990 F.Supp.2d 1384 (CIT 2014), 13-00001, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A. S. v. United States

Docket Nº:13-00001
Citation:990 F.Supp.2d 1384
Opinion Judge:Judith M. Barzilay, Senior Judge.
Party Name:BORUSAN MANNESMANN BORU SANAYI VE TICARET A. S., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant-Intervenor
Attorney:No. 13-00001 Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP (Julie C. Mendoza, Donald B. Cameron, R. Will Planert, Brady W. Mills, Mary S. Hodgins, Sarah S. Sprinkle), for Plaintiff Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş . Douglas G. Edelschick, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,...
Case Date:June 25, 2014
Court:Court of International Trade

Page 1384

990 F.Supp.2d 1384 (CIT 2014)

BORUSAN MANNESMANN BORU SANAYI VE TICARET A. S., Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant, and UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant-Intervenor

No. 13-00001

United States Court of International Trade

June 25, 2014

Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP (Julie C. Mendoza, Donald B. Cameron, R. Will Planert, Brady W. Mills, Mary S. Hodgins, Sarah S. Sprinkle), for Plaintiff Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş .

Douglas G. Edelschick, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With him on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Whitney Rolig, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Jeffrey D. Gerrish, Robert E. Lighthizer, Jamieson L. Greer), for Defendant-Intervenor United States Steel Corporation.

OPINION

Page 1385

Judith M. Barzilay, Senior Judge.

Before the court is Plaintiff Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A. S.'s (" Borusan" ) motion for judgment on the agency record under USCIT Rule 56.2, challenging Defendant U.S. Department of Commerce's (" Commerce" ) final results of the antidumping duty annual review covering welded carbon steel pipe and tube from Turkey. See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and tubes from Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010 to 2011, 77 Fed. Reg. 72,818 (Dept't Commerce Dec. 6, 2012) (" Final Results " ), as amended by Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey; Amended Final Results of

Page 1386

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010 to 2011, 78 Fed. Reg. 286 Dep't Commerce Jan. 3, 2013) (" Amended Final Results " ); Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey -- May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011, A-489-501 (Nov. 30, 2012), Docket Entry No. 22 (Feb. 15, 2013) (" Issues and Decision Memorandum " ). Specifically, Borusan challenges Commerce's determination that Borusan engaged in targeted dumping and application of its average-to-transaction comparison methodology. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). For the reasons set forth below, the court sustains Commerce's Final Results.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing Commerce's antidumping determinations under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), the U.S. Court of International Trade sustains Commerce's " determinations, findings, or conclusions" unless they are " unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). More specifically, when reviewing agency determinations, findings, or conclusions for substantial evidence, the court assesses whether the agency action is " reasonable and supported by the record as a whole." Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Substantial evidence has been described as " such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Dupont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). Substantial evidence has also been described as " something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence." Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607, 620, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966).

Separately, the two-step framework provided in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842-45, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), governs judicial review of Commerce's interpretation of the antidumping statute. See United States v. Eurodif S.A., 555 U.S. 305, 316, 129 S.Ct. 878, 172 L.Ed.2d 679 (2009) (Commerce's " interpretation governs in the absence of unambiguous statutory language to the contrary or unreasonable resolution of language that is ambiguous." ).

II. BACKGROUND

Borusan is a manufacturer and exporter of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey. Borusan and other interested parties requested that Commerce conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes. On June 28, 2011, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey for the period of May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011, and selected Borusan as one of the mandatory respondents. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 76 Fed. Reg. 37,781 (Dep't Commerce June 28, 2011). Before Commerce issued the preliminary determination, one of the petitioners filed an allegation that Borusan engaged in targeted dumping during the period of review.

Page 1387

Commerce, however, deferred conducting a targeted dumping analysis and published its preliminary results. See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Turkey: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 Fed. Reg. 32,508 (Dep't Commerce June 1, 2012). Commerce assigned Borusan a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP