Usec Inc., et al. v. Eurodif S. A. et al.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 21 Apr 2008

The antidumping law allows for duties to be imposed on “foreign merchandise. . . sold in the United States at less than its fair value.” The Commerce Department construed that phrase as including transactions in which a U.S. customer furnishes cash and fungible raw material to a foreign producer and receives a substantially transformed finished product. The question presented in this case is whether the Federal Circuit erred in failing to accord Chevron deference to that construction, when a contrary one will prevent the Commerce Department from applying the antidumping law to imports causing or threatening material injury to a domestic industry.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case addressed whether certain transactions involving low enriched uranium (LEU) should be considered sales of goods or services under U.S. antidumping laws. USEC Inc., a domestic producer, argued that contracts for enriching uranium were sales of goods and thus subject to antidumping duties when foreign companies like Eurodif S.A. provided enrichment services at lower prices than the domestic market could offer. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Eurodif, determining that these transactions constituted the provision of a service rather than the sale of a good because they involved customers providing raw materials (unenriched uranium) to enrichers who then returned LEU without transferring ownership over any physical product from their own inventory. This distinction meant such agreements fell outside the scope of U.S. antidumping statutes designed to protect against unfairly priced imports sold as tangible products.