United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES STEEL 

CORPORATION, NUCOR CORPORATION, STEEL 

DYNAMICS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2022-1199

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:20-cv-00142-TMR, Judge Timothy M. Reif.

______________________ 

Decided: April 12, 2023

______________________ 

ROBERT GOSSELINK, Trade Pacific PLLC, Washington, 

DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

 KELLY GEDDES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also 

represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE,

MOLLIE LENORE FINNAN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; ELIO 

GONZALEZ, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 1 Filed: 04/12/2023
2 AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US

 THOMAS M. BELINE, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee United States 

Steel Corporation. Also represented by CHASE DUNN,

JAMES EDWARD RANSDELL, IV, SARAH E. SHULMAN. 

 ALAN H. PRICE, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, for 

defendant-appellee Nucor Corporation. Also represented 

by THEODORE PAUL BRACKEMYRE, TESSA V. CAPELOTO,

ADAM MILAN TESLIK, MAUREEN E. THORSON, CHRISTOPHER 

B. WELD. 

 BENJAMIN JACOB BAY, Schagrin Associates, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee Steel Dynamics, 

Inc. Also represented by MICHELLE ROSE AVRUTIN,

NICHOLAS J. BIRCH, CHRISTOPHER CLOUTIER, ELIZABETH 

DRAKE, WILLIAM ALFRED FENNELL, JEFFREY DAVID 

GERRISH, LUKE A. MEISNER, KELSEY RULE, ROGER BRIAN 

SCHAGRIN. 

 ______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit 

Judges. 

REYNA, Circuit Judge. 

Al Ghurair Iron & Steel LLC appeals a Court of International Trade judgment affirming a circumvention determination by the U.S. Department of Commerce 

(“Commerce”). Commerce determined that United Arab 

Emirates (“UAE”) producers of certain corrosion-resistant 

steel (“CORE”) were circumventing antidumping (“AD”) 

and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders on CORE from 

China. In making its determination, Commerce analyzed 

the circumvention factors and subfactors provided by 19 

U.S.C. § 1677j(b). AGIS argues that Commerce erroneously analyzed several of these factors and subfactors. 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 2 Filed: 04/12/2023
AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US 3

We find that Commerce’s circumvention determination 

is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. We 

conclude that Commerce’s analysis of the “value added” 

subfactor is erroneous because Commerce did not reasonably explain why it rejected AGIS’s financial data that were 

purported to show a significant value added. We find that 

this error was harmless because it was limited to a single 

factual finding within a multi-factor test. We thus affirm 

the Court of International Trade’s judgment. 

BACKGROUND

The China CORE AD and CVD Orders

On June 3, 2015, Commerce received petitions from domestic producers requesting that Commerce impose AD 

and CVD duties on CORE exports from China. Initiation 

of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 Fed. Reg.

37,228 (Dep’t of Commerce June 30, 2015). Commerce initiated AD and CVD investigations on June 30, 2015. Id.; 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 80 Fed. 

Reg. 37,223 (Dep’t of Commerce June 30, 2015). In July 

2016, Commerce published AD and CVD orders on CORE 

from China. Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 Fed. Reg. 

48,390 (Dep’t of Commerce July 25, 2016); Countervailing

Duty Orders, 81 Fed. Reg. 48,387 (Dep’t of Commerce July 

25, 2016). 

CORE is a type of steel that is clad, plated, or coated 

with corrosion-resistant metals. Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Circumvention Involving the United Arab 

Emirates, 85 Fed. Reg. 8841 (Dep’t of Commerce Feb. 18, 

2020) and accompanying Memo (“Preliminary Determination”) at 5–7. CORE is used, for example, to make appliances and vehicle parts. Id. at 14, 17; Op. Br. at 4. The 

exact manner in which CORE is manufactured depends on 

the CORE’s intended application, but it is generally as follows. 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 3 Filed: 04/12/2023
4 AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US

CORE production typically begins with one of two 

methods for producing molten steel. Preliminary Determination at 14. The first method uses an electric arc furnace

to melt metallic raw material, including scrap steel, pig 

iron, and direct-reduced iron. Id. The second method uses

a blast furnace to melt iron ore, coke, and smaller amounts 

of scrap steel. Id. Once the molten steel is produced, it is 

cast into a “slab.” Id. The slab is then reheated and rolled 

on a mill to produce hot-rolled steel, which is typically 

reeled into a coil. Id. The hot-rolled steel is then uncoiled 

and passed through vats of acid to remove oxide scale. Id. 

