Court Opinion

ID: 9440534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 16:52:07.941671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:27:45.270718
License: Public Domain

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 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)(l)(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, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984).