CAFC Permits Use of Turkish Lira-Denominated Sales to Calculate NV
The Commerce Department permissibly used respondent Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi's Turkish lira-denominated sales to value the company's home-market sales in the 2018-19 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Turkey, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on July 29.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
While Habas said Commerce had to follow its precedent by using the respondent's dollar-denominated sales, Judges Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham held that Commerce had no such obligation, since Habas failed to "reconcile its lira-denominated payment records with its reported dollar prices."
Hughes, writing for the unanimous panel, also rejected the respondent's claim that the use of the lira-denominated prices distorted the AD margin calculation, finding that Commerce properly relied on Habas' reported lira values, which were the only reliable prices. The result is a 24.32% AD rate for the respondent.
During the review, Commerce said Habas' Turkish lira-denominated sales were the only reliable sales data for calculating normal value that could be reconciled with the respondent's financial records. The court said the move "comports with Commerce's statutory obligations," noting that the agency's finding that Habas doesn't have payment records that can be reconciled with the dollar values on its invoices is "substantial evidence supporting Commerce’s preference for" the company's lira values "which can be reconciled."
Habas argued that the agency failed to follow its past practice of using a respondent's dollar-denominated sales prices to calculate normal value of steel flat products from Turkey. In response, Commerce said the present case isn't "analogous" to the prior cases, since in the past cases, the respondents were able to reconcile their reported dollar prices.
As the Court of International Trade held, Commerce would have violated its past practice only if Habas' home-market sales "were negotiated in dollars and the dollar price ultimately controlled the amount paid," the Federal Circuit noted. While Habas may have negotiated prices in dollars and put those prices on its invoices, the agency made a "factual finding" that the respondent couldn't show that its dollar prices controlled the price it was paid for home-market sales," the decision said.
While Habas insists the dollar prices did control, the "fundamental problem" is that the respondent doesn't know the "payment date of each invoice," Hughes said. As a result, "no one could discern the exchange rate that was in effect at the time of each payment," and Habas wasn't able to "reconcile its lira-denominated payment records with its reported dollar prices."
Habas also argued that relying on lira-denominated sales values could distort the margin calculations, given Turkey's "volatile exchange rate." Hughes said this ignores that only Habas' "lira-denominated prices were found to be reliable and thus had to be converted." As the trade court explained, the respondent's characterization of the issue is "incorrect because Commerce 'directly relied on Habas's reported [lira] values.'" As a result, "no unnecessary currency conversion occurred," the court said.
(Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1158, dated 07/29/25; Judges: Kimberly Moore, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham; Attorneys: Nancy Noonan of ArentFox Schiff for plaintiff-appellant Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi; Emma Bond for defendant-appellee U.S. government; Daniel Schneiderman of King & Spalding for defendant-appellee Cleveland-Cliffs; Roger Schagrin of Schagrin Associates for defendant-appellees Steel Dynamics and SSAB Enterprises)