Corus Staal BV v. Department of Commerce

The Department of Commerce (Commerce) (defendant) reviewed imports of hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands under United States antidumping law. As instructed by 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A), Commerce first calculated the dumping margin for individual sales in the United States, that is, the difference between the normal value in the importer’s home market and the constructed export price in the United States. Next, under § 1677(35)(B), Commerce calculated the weighted average dumping margin by dividing the aggregate dumping margin by its aggregate constructed export price. In so doing, Commerce added together all the exporter’s positive dumping margins but assigned a value of zero to any negative dumping margins, a method known as zeroing. Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (ADA) directed signatories, including the United States, to make a fair comparison of comparable export sales. At least two decisions of the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body (WTO) stated that zeroing violated Article 2.4.2. Additionally, steel exporter Corus Staal BV (Corus) (plaintiff) challenged Commerce’s use of zeroing in the United States Court of International Trade. Corus argued that zeroing was an unreasonable reading of § 1677(35) and fundamentally unfair. The court ruled that § 1677(35) neither prohibited nor required zeroing and that Commerce’s use of zeroing was reasonable. On appeal, Corus argued that § 1677(35) required a different methodology for investigations than for reviews. Corus also argued that Commerce must interpret § 1677(35) to avoid a conflict with international agreements under the Charming Betsy doctrine, a traditional rule of claim construction.