Next, the hot-rolled steel may be processed into cold-rolled 

steel by cold-rolling (to reduce its thickness) and annealing 

(to harden it). Id. 

The substrate for CORE is usually cold-rolled steel, but 

hot-rolled steel may be used to produce some CORE products. Id. at 13. The hot-dip and electrolytic processes are 

the two most common processes for producing the final 

CORE product from the hot-rolled steel or cold-rolled steel. 

Id. at 14. The hot‐dip process passes the substrate through

a bath of molten zinc or aluminum. Id. The electrolytic 

process passes the substrate through electrolytic cells to

plate zinc or other metals onto the substrate’s surface. Id. 

Al Ghurair Iron & Steel (“AGIS”) is a steel manufacturer based in the UAE. AGIS began producing CORE in 

2008. Op. Br. at 11. AGIS does not manufacture hot-rolled 

steel but purchases it from steel manufacturers in China

and other countries. Id. at 5, 8, 18–19. AGIS sometimes 

purchases cold-rolled steel from China and other countries 

and other times makes it in house. Id. AGIS’s facilities 

create the end CORE products by further processing the 

hot-rolled steel and cold-rolled steel as discussed above and 

by completing any additional post-processing steps necessary to meet customer demands (recoiling, cutting to size, 

etc.). See id. at 6–7.

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 4 Filed: 04/12/2023
AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US 5

Commerce’s Circumvention Determinations

“The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, permits Commerce to impose two types of duties on imports that injure 

domestic industries. . . .” Guangdong Wireking Housewares 

& Hardware Co. v. United States, 745 F.3d 1194, 1196 

(Fed. Cir. 2014); Canadian Solar, Inc. v. United States, 918 

F.3d 909, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2019). First, Commerce may impose an antidumping duty on goods “sold in the United 

States at less than . . . fair value.” 19 U.S.C. § 1673(1). 

Second, Commerce may impose a countervailing duty on 

goods that receive “a countervailable subsidy” from a foreign government. Id. § 1671(a). Antidumping duties remedy unfair trade acts on the part of importers, while 

countervailing duties are directed towards the unfair trade 

acts of foreign governments. Guangdong Wireking 

Housewares & Hardware, 745 F.3d at 1196.

Often, when AD and CVD orders are imposed, the marketplace reacts to the requirement for the payment of the 

additional AD and CVD duties. One such reaction is the 

circumvention of the duty orders. 19 U.S.C. § 1677j allows 

Commerce to initiate investigations and make determinations that prevent companies from circumventing AD and 

CVD orders, such as by transshipping the goods subject to 

duties through another country. 

In August 2019, Commerce initiated investigations to 

determine whether exports of CORE from the UAE were 

circumventing the China CORE AD and CVD orders. Preliminary Determination at 1. In February 2020, Commerce 

issued its preliminary determination. Commerce preliminarily determined that the UAE’s CORE exports to the 

U.S. made from hot-rolled steel or cold-rolled steel manufactured in China were circumventing the AD and CVD orders. Thereafter, Commerce received comments from 

interested parties, including AGIS. AGIS argued that 

Commerce’s preliminary determination was flawed in several aspects. In July 2020, Commerce issued its final 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 5 Filed: 04/12/2023
6 AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US

affirmative determination, rejecting AGIS’s arguments 

and concluding that CORE from the UAE circumvented the 

AD and CVD orders. Affirmative Final Determination of 

Circumvention Involving the United Arab Emirates, 85 

Fed. Reg. 41,957 (Dep’t of Commerce July 13, 2020) and 

accompanying Memo (“Final Determination”). 

In its preliminary and final determinations, Commerce 

analyzed each Section 1677j(b) factor and subfactor. Relevant here are Commerce’s findings as to the Section 

1677j(b)(3) factor of UAE’s “pattern of trade.” Also relevant 

are Commerce’s findings as to the “level of investment,” 

“nature of the production process,” “extent of production facilities,” and “value added” subfactors for determining 

whether UAE processing is “minor or insignificant” under 

Section 1677j(b)(1)(C). 

