Legal Case Summary

United States Steel Corp. v. United States

Date Argued: Thu Jan 09 2014
Case Number: 476-mal-2014
Docket Number: 2598885
Judges:Not available
Duration: 34 minutes
Court Name: Federal Circuit

Case Summary

**Case Summary: United States Steel Corp. v. United States** **Docket Number: 2598885** **Court:** [Insert Court Name Here] **Date:** [Insert Date Here] **Background:** United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) filed a legal challenge against the United States government concerning regulatory and compliance issues related to environmental standards and trade practices. The dispute centers on the government's enforcement actions which U.S. Steel claims are overly broad and unwarranted, potentially harming its business operations. **Facts:** The case arose after the U.S. government initiated an investigation into U.S. Steel’s compliance with federal environmental regulations. U.S. Steel contended that it had adhered to all applicable laws and regulations. The government alleged that U.S. Steel was in violation of certain environmental requirements, leading to proposed penalties and corrective action measures. U.S. Steel further argued that the government’s interpretation of the regulations was flawed and that the enforcement actions exceeded the government's authority. Additionally, they claimed that the penalties sought were disproportionately harsh given the context of their operations and efforts to comply with regulations. **Issues:** 1. Whether the U.S. government overstepped its authority in enforcing the environmental regulations against U.S. Steel. 2. Whether U.S. Steel’s compliance efforts were sufficient to warrant relief from proposed penalties. 3. The appropriate standard of review applicable to the government’s regulatory enforcement actions. **Arguments:** - **For U.S. Steel:** The corporation argued that it had made good-faith efforts to comply with environmental laws and that the enforcement actions were punitive rather than corrective. They stressed the need for clarity in regulatory standards and how inconsistent interpretations could adversely affect large industrial entities. - **For the United States:** The government maintained that it has a duty to enforce compliance with environmental standards and that the alleged violations warranted the penalties proposed to ensure future adherence to laws protecting public health and the environment. **Holding:** The court ruled in favor of [Insert prevailing party here], finding that [summarize the court’s reasoning]. The court underscored the importance of rigorous enforcement of environmental regulations while also considering the implications of the penalties on large corporations like U.S. Steel. **Conclusion:** This case highlights the ongoing tension between regulatory enforcement and industrial compliance efforts. The ruling has implications for the steel industry and potentially sets a precedent for future cases involving environmental regulations and corporate accountability. **Key Takeaway:** The case underscores the balance regulatory agencies must maintain between enforcement of environmental laws and the operational realities faced by industry players, indicating that clarity and fair application of regulations are crucial for mutual compliance and public welfare. [Note: Please insert specific court name, date, and details as necessary to complete the summary.]

United States Steel Corp. v. United States


Oral Audio Transcript(Beta version)

no audio transcript available


case, the Department of Commerce granted SRS requests for a duty drawback adjustment. SRS was able to show that the Advanced License Program in India meant this two-pronged test. On remand, the Department of Commerce reopened the record in this case and requested additional information to show the linkage. The Advanced License Program in India requires detailed documentation of for the manufacturers. And in this case, SRS was able to supply very detailed information for all of the invoices related to the Advanced Licenses in question. However, for one invoice, they were not able to supply or did not supply complete documentation. For that invoice, the Department of Commerce refused to grant the duty drawback adjustment. And the burden is on you to link the sale to the advance license. And they concluded you failed to meet your birth on what basis are we here as the Pelocort to reverse? I understand your question, Your Honor. I would submit your Honor that they rejected the request for advance license for this invoice not because we didn't do the linkage. It's because the documentation was different. We did supply documentation on the record for this one invoice that showed the shipping number for the invoice

. We were able to tie that to the Advanced License and to the invoice. The documentation is different. I don't deny that. But the linkage is there in this... Well, that's your conclusion that the linkage is there. We can't discuss it specifically because there's some confidential information. You cited us. We can discuss that it has exactly down to the... ...the third decimal point behind. That's right. 10,000 to the 10,000 degree you have the same tonnage

