United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant

NUCOR CORPORATION, Plaintiff

v.

UNITED STATES, BLUESCOPE STEEL (AIS) PTY LTD., BLUESCOPE STEEL LTD, BLUESCOPE STEEL AMERICAS, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________

2022-2078 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:20-cv-03815-RKE, Senior Judge Richard K. Eaton. ______________________

Decided: April 4, 2024 ______________________

SARAH E. SHULMAN, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also rep- resented by YOHAI BAISBURD, THOMAS M. BELINE, CHASE DUNN, JAMES EDWARD RANSDELL, IV.

EMMA EATON BOND, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Case: 22-2078 Document: 75 Page: 2 Filed: 04/04/2024

2 UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION v. US

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; SPENCER NEFF, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

DANIEL L. PORTER, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appel- lees BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd., BlueScope Steel Ltd, BlueScope Steel Americas, Inc. Also represented by JAMES BEATY, CHRISTOPHER A. DUNN, JAMES P. DURLING. ______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, HUGHES and STARK, Circuit Judges. HUGHES, Circuit Judge. United States Steel Corp. appeals a decision from the United States Court of International Trade sustaining the Department of Commerce’s determination that Australian producer and exporter of hot-rolled steel, BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd., did not reimburse its affiliated U.S. im- porter, BlueScope Steel Americas, Inc., for antidumping duties. Because we agree with the trial court that the agency’s determination is supported by substantial evi- dence and is otherwise in accordance with law, we affirm. I A Under the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Depart- ment of Commerce is authorized to administer the anti- dumping statute. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673, 1677(1). The purpose of the antidumping statute is to protect domestic industries from injury caused by foreign manufactured goods that are sold in the United States at prices below the fair market value of those goods. See U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 621 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In Case: 22-2078 Document: 75 Page: 3 Filed: 04/04/2024

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION v. US 3

administering the statute, the agency will conduct investi- gations and assess antidumping duties where it deter- mines that foreign goods are being sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. 19 U.S.C. § 1673. If re- quested by an interested party, the agency must also con- duct an annual review of a previously issued antidumping duty order to determine the amount of dumping and the duties owed for the period of review. Id. § 1675(a)(1)(B), (2)(A). During the review, the agency calculates a “dump- ing margin” by comparing the price at which the merchan- dise is sold in the United States (export price) to a “normal value” benchmark. See id. §§ 1675(a)(2)(A)(ii),1677(35)(A). Where a domestic importer is affiliated with the foreign ex- porter, the agency will use “constructed export price,” de- fined as the price at which the merchandise is first sold to a non-affilia