The United States Supreme Court case, UNITED STATES v. EURODIF S. A., et al., 2008, revolved around the issue of whether a contract for services could be considered an importation of goods and thus subject to anti-dumping laws. Eurodif S.A., a French company, had contracts with U.S companies to enrich uranium by providing only service while the raw material was supplied by the U.S companies themselves. The Department of Commerce treated these as sales of goods rather than provision of services and imposed anti-dumping duties on them under Tariff Act 1930. Eurodif challenged this decision arguing that they were not selling enriched uranium but merely providing enrichment services. Initially, their argument was upheld in lower courts but later overturned by the Supreme Court which ruled in favor of the Department Of Commerce stating that such contracts can indeed be classified as sales subject to tariff regulations because it involves transfer or exchange for value even though no physical product is being imported into US territory.

In the dissenting opinion for UNITED STATES v. EURODIF S. A., Justice Scalia argued that the majority misinterpreted the Tariff Act of 1930, which he believed only applied to physical goods and not services such as uranium enrichment. He contended that enriched uranium was a service because it involved processing raw materials provided by customers rather than selling a tangible product outright. Therefore, according to Scalia's interpretation, these transactions should be exempt from anti-dumping duties under U.S law since they are not sales of merchandise but contracts for services rendered instead. The justice also criticized the majority's reliance on policy considerations in their decision-making process and suggested this approach could lead to arbitrary results inconsistent with statutory intent.