for recalculation of the dumping margin using 

the yield factors established by the Thai government. See
7 SAHA THAI STEEL v. US

Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Co. Ltd. v. United States, 

No. 08-00380, Slip Op. 09-116, 2009 WL 3326637 (Ct. Int’l 

Trade Oct. 15, 2009). Saha does not contest the yield 

factor issue in the present appeal. On remand, Commerce 

reduced Saha’s dumping margin from 4.26 percent to 4.21 

percent. Joint App. 755. The Trade Court thereafter 

sustained Commerce’s remand redetermination and 

entered a final judgment. See Saha Thai Steel Pipe 

(Public) Co. Ltd. v. United States, No. 08-00380, slip op. 

10-1, 2010 WL 9417 (Ct. Int’l Trade Jan. 4, 2010). Saha 

and the domestic producers each filed timely appeals, 

which have been consolidated. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). 

DISCUSSION

In reviewing the Trade Court’s decision to affirm 

Commerce’s final determination, we apply anew the 

Trade Court’s standard of review; thus, we will “uphold 

Commerce’s determination unless it is ‘unsupported by 

substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in 

accordance with law.’” Micron Tech., Inc. v. United 

States, 117 F.3d 1386, 1393 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting 19 

U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i)). 

I 

We first address the domestic producers’ contention 

that Commerce erred in granting Saha a duty drawback 

adjustment. In determining whether a duty drawback 

adjustment is warranted, Commerce applies a twopronged test under which the respondent is required to 

demonstrate: 

(1) that the rebate and import duties are dependent upon one another, or in the context of an exemption from import duties, that the exemption is 

linked to the exportation of the subject merchan-
SAHA THAI STEEL v. US 8

dise, and (2) that there are sufficient imports of 

the raw material to account for the duty drawback 

on the exports of the subject merchandise. 

Saha Thai, 2009 WL 3326637 at *1; see also Allied Tube 

& Conduit Corp. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 

1261 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005). Here, Commerce found that 

Saha met both requirements for its two-pronged test. See

I & D Memorandum at 4. The domestic producers do not 

dispute that finding. See Cross Appellants’ Br. 13–16. 

Rather, the domestic producers contend that Commerce’s 

two-pronged test is unlawful. The governing statute is 19 

U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(B), which provides that EP shall be 

increased by 

the amount of any import duties imposed by the 

country of exportation which have been rebated, or 

which have not been collected, by reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United 

States. 

19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(B) (emphases added). The domestic producers argue that Commerce may only increase EP 

when import duties are “imposed by the country of exportation” and then later rebated upon exportation of the 

subject merchandise. Because inputs imported and stored 

in Saha’s bonded warehouse received an exemption from 

import duties upon entry into Thailand rather than a 

post-duty rebate, the domestic producers contend that no 

import duties were ever actually “imposed” on Saha as 

required by the statute. 

However, on its face, § 1677a(c)(1)(B) expressly contemplates the application of duty drawback adjustments 

where, as here, import duties “have not been collected.” 

To be sure, the statute cannot apply in circumstances in 

which the home country had no provision for the imposition of import duties on materials used to provide the 
9 SAHA THAI STEEL v. US

exported merchandise. Under such circumstances, the 

mere fact that duties “have not been collected” would not 

entitle the exporter to a rebate. But the domestic producers’ out-of-context focus on the word “imposed” cannot 

read the words “have not been collected” out of the statute. When read as a whole, the statute defines a plain 

and simple rule: a duty drawback adjustment shall be 

granted when, but for the exportation of the subject 

merchandise to the United States, the manufacturer 

would have shouldered the cost of an import duty. Even if 

the statute were ambiguous, we are required to afford 

Chevron deference to Commerce’s interpretations of the 

statute. See Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United 

States, 266 F.3d 1372, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Commerce’s longstanding interpretation of the statute as 

applying to duty exemptions constitutes a reasonable 

interpretation. 