For the “pattern of trade” factor, Commerce chose to 

analyze 49 months before and after the date Commerce initiated the investigations that led to the China CORE AD 

and CVD orders. Final Determination at 12–13. Commerce explained that this allowed it “to compare the trade 

patterns prior to the discipline of any AD and CV[D] duties 

with the trade patterns present when parties were aware 

that they could potentially have to pay AD and CV[D] duties.” Id. at 13. Commerce also explained that the period 

was consistent with prior determinations. Id. at 13 n.51 

(collecting cases).

Commerce made several findings before concluding

that the “pattern of trade” factor evidenced circumvention. 

Commerce analyzed data concerning the UAE as a whole

and found that after the initiation of the CORE investigations, the average monthly volume of imports of cold-rolled 

steel and hot-rolled steel into the UAE from China increased by 47.01% and 35.01%, respectively. Id. at 12; Preliminary Determination at 24 (citing Global Trade Atlas

data). Commerce further found that the average monthly 

volume of exports of CORE from the UAE to the United 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 6 Filed: 04/12/2023
AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US 7

States increased by 5,752.06% (almost four hundred thousand metric tons) during the same period. Preliminary Determination at 25. 

Commerce also considered AGIS’s data for the “pattern 

of trade” factor.1 Commerce explained that AGIS’s purchases of cold-rolled and hot-rolled steel from China increased thousands of percent in the 49-month period after 

the CORE investigation began. In that same period, 

AGIS’s exports to the U.S. of CORE made from Chinese 

substrate substantially increased. Commerce found that 

these data indicated a “pattern of trade” evidencing circumvention. Final Determination at 8, 11–13.

Commerce also analyzed whether the UAE’s processing of hot-rolled and cold-rolled steel into CORE was 

“minor or insignificant” compared to making the substrates 

in China. For the “level of investment” subfactor, Commerce found that “the average expenditure for construction 

of an integrated steel mill in China is [$3.6 billion,] roughly 

15 times greater than that required to build [] facilities” 

present in the UAE. Id. at 17 (comparing investments in 

Chinese integrated steel facilities to that invested by a 

UAE manufacturer); Preliminary Determination at 15. 

Commerce looked at AGIS’s investment data and likewise 

found that AGIS’s facilities required significantly less investment than the average integrated steel mill in China. 

Commerce explained that its conclusions regarding these 

findings were consistent with prior CORE cases involving 

circumvention. Preliminary Determination at 15–16; Final Determination at 18. 

Commerce also determined that the “nature of the production process” and “extent of production facilities” subfactors supported an affirmative finding of circumvention. 

1 AGIS’s data that Commerce relied on are confidential and have not been included in this opinion. 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 7 Filed: 04/12/2023
8 AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US

Commerce explained that the UAE’s CORE manufacturing 

process—which includes thinning, coating, and cutting to 

make the final CORE product—was insignificant compared 

to the much more numerous, complicated, and expensive 

processes completed in China to make the substrate. Final 

Determination at 18–19. Again, Commerce found its analysis consistent with prior CORE determinations. Id. at 19; 

Preliminary Determination at 18–19. 

Commerce concluded that the “value added” subfactor

supported circumvention. Commerce found that AGIS increased the products’ value by an amount it deemed insignificant. In making this calculation, however, Commerce 

did not adopt AGIS’s argument that Commerce should 

limit its dataset to just U.S. sales. 

Commerce additionally analyzed global data from 

MEPS International’s World Carbon Steel price database 

and found that from 2013 to 2016 “the value-added by 

CORE producers . . . [was] approximately 10 percent to 31 

percent, depending on whether the underlying substrate 

was already cold-rolled.” Preliminary Determination at 21. 

Commerce found that MEPS data from 2018 indicated that 

processing hot-rolled and cold-rolled steel to CORE increased the products’ value by 13 to 22 percent. Id. at 21–

22. Commerce explained that, although these data were 

not specific to the UAE, they were still probative because 

methods used to process hot-rolled or cold-rolled steel to 

CORE did not substantively vary across different countries. Id. 

Commerce concluded that “the value of the [hot-rolled 

and/or cold-rolled steel] produced in China . . . is a significant portion of the total value of the completed . . . CORE[]

exported to the United States.” Final Determination at 9. 

