Summary
**Antidumping duty drawback adjustment; statutory interpretation of 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(B).** The Federal Circuit affirmed that the Department of Commerce must increase export price by the full amount of import duties rebated or exempted by reason of exportation to the United States, without allocating any portion to home-market sales. The court held that Commerce's methodology of apportioning duty drawbacks based on input sourcing was impermissible under the statute's plain text.
Topics
Questions Presented
- Whether Commerce's methodology of allocating the duty drawback adjustment between exported goods and home-market goods is consistent with 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(B).
Holdings
- The duty drawback statute requires an upward adjustment to export price based on the full extent of the duty drawback; it does not permit allocation based on the source of inputs.
Key quotations
“The price used to establish export price and constructed export price 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.” (9-10)
“The duty drawback statute requires an adjustment to 'export price' based on the full extent of the duty drawback. It does not impose an additional requirement that the respondent trace particular imported goods to U.S. exports.” (10)
Factual background
Uttam Galva Steels Limited, an Indian producer of corrosion-resistant steel, received duty drawbacks from the Indian government on imported inputs used in production. During an antidumping investigation, Commerce calculated a dumping margin of 3.05% using a new methodology that allocated the duty drawback adjustment between U.S. exports and home market sales, rather than attributing the full amount to U.S. sales. Uttam appealed, arguing that the statute requires a full adjustment to export price.
Procedural history
The Department of Commerce initiated an antidumping investigation on corrosion-resistant steel from India. Commerce's final determination used a new methodology for calculating duty drawback adjustment, allocating it between U.S. and home market sales. Uttam appealed to the Court of International Trade, which held the methodology impermissible and remanded. On remand, Commerce recalculated and made additional adjustments. The Trade Court sustained the second remand redetermination. Appellants (domestic steel producers) appeal.