Here, the domestic producers admit that Saha would 

have been required to pay import duties had it sold its 

carbon steel pipe in Thailand rather than exporting it to 

the United States. Cross Appellants’ Br. 14 (acknowledging that Saha’s import duty “exemption is expressly 

conditioned upon the release of the subject merchandise 

processed in the duty free warehouse for shipment to 

export markets”). This case thus presents the precise 

circumstances that the statute, as interpreted by Commerce, is intended to address—where goods sold in the 

exporter’s domestic market are subject to import duties 

while exported goods are not. 

We have considered the domestic producers’ remaining arguments as to this issue and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we find that Commerce did not 

err in granting Saha a duty drawback adjustment and 

raising its EP to account for import duties that were 
SAHA THAI STEEL v. US 10

exempted due to the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States. 

II 

The domestic producers agree with Commerce’s decision that, if the cost of the exempted duties is added to 

EP, a corresponding adjustment (increase) must be made 

to COP and CV. Curiously, in the past Commerce has not 

made such an adjustment, changing its longstanding 

policy only in the present case.1 Saha contends that this 

change is both contrary to the statute and arbitrary and 

capricious. Saha contends that the inclusion of exempted 

import duties in COP improperly increased NV—and 

therefore its dumping margin—because the inflated COP 

caused additional home market sales to be excluded from 

the NV calculation for falling below COP. Ironically, like 

the domestic producers, the gravamen of Saha’s claim 

rests on the fact that Saha received import duty exemptions rather than post-duty rebates. Because Saha never 

actually paid import duties on goods stored in its bonded 

warehouse, Saha contends that costs associated with 

these exempted duties were merely “fictitious” and as 

such were not reflected in its books and records. Under 

these circumstances, Saha argues, the exempted import 

duties should have been excluded from its cost of manufacture. 

 1 Commerce attempts to argue that its inclusion of 

exempted import duties in Saha’s COP and CV was 

consistent with its prior practice, citing a handful of 

unrelated cases for support. Appellee’s Br. 31–32. However, the government does not dispute that the present 

administrative review was the first time in nearly twenty 

years of proceedings involving Saha that Commerce 

included exempted import duties in Saha’s COP and CV. 

See Appellant’s Br. 9, n.2. 
11 SAHA THAI STEEL v. US

The antidumping statute directs that, in calculating 

COP and CV, the cost of manufacture shall include “the 

cost of materials and of fabrication or other processing of 

any kind” used to produce the product. 19 U.S.C. § 

1677b(b)(3), (e)(1). The statute further explains that such 

“[c]osts shall normally be calculated based on the records 

of the exporter or producer of the merchandise, if such 

records are kept in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles [GAAP] of the exporting 

country . . . and reasonably reflect the costs associated 

with the production and sale of the merchandise.” 19 

U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A). Saha contends that, because its 

books adhered to Thailand’s GAAP and did not record 

unpaid import duties as a cost, Commerce erred in including them in its COP and CV calculations. The government argues that deviation from Saha’s books was proper 

in this case because Saha’s records did not “reasonably 

reflect [its] costs” as required by § 1677b(f)(1)(A). The 

inclusion of the exempted import duties was necessary, 

the government contends, because failure to do so would 

have unfairly distorted the dumping margin in Saha’s 

favor. Indeed, this court has recognized that Commerce 

has the discretion to diverge from a company’s books and 

records when necessary to calculate an accurate dumping 

margin.2

We find that § 1677b(b)(3), (e)(1), and (f)(1)(A) are 

ambiguous as to whether “costs” may include “implied” 

costs in addition to “actual” costs. We must therefore 

 2 See Thai Pineapple Public Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, 187 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (noting that, 

“if the records are not reasonably reflective of cost, Commerce may deviate from them”); NTN Bearing Corp. v. 