Commerce explained that this determination was consistent with prior cases involving different countries, which 

likewise concluded that processing hot-rolled or cold-rolled 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 8 Filed: 04/12/2023
AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US 9

steel to CORE did not add significant value to the imported 

good. Preliminary Determination at 21. 

Commerce reached a final affirmative circumvention 

determination, finding that UAE exports of CORE made 

from Chinese hot-rolled steel or cold-rolled steel circumvented the AD and CVD orders covering shipments of 

CORE from China. Preliminary Determination at 27–28; 

Final Determination at 25. 

AGIS challenged Commerce’s findings in the Court of 

International Trade, which affirmed Commerce’s determination. Al Ghurair Iron & Steel v. United States, 536 F. 

Supp. 3d 1357 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021). AGIS appeals to this 

court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a judgment of the Court of International 

Trade de novo, reapplying the same standard of review applied by that court in its review of Commerce’s affirmative 

circumvention determination. See NEXTEEL Co. v. United 

States, 28 F.4th 1226, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2022). As such, we 

review Commerce’s findings for substantial evidence. Id. 

Substantial evidence is “evidence that a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” SeAH 

Steel VINA Corp. v. United States, 950 F.3d 833, 840 (Fed. 

Cir. 2020) (citation omitted); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. 

United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Commerce’s special expertise in administering the anti-dumping law entitles its decisions to deference from the courts”). 

DISCUSSION

Under Section 1677j(b)(1), Commerce may find and address circumvention if:

(A) [the] merchandise imported into the United 

States is of the same class or kind as any merchandise produced in a foreign country that is the subject of . . . [an AD and/or CVD order],

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 9 Filed: 04/12/2023
10 AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US

(B) before importation into the United States, such 

imported merchandise is completed or assembled 

in another foreign country from merchandise which 

. . . is subject to [the] order . . . or . . . is produced in 

the foreign country . . . to which such order . . . applies, 

(C) the process of assembly or completion in the foreign country . . . is minor or insignificant, 

(D) the value of the merchandise produced in the 

foreign country . . . is a significant portion of the 

total value of the merchandise exported to the 

United States, and

(E) . . . action is appropriate . . . to prevent evasion 

of such order. 

To determine whether the process of assembly or completion is “minor or insignificant” (element C above), Commerce “shall take into account:” 

(A) the level of investment in the foreign country,

(B) the level of research and development in the foreign country,

(C) the nature of the production process in the foreign country,

(D) the extent of production facilities in the foreign 

country, and

(E) whether the value of the processing performed 

in the foreign country represents a small proportion of the value of the merchandise imported into 

the United States.

19 U.S.C. § 1677j(b)(2)(A)–(E).

Under Section 1677j(b)(3), Commerce is also required 

to consider “(A) the pattern of trade, including sourcing 

patterns, (B) whether the manufacturer or exporter of the 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 10 Filed: 04/12/2023
AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US 11

merchandise . . . is affiliated with the person who uses the 

merchandise . . . to assemble or complete in the foreign 

country the merchandise that is subsequently imported 

into the United States, and (C) whether imports into the 

foreign country of the merchandise . . . have increased after 

the initiation of the [AD/CVD] investigation.” 

We conclude that substantial evidence supports Commerce’s determinations as to “pattern of trade,” “level of investment,” “nature of the production process,” and “extent 

of production facilities.” Commerce erred by failing to explain its factual findings for the “value added” subfactor, as 

applied to AGIS’s financial data. But because Commerce’s 

preliminary and final determinations provide multiple 

other reasons supporting its circumvention finding, we conclude that this error is harmless. 

1. “Pattern of Trade” 

AGIS argues that substantial evidence does not support Commerce’s determination that there is a “pattern of 

trade” indicating that the UAE is circumventing the China 

CORE AD and CVD orders. Op. Br. at Section V. We disagree. 

First, AGIS argues that Commerce erred because it 

was “arbitrary” for Commerce to rely on the 49 months before and after the China CORE investigations began. Id. 

at 43–44. 

Commerce’s timeframe selection was not arbitrary. 

