## Facts

- Commerce initiated an antidumping investigation of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands for the period October 1, 1999–September 30, 2000.
- Corus Staal BV, a Dutch producer, and its U.S. affiliate participated as the investigated exporter.
- Commerce issued a preliminary weighted-average dumping margin of 2.44% for Corus and, in the final determination, revised it to 2.59%.
- In calculating the weighted-average dumping margin, Commerce used its “zeroing” methodology, treating transactions with export price (or constructed export price) above normal value as having a dumping margin of zero rather than a negative amount.
- Corus challenged zeroing in the Court of International Trade, arguing it conflicted with 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) and with WTO and NAFTA panel outcomes addressing zeroing.
- The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s methodology, and Corus appealed to the Federal Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether Commerce’s use of zeroing in calculating a weighted-average dumping margin is a permissible interpretation of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) under Chevron.
2. Whether WTO and NAFTA panel or Appellate Body decisions criticizing zeroing require U.S. courts or Commerce to change the domestic statutory interpretation absent implementation by the political branches.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment sustaining Commerce’s final determination, including the 2.59% weighted-average dumping margin.
- The court held that § 1677(35) does not unambiguously require negative dumping margins to offset positive margins in the weighted-average calculation.
- Applying Chevron, the court upheld Commerce’s longstanding interpretation allowing zeroing as reasonable within the statute’s gap.
- The court rejected the argument that WTO or NAFTA decisions compelled a different result in domestic judicial review.
- The court emphasized that international panel reports have no direct legal effect on federal law unless implemented through the statutory mechanism assigned to the political branches.

## Legal Principles

- When the antidumping statute is silent or ambiguous on a specific calculation methodology, Commerce may adopt a reasonable interpretation, and courts defer under Chevron.
- “Dumping margin” and “weighted-average dumping margin” as defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) leave discretion on how to treat sales where export price exceeds normal value.
- Commerce may, consistent with the statute, set negative dumping margins to zero in aggregating margins to compute a weighted-average dumping margin.
- WTO agreements and dispute reports are not self-executing in U.S. law and do not require courts to revise domestic statutory interpretations absent implementation.
- The statutory process for considering WTO reports (including 19 U.S.C. § 3533) assigns conformity decisions to Congress and the Executive, not to courts in antidumping review.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit sustained Commerce’s use of zeroing as a reasonable construction of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) under Chevron and held that adverse WTO or NAFTA panel outcomes do not change domestic law or bind U.S. courts without action by the political branches through the prescribed implementation process.


Corus Staal BV v. Dep't of Commerce, 395 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005)