United States, 74 F.3d 1204, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that Commerce “may reject [a company’s] records if 

accepting them would distort the company’s true costs”). 
SAHA THAI STEEL v. US 12

defer to Commerce’s interpretation of the statute if it is 

based on a permissible construction. Chevron, U.S.A., 

Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 

(1984). As we now discuss, we find that Commerce reasonably interpreted these subsections. The fact that 

Commerce changed its policy is irrelevant, as Commerce 

is entitled to change its views, and a new administrative 

policy based on a reasonable statutory interpretation is 

nonetheless entitled to Chevron deference. Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 186–87 (1991). 

The government determined that adding exempted 

import duties to EP without also including the exempted 

duties in COP and CV could have unfairly distorted the 

dumping margin in Saha’s favor. In Commerce’s view, it 

should follow the “matching principle” in making such 

calculations, which is the basic accounting practice 

whereby expenses are matched with benefits derived from 

them. See Live Swine From Canada, 70 Fed. Reg. 12,181 

(Dep’t of Commerce Mar. 11, 2005), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, at cmt. 57. We agree 

that Commerce reasonably decided that any increase to 

EP pursuant to a duty drawback adjustment should be 

accompanied by a corresponding increase to COP and CV. 

As discussed above, the entire purpose of increasing EP is 

to account for the fact that the import duty costs are 

reflected in NV (home market sales prices) but not in EP 

(sales prices in the United States). An import duty exemption granted only for exported merchandise has no 

effect on home market sales prices, so the duty exemption 

should have no effect on NV. Thus, because COP and CV 

are used in the NV calculation, COP and CV should be 

calculated as if there had been no import duty exemption. 

It would be illogical to increase EP to account for import 

duties that are purportedly reflected in NV, while simultaneously calculating NV based on a COP and CV that do 
13 SAHA THAI STEEL v. US

not reflect those import duties. Under the “matching 

principle,” EP, COP, and CV should be increased together, 

or not at all.3

Saha argues that even if the matching principle requires including the exempted import duties in COP, 

Commerce nonetheless erred in this case by effectively 

“double counting” the import duty costs. In calculating 

COP, Commerce calculates a single cost of production 

utilizing data for the costs of domestic production together 

with the costs of export production. See Magnesium Metal 

from the Russian Federation, 70 Fed. Reg. 9,041 (Dep’t of 

Commerce Feb. 24, 2005), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at cmt. 20. Saha argues that, 

[i]f imported steel is used to make a product that 

is sold in the home market, then there is no duty 

exemption or duty drawback granted. The reported hot-rolled coil costs include all of the actual 

duties paid on imports. Therefore, to add a theoretical duty amount to the cost that includes the 

actual duties paid would artificially inflate [COP]. 

. . . 

 . . . If the local producers are price takers . . . 

then their domestic prices will exceed the world 

market price for steel by the amount of the duty 

 3 Saha cites United States v. European Trading, 27 

C.C.P.A. 289 (1940), for the proposition that only “actual 

costs” may be included in COP. In European Trading—a 

customs valuation case—the court found that the cost of 

an “export rebate” should not be included in the exporter’s 

cost of production, which the court concluded was limited 

to actual costs. Id. at 293. However, European Trading

did not address the specific issue of whether failure to 

include such costs would distort the dumping margin 

when EP is increased pursuant to a duty drawback adjustment. 
SAHA THAI STEEL v. US 14

protection. In other words, the domestic price of 

hot-rolled steel effectively “captures” the cost of 

the duty. . . . By adding in the “exempted” duties 

into the cost of coil that already includes the 

higher home market hot-rolled coil cost, [Commerce] has, in essence, double-counted the import 

duty impact on [Saha’s] coil cost. 

Appellant’s Br. 38–39. In other words, Saha contends 

that Commerce (1) applied an imputed import duty to the 

cost of imported inputs sold in Thailand (on which import 

duties had already actually been paid); and (2) applied an 

imputed import duty to the cost of inputs purchased in 

Thailand (which are never subject to import duties). We 

ordered supplemental briefing on this issue on December 

29, 2010, and the parties submitted their briefs on January 13, 2010. 

