United States v. Eurodif S.A.

United States v. Eurodif S.A.

Facts

Federal law allows the U.S. Department of Commerce to impose an antidumping duty on foreign merchandise sold in the United States for less than fair market value. The instant case involves the consolidation of two cases, United States v. Eurodif S.A. And USEC Inc. v. Eurodif which were heard by the United States Supreme Court. The allegations giving rise to the dispute involves imports of low enriched uranium (LEU) by USEC Inc. into the United States.

Procedural History

The case originated in the United States Court of International Trade (CIT). The Commerce Department had ruled that LEU obtained by USEC was eligible for antidumping duties. The Commerce Department's decision was appealed by USEC and sixteen American utilizes intervened. The CIT reversed the Commerce Department's finding ruling that the contracts in question was a subcontracting service and not a sale of merchandise and, therefore, the antidumping duties did not apply. The case was appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court affirmed the CIT's decision. The Supreme Court granted the Commerce Department's petition.

Issue

The primary issue was wether LEU manufactured by a foreign entity on behalf of U.S. purchaser out of raw materials provided by a U.S. purchaser foreign merchandise sold in the United States at less than its fair value subject to antidumping duties under 19 U.S.C. § 1673. The outcome of the Supreme Court's decision will affect foreign and domestic manufacturers and service providers in a wide range of domestic industries.

Rule

The rule of the case involves the Commerce Department's power to impose antidumping duties under 19 U.S.C § 1673.

Application

The Supreme Court review of the issues presented in the instant case was a case of first impression but it has far reaching affects across a variety of industries. The question addressed by the Court was when does an import transaction involve a sale of merchandise and not merely a sale of service? The Court in its decision closed a loophole that had been created by the lower courts which had limited the application of the antidumping law based on the intent of the parties to the import transactions. The importance of the Court's decision in this case is whether U.S. industries can compete with foreign goods produced through arrangements in which a customer provides the raw materials. The various utility companies involved had argued that the transactions involved a sale of services and that, therefore, they should be considered outside the scope of the antidumping law. The Supreme Court in rendering its decision declared clearly that such transactions constituted a sale of goods and, therefore, were subject to the Commerce Department's authority to set antidumping duties.