Commerce reasonably explained that the period allowed it 

to analyze whether the trade patterns changed in reaction 

to the AD and CVD orders’ investigations, when parties 

learned that “they could potentially have to pay AD and 

CV[D] duties.” Final Determination at 13. Commerce also 

reasonably found that this period was consistent with its 

prior determinations. Id. at 13 n.51 (collecting cases).

Second, AGIS contends that the 49-month timeframe 

was “contrary to law.” Op. Br. at 43. But AGIS has 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 11 Filed: 04/12/2023
12 AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US

provided no legal authority supporting this argument. In 

fact, AGIS concedes that the statute “does not identify any 

particular time periods at all for Commerce to consider for 

this factor.” Id. at 44. 

Third, AGIS identifies data specific to AGIS that it argues show that Commerce’s decision is unsupported by 

substantial evidence. Id. at 43–48. For instance, AGIS 

claims that it has not shipped CORE to the United States 

made from Chinese hot-rolled or cold-rolled steel since December 2017. Id. at 45–46. Commerce reasonably explained that its analysis was country-wide, so AGISspecific data were less probative than the data concerning 

the UAE as a whole. Final Determination at 9–13. AGIS 

does not challenge Commerce’s findings as to the “pattern 

of trade” that it based on UAE data. To the extent that 

AGIS is asserting that Commerce should have found AGISspecific data more probative than UAE data, we recognize 

that substantial evidence review does not permit us to reweigh the evidence. See Inland Steel Indus., Inc. v. United 

States, 188 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (substantial 

evidence review does not “allow the parties to retry factual 

issues before us de novo”).

In addition, while some of AGIS’s data arguably support 

AGIS’s position, other evidence does not. SolarWorld 

Americas, Inc. v. United States, 910 F.3d 1216, 1222 (Fed. 

Cir. 2018) (“Commerce’s finding may still be supported by 

substantial evidence even if two inconsistent conclusions 

can be drawn from the evidence.” (citation omitted)). AGIS 

does not dispute Commerce’s factual finding that immediately after the initiation of the CORE investigation, AGIS’s 

purchases of cold-rolled and hot-rolled steel from China 

skyrocketed. Nor does AGIS dispute Commerce’s factual 

finding that AGIS exported significantly more CORE into 

the U.S. made from Chinese substrate during that same 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 12 Filed: 04/12/2023
AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US 13

timeframe. Commerce reasonably relied on these data as 

a “pattern of trade.”2 

Thus, substantial evidence supports Commerce’s finding that the Section 1677j(b)(3)(A) “pattern of trade” factor 

evidenced circumvention.

2. “Level of Investment” 

AGIS argues that Commerce erroneously analyzed the 

UAE’s “level of investment” in determining that the UAE’s 

contribution was “minor or insignificant.” Op. Br. at Section III (discussing 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677j(b)(1)(C), 

1677j(b)(2)(A)). We find that substantial evidence supports 

Commerce’s decision as to this subfactor. 

First, AGIS asserts that since it “was established in 

2005, it has continued to make sustained investments and 

re-investments in its production capabilities, significantly 

adding to its assets and expanding its production operations.” Op. Br. at 27–28. AGIS asserts that its company’s 

assets are worth a significant amount. Id. AGIS argues

that its value is comparable to the value of the smallest

Chinese steel mills. Id. at 35–36.

These factual disputes do not establish a lack of substantial evidence. Inland Steel, 188 F.3d at 1359. Commerce reasonably rejected these arguments when it 

determined that AGIS’s investments were vastly lower 

than the amount needed to construct the average steel mill 

in China. Preliminary Determination at 15; Final Determination at 17. Commerce did not err simply because 

2 Commerce declined to determine whether AGIS intended to circumvent the AD and CVD orders, because “intent is not a necessary element of a finding of 

circumvention.” Final Determination at 13–14. No party 

challenges this decision.

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 13 Filed: 04/12/2023
14 AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US

AGIS’s valuation is similar to Chinese steel mills on the 

extremely low end of the valuation spectrum. 

Second, AGIS argues that Commerce legally erred by 

comparing AGIS’s investment to make CORE with Chinese 

manufactures’ investment to make hot-rolled or cold-rolled 

steel. Op. Br. at 32–33. AGIS argues that Commerce 

should have only compared AGIS’s CORE investment to

the investments of Chinese CORE producers. Id. 