After reviewing the parties’ supplemental briefs, we 

find that Commerce’s calculation methods were appropriate. In view of Commerce’s policy of calculating a single 

average COP value “which incorporates the cost of producing both exported and domestically sold finished 

products,” Appellee’s Br. 23, Commerce calculated Saha’s 

average per-unit steel coil input cost by starting with the 

total cost of all of Saha’s steel coil inputs consumed. This 

included (A) steel coil inputs purchased in Thailand 

(which were not subject to import duties); (B) imported 

steel coil inputs sold in Thailand (on which import duties 

had actually been paid); and (C) steel coil inputs imported 

under Thailand’s bonded warehouse program and exported to the United States (which received import duty 

exemptions). To appropriately account for category C’s 

import duty exemptions, Commerce calculated an adjustment factor that it applied to the average per-unit cost for 
15 SAHA THAI STEEL v. US

all of Saha’s inputs. Saha argues that the application of 

an adjustment factor to the inputs in categories A (domestic purchases) and B (imports sold domestically) resulted 

in double counting of import duty costs. However, this is 

inaccurate, as Saha fails to recognize that the calculation 

employed by Commerce, while perhaps not intuitive, is 

mathematically equivalent to simply adding the import 

duties exempted for category C (bonded warehouse imports) to the total cost of Saha’s inputs before computing 

the average per-unit cost. 

Thus, it is clear that Commerce only added imputed 

import duty costs to COP in an amount appropriate to 

offset Saha’s actual import duty exemptions under the 

bonded warehouse program. This did not result in double 

counting because Commerce merely added the cost of 

import duties that Saha would have paid on the inputs in 

category C if Saha had sold the subject merchandise in 

Thailand rather than exporting it to the United States. 

Commerce thus calculated an appropriate average COP 

for the comparison to the home market prices which—as 

Saha itself notes—reflected the costs of the import duties. 

We have considered Saha’s remaining arguments and 

find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we find that 

Commerce’s interpretation of § 1677b was a permissible 

construction of the statute that is deserving of Chevron

deference. As such, Commerce did not err in including 

the exempted import duties in Saha’s cost of manufacture 

when calculating COP and CV. 

CONCLUSION

We find that Commerce did not err in (1) granting 

Saha a duty drawback adjustment and increasing its EP 

to reflect the implied cost of exempted import duties, and 

(2) including the imputed cost of the exempted import 

duties in Saha’s cost of manufacture when calculating 
SAHA THAI STEEL v. US 16

COP and CV. Accordingly, we affirm the Trade Court’s 

decision sustaining Commerce’s final results. 

AFFIRMED 
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

SAHA THAI STEEL PIPE (PUBLIC) COMPANY 

LTD., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

ALLIED TUBE AND CONDUIT CORP. 

AND WHEATLAND TUBE COMPANY 

Defendants-Cross Appellants. 

__________________________ 

2010-1220, -1244 

__________________________ 

Appeals from the United States Court of International 

Trade in consolidated case Nos. 08-CV-0380 and 08-CV0392, Senior Judge R. Kenton Musgrave. 

__________________________ 

MOORE, Circuit Judge, concurring. 

I join the majority in all respects, but one. I do not 

agree that the plain language of the duty drawback 

statute encompasses import duties that have never been 
SAHA THAI STEEL v. US 2

imposed. The statute requires export price to be increased by 

the amount of any import duties imposed by the 

country of exportation which have been rebated, 

or which have not been collected, by reason of the 

exportation of the subject merchandise to the 

United States. 

 

19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). The debate 

centers on whether the statutory language “duties imposed” is a requirement only for duties which “have been 

rebated” or also applies to duties which “have not been 

collected.” I find the statutory language on this point 

ambiguous. Applying Chevron deference, for the reasons 

stated in the majority, I find Commerce’s interpretation of 

the statute is based on a permissible construction. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 

837, 843 (1984).