United States v. Eurodif S.A.
United States Supreme Court
129 S. Ct. 878 (2009)

- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
Nuclear power plants obtained fuel either by buying low enriched uranium (LEU) for cash under an enriched-uranium-product (EUP) contract or by sending feed uranium to an enricher that produced LEU under a separate-work-unit (SWU) contract. Feed uranium was fungible, so the enricher returned the desired quantity of LEU, a different form of uranium than the uranium it was sent. The United States’ sole LEU producer asked the Commerce Department (Commerce) (plaintiff) to investigate LEU imports under 19 U.S.C § 1673, which imposed antidumping duties on imported merchandise sold for less than fair market value. Commerce found that LEU obtained from France under EUP and SWU contracts was unfairly priced and imposed duties. A French firm, Eurodif S.A., its affiliates, and United States-based utilities that bought French LEU (collectively, Eurodif) (defendants) appealed. The Federal Circuit overturned Commerce on grounds that SWU contracts were contracts for services, not for the sales of goods. Commerce had argued that language in SWU contracts referring to the provision of LEU as enrichment services should not control because this would enable conversion of any contract for goods into one for manufacturing services, thereby eviscerating antidumping law. Commerce also relied on the common law, according to which a sale of goods occurred when a processor received an untracked, fungible commodity along with cash, and returned goods.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Souter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.