AGIS provides no binding authority supporting this argument. Commerce reasonably explained that its comparison “indicate[d] what portion of the total value of the 

merchandise subject to these inquiries is accounted for by 

the last step of processing.” Final Determination at 18. 

Third, AGIS argues that Commerce erred by failing to 

conform its analysis to its past practices. See Op. Br. at 

29–30, 32, 34–35. We disagree. 

Commerce is not bound by its prior determinations. 

Hyundai Elec. & Energy Sys. Co. v. United States, 15 F.4th

1078, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“We have rejected the notion 

that Commerce is forever bound by its past practices. Instead, each administrative review is a separate exercise of 

Commerce’s authority that allows for different conclusions 

based on different facts in the record.” (citations omitted)); 

Reply. Br. at 20 (conceding that “Commerce must make circumvention determinations on a case-by-case basis.”). 

Commerce must, however, explain itself, which it did for 

this subfactor. Save Domestic Oil, Inc. v. United States, 

357 F.3d 1278, 1283–84 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[I]f Commerce 

has a routine practice for addressing like situations, it 

must either apply that practice or provide a reasonable explanation as to why it departs therefrom.”). And Commerce’s analysis here is consistent with its prior 

determinations. Commerce correctly identified multiple 

other cases—including prior CORE cases—where Commerce analyzed the imported goods in terms of the entire 

manufacturing process, not just the final steps. See

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 14 Filed: 04/12/2023
AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US 15

Preliminary Determination at 16 nn.68–69 (collecting 

cases); Final Determination at 18 n.80. 

We disagree with AGIS that Commerce erred by acting 

contrary to its determination in Hot-Rolled Lead. See, e.g., 

Op. Br. at 34–35 (discussing Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth 

Carbon Steel Products from Germany and the United Kingdom; Negative Final Determinations of Circumvention of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 64 Fed. 

Reg. 40336 (Dep’t of Commerce July 26, 1999)). That is a 

non-binding decision from 1999, and the products considered were different from those at-issue here. 

In sum, substantial evidence supports Commerce’s determination that the UAE’s “level of investment” is minor 

and insignificant. 

3. “Nature of the Production Processes” and 

“Extent of the Production Facilities” 

AGIS asserts that Commerce erroneously analyzed the 

“nature of the production processes” and “extent of production facilities” in the UAE to determine that the UAE’s contribution was “minor or insignificant,” evidencing 

circumvention. Op. Br. at Section III (discussing 19 U.S.C. 

§§ 1677j(b)(1)(C), 1677j(b)(2) (C)–(D)). We disagree and 

find that substantial evidence supports Commerce’s decision for these subfactors. 

AGIS argues that Commerce erred because the nature 

of AGIS’s processes and the extent of its facilities are significant. See, e.g., Op. Br. at 29 (“AGIS’s production process 

requires multiple sub-stages and different equipment. . . 

.”); id. at 30 (“AGIS’s situation hardly involves unskilled 

labor and limited and minor production.”); id. at 31 

(“AGIS’s operations are extensive and sophisticated. . . .”). 

We reject these arguments as improper attempts to relitigate facts on appeal. Inland Steel, 188 F.3d at 1359. Commerce reasonably found that the UAE’s CORE 

manufacturing processes and facilities, including those at 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 15 Filed: 04/12/2023
16 AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US

AGIS, are insignificant as compared to the more numerous, 

complicated, and expensive processes and facilities in 

China. Preliminary Determination at 18–20; Final Determination at 8, 18. Its determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Next, citing Certain Tissue Paper Products, AGIS argues that Commerce is acting contrary to its prior applicable determinations. Op. Br. at 29–30 (discussing Certain 

Tissue Paper Products from China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping 

Duty Order, 78 Fed. Reg. 14514 (Dep’t of Commerce Mar. 

6, 2013) and accompanying Memo)). In Certain Tissue Paper Products, in finding circumvention, Commerce determined that most of the processing occurred in China—the 

paper was essentially made there. Certain Tissue Paper 

Products Memo at 5–6 (“[W]e preliminarily find that the 

production process conducted by ARPP in converting the . 

. . jumbo rolls to cut-to-length tissue paper is limited and 

minor”). The investigated Indian company merely completed the final manufacturing steps, such as cutting the 

paper. Id. 

