MAVERICK TUBE CORPORATION, BOOMERANG TUBE LLC, ENERGEX TUBE, TEJAS TUBULAR PRODUCTS, TMK IPSCO, VALLOUREC STAR, L.P., WELDED TUBE USA INC., Plaintiffs
TOSCELIK PROFIL VE SAC ENDUSTRISI A.S., CAYIROVA BORU SANAYI VE TICARET A.S., Plaintiffs-Appellants UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee BORUSAN ISTIKBAL TICARET, BORUSAN MANNESMANN BORU SANAYI VE TICARET A.S., Defendants
from the United States Court of International Trade in Nos.
1:14-cv-00234-JAR, 1:14-cv-00244-JAR, 1:14-cv-00262-JAR,
Senior Judge Jane A. Restani.
Jonathan Gordon Cooper, Quinn Emanuel Ur-quhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee.
Also represented by Debbie Leilani Shon, Jon David Corey,
Kelsey Rule, Philip Charles Sternhell.
L. Simon, Law Offices of David L. Simon, Washington, DC,
argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by Mark B.
Lehnardt, Antidumping Defense Group, LLC, Washington, DC.
Hardeep Kaur Josan, International Trade Field Office, United
States Department of Justice, New York, NY, argued for
defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by
Benjamin C. Mizer, Jeanne E. Davidson, Claudia Burke; Jessica
M. Link, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and
Compliance, United States Department of Commerce, Washington,
Prost, Chief Judge, Lourie and Stoll, Circuit Judge
Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endüstrisi A.S., and
Çayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (collectively,
"Çayirova"), appeal from the final judgment
of the United States Court of International Trade
("Trade Court") sustaining Commerce's decision
that Çayirova is not entitled to a duty drawback
adjustment for its exports of oil country tubular
goods. See Maverick Tube Corp. v. United
States, 163 F.Supp.3d 1345 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2016).
Because Commerce properly interpreted and applied the Tariff
Act to deny Çayirova's duty drawback adjustment,
case involves an antidumping investigation by Commerce into
Turkish oil country tubular goods."Dumping occurs when a
foreign firm sells goods in the United States at an export
price . . . that is lower than the product's normal
value." Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Co. v. United
States, 635 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For
exporters in non-distorted market economies, the normal value
is generally the "price at which the foreign . . .
product is first sold . . . for consumption in the exporting
country." 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i).
"[T]he amount by which the [normal value] exceeds
[export price] is the dumping margin." Id. A
higher export price thus yields a lower dumping margin.
calculating the dumping margin,
if a foreign country would normally impose an import duty on
an input used to manufacture the subject merchandise, but
offers a rebate or exemption from the duty if the input is
exported to the United States, then Commerce will increase
[the export price] to account for the rebated or unpaid
import duty (the 'duty drawback').
Saha Thai, 635 F.3d at 1338; see 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677a(c)(1)(B) (providing that the 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"). This adjustment of the export price is
called a "duty drawback adjustment." "The
purpose of the duty drawback adjustment is to account for the
fact that the producers remain subject to the import duty
when they sell the subject merchandise domestically, which
increases home market sales prices and thereby increases [the