We find that Certain Tissue Paper Products is consistent with Commerce’s analysis here. In this case, Commerce similarly found that the most complex processing 

occurred in China and that the UAE producers merely completed final, relatively minor processing steps.3 Preliminary Determination at 14, 18–19. 

3 Even if Certain Tissue Paper Products involved a 

different analysis by Commerce, it is non-binding. Hyundai Elec. & Energy Sys., 15 F.4th at 1089. Commerce’s 

findings as to this subfactor are reasonably explained and 

consistent with findings in prior cases involving CORE produced in other countries. See Preliminary Determination 

at 19–20 (collecting cases). 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 16 Filed: 04/12/2023
AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US 17

Thus, substantial evidence supports Commerce’s determinations as to the “nature” and “extent” subfactors. 

4. “Value Added” 

AGIS argues that substantial evidence does not support Commerce’s decision that the UAE’s processing steps 

add an insignificant “value” to its CORE products. See Op. 

Br. at Section IV (discussing 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677j(b)(1)(C), 

1677j(b)(2)(E)). AGIS asserts that “Commerce ignored 

AGIS’s calculations and failed to explain why it was appropriate to use in its calculations company-wide profit 

amounts instead of the actual profit on U.S. sales of CORE 

produced with Chinese [hot-rolled and cold-rolled steel]

substrate.” Id. at 42. AGIS states that had Commerce 

adopted the narrower U.S.-only dataset, Commerce would 

have calculated AGIS’s “value added” to be much higher

than the percentage Commerce determined.4 Id. 

Appellees argue that Commerce did not have to explain 

why AGIS’s calculations were wrong. The government

4 AGIS also argues that Commerce’s final circumvention determination is unsupported by substantial evidence because Commerce failed to explain why it 

considered the percentage of value added by AGIS to be insignificant. Op. Br. at 40–41. We reject this argument because Commerce’s explanation—that the value added was 

insignificant in view of prior CORE cases making similar 

findings and the other facts of the case—was reasonable 

and supported by substantial evidence. Preliminary Determination at 20–21; Final Determination at 17–20. AGIS 

also fails to identify anything Commerce could or should 

have said. Op. Br. at 38, 40–41; Reply Br. at 9 (conceding 

that “Commerce should not be held to a numerical or 

‘bright-line’ test in considering the value added in thirdcountry processing”).

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 17 Filed: 04/12/2023
18 AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US

asserts that if Commerce were required to explain why 

AGIS’s calculations were wrong “there might be no end to 

the analyses [Commerce] would have to perform.” Oral 

Arg. at 32:20–32:45 (government’s counsel); see also id. at 

38:50–39:10 (Steel Dynamics’ counsel making a similar argument). 

Appellees also contend that the following passage from 

Commerce’s preliminary determination is a sufficiently adequate explanation: 

Commerce preliminarily finds that the formula 

AGIS used in its analyses is unpersuasive because 

Commerce is determining what the further processing cost is as a percentage of the total U.S. 

sales price; the statute does not require use of 

AGIS’s preferred formulas and its analyses do not 

override Commerce’s conclusion with respect to 

this factor.

Preliminary Determination at 22. 

While Commerce must reasonably explain its findings, 

its explanations are not required to reach a certain level, 

only that they are sufficient to afford adequate review. See 

NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 557 F.3d 1316, 1319 

(Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]hile its explanations do not have to be 

perfect, the path of Commerce’s decision must be reasonably discernable to a reviewing court.”). Without a reasonable explanation, this court cannot “meaningful[ly] review” 

Commerce’s decision. OSI Pharms., LLC v. Apotex Inc., 

939 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted); 

SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94 (1943) (“[C]ourts 

cannot exercise their duty of review unless they are advised 

of the considerations underlying the action under review.”). 

Nor can we “supply a reasoned basis for [Commerce’s] action that [Commerce] itself has not given.” NEXTEEL, 28 

F.4th at 1237 (citation omitted). 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 18 Filed: 04/12/2023
AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US 19

This does not mean that Commerce’s written decision 

must address “every argument raised by a party or explain 

every possible reason supporting its conclusion.” Synopsys, 

Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. 

Cir. 2016); see also Yeda Rsch. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 906 

F.3d 1031, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[F]ailure to explicitly discuss every . . . minor argument does not alone establish 

that the [agency] did not consider it.”). But we must be able 

to determine that Commerce at least considered counterarguments to its position. Id.; see also BMW of N. Am. LLC 

v. United States, 926 F.3d 1291, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (finding that Commerce erred when it “largely ignored” a 

party’s counterargument and failed to articulate any rational for a finding).

Commerce erred here because it did not reasonably explain why it rejected AGIS’s calculations. We disagree with

Appellees’ hyperbole that it would have been impossible or 

highly burdensome for Commerce to explain why AGIS’s 

calculations were wrong. This case involved only a few active participants. See Final Determination at 2–3; see also 

Oral Arg. at 37:40–50 (Steel Dynamics’ counsel explaining 

that the case involved “one company that was an active 

participant as a respondent”). This was one of AGIS’s main 

arguments and was squarely before Commerce. See Hitachi Energy USA Inc. v. United States, 34 F.4th 1375, 1386 

(Fed. Cir. 2022) (finding that substantial evidence did not 

support Commerce’s decision to invoke adverse inferences 

and apply partial facts where Commerce provided “[n]o 

reasonable justification” to do so). AGIS’s calculations apparently used the same formulas as Commerce but only included a smaller subset of data. Op. Br. at 37–43; Reply 

Br. at 5–6; Oral Arg. at 35:48–36:40 (Steel Dynamics’ counsel conceding that all Commerce had to do was explain why 

using U.S.-only data in the formulas was misleading). 

We agree that Commerce’s explanation was insufficient. We are unable to conclude that Commerce even considered AGIS’s argument, and Commerce’s discussion is 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 19 Filed: 04/12/2023
20 AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US

limited to a single paragraph that is vague and conclusory 

and wholly fails to explain why Commerce believed that 

using AGIS’s dataset would be improper.5 In fact, Commerce’s meager explanation suggests that it may have misunderstood AGIS’s position because Commerce stated that 

it did not need to use “AGIS’s preferred formulas”—but 

AGIS used the same formulas as Commerce. Preliminary 

Determination at 22. In sum, substantial evidence does 

not support Commerce’s determination as to AGIS’s “value

added.” 

5. Harmless Error

Because we find that substantial evidence does not support Commerce’s determination as to the “value added” 

subfactor, we must consider the overall effect of this error 

and whether a remand is necessary. Suntec Indus. Co.,

Ltd. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

(applying a harmless error analysis); Intercargo Ins. Co. v. 

United States, 83 F.3d 391, 394 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“It is well 

settled that principles of harmless error apply to the review 

of agency proceedings.”). We conclude that Commerce’s error was harmless. Commerce’s finding of circumvention involved a multi-factor test and was supported by many 

findings other than its calculation of AGIS’s value added. 

Commerce’s determination was country-wide, so its

analysis of AGIS’s value added data was only one part of 

the broader inquiry for this subfactor. AGIS does not 

5 The government also argued at oral argument that 

Commerce explained itself by stating, “even if AGIS’s 

profit, financial expenses, and SG&A were added to the 

value-added percentage calculation, the percentage of 

value added does not materially change.” Final Determination at 20; Oral Arg. at 31:30–32:20. This explanation 

does not address the relevant question of why Commerce 

declined to use AGIS’s narrower dataset. 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 20 Filed: 04/12/2023
AL GHURAIR IRON & STEEL LLC v. US 21

appeal Commerce’s determination that global data indicated a value added of 10% to 31% and that this data accurately described the value added by UAE production. 

Preliminary Determination at 21. Thus, we conclude that 

Commerce’s overall determination does not require reversal or correction on remand. 

CONCLUSION

Commerce’s determination as to the UAE’s “pattern of 

trade,” “level of investment,” “nature of the production process,” and “extent of production facilities” is supported by 

substantial evidence. While Commerce’s analysis for the 

“value added” subfactor is not reviewable and is therefore 

not supported by substantial evidence, this error was 

harmless in view of Commerce’s other supported findings. 

We have considered AGIS’s remaining arguments and find 

them unpersuasive. We affirm the Court of International 

Trade’s judgment and Commerce’s affirmative determination of circumvention. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 22-1199 Document: 73 Page: 21 Filed: 04/12/2023