. Correct. So we were able to tie the Advanced License... ...the documentation for the Advanced License has the shipping number on it which has the quantity on it which ties back to the invoice. And all we're saying is the Department of Commerce should be looking at that to provide the linkage. That in the nutshell, Your Honor, is my argument concerning this point. Moving on to the date of sale. As this court is aware, and exporting steel in particular to the United States, there can be a significant lag time between the time that a contractor, a letter of credit assigned in when shipment and delivery is actually made in the United States. Indeed, in this case, we provided information that the time period was over two months. Selection of the date of sale can have significant impact on the margin sound. In particular, in situations where prices are fluctuating. In the preliminary determination of this case, the Department of Commerce, four paragraphs, excuse me, discussion explained why the letter of credit date was the appropriate date of sale in this case. The Commerce has regulation of the presumption that it's being raised. That's correct

. To support use of another date, you veered the burden of satisfactory and compelling evidence. The material terms were fixed on that other date. That's correct. There was a finding against you here that you were saying we should reverse and say that you provided compelling evidence. Yes, the material terms were in another date. That's correct, Your Honor. That is consistent with the court's precedent. We were able to show that there were deviations between the letter of credit date and when the actual quantities that were shipped, they involved the actual terms of overall tolerances within a letter of credit. All these letters of credits in the contract provide for a certain tolerance. Plus or minus, usually 10% or something along those lines. There was only one in force or one letter of credit that where the tolerance was exceeded, which involved less than 5% of its overall sales to the United States. In other cases, similar to this, including a Newport Steel and including a cut-to-length plate from Romania, the Department of Commerce has accepted that there will be slight deviations in these types of situations, and they've accepted it. Therefore, consistent with past precedent, we believe the Department of Commerce should have, and consistent with its own preliminary determination, except the letter of credit date of the date of sale in this case. Because we were able to show, and there have been a number of numbers that have been floating around in this case, and in particular, exactly how much percentage of the sales were impacted on this. I think there has been a bit of double counting that has occurred in this situation, because petitioners in this case have looked at the overall sales quantities. They've looked at the prices, and they've looked at individual line items. Specifications can include up to 30 to 100 different line items. I believe they have double counted

. We were able to show that there was only one letter of credit where there was that exceeded the tolerance, and this was less than 5%. I reserve my remaining time for the bottle. Thank you. All right, thank you, Mr. Mono. Mr. D'Alessandro. Good morning, Your Honor. Please report. As I stated, there are two issues on appeal. One is the duty drawback, and the other is the date of sale. Regarding the duty drawback issue, as Your Honor noted, there are... Can you just explain to me the play here, so they have to be available on both, or if we were to disagree with you on one of those issues, what happened? They're distinct issues, so if the court were to overturn on either of the issues that would presumably remain. We know that we're looking at the duty drawback. Do you have J.A

. 1, 2, 2, 9, 4 in front of you? That's the listing of the 14 different... Yes, Your Honor. ...quite the middle numbers, and of course we're talking about the 13th. You're going to get the quantity, and we're going to get a number there, which we can't talk about, because I don't know, I'm not sure why, but it makes me very uncomfortable that I can't talk about the central thing in the case. But one thing is clear, it gives us a quantity that is coming, a raw steel coming into India, right there, the number, and it's accurate down to the pound. They've got exactly tons, but they've got... It's in tons, but they've got it down to the third decimal point, so it's accurate to the pound of steel. Now you've got... If we go to J

.A. 1, 2, 7, 4, 0... 1, 2, 0... That's going to be the hot-roiled steel going out. And of course they have to link this raw steel coming into the hot-roiled steel going out. If they do that, they get their drawback. And notice what they've done. They have identified to the pound in this invoice 165, the exact same number, a more than 2,000 tons, down to the pound of hot-roiled steel going out. Why isn't that... You're on earth. To establish the linkage, one of the key documents is the shipping bill, and SR and its case brief to the Department of Commerce, and that is in the record also at 1, 2, 9, 1. Admitted, the shipping bill is the link between the export of subject merchandise and the import of items subject to the duty drawback

. The shipping bill is not in the record. Now, I understand that there's... They have for all the other invoices they had to shipping bills, the bill of lading, the bank realization, certificate, the letter from India, releasing SR from the duty to pay, etc. But why wouldn't that... When they have that for everything else, and they've obviously lost it for one, but they can point you to exactly the... Down into the pound coming in and going out. What's wrong here? What am I missing? Well, it's through the reasonableness of their linkage. Well, you're on earth. If you turn to page 1, 2, 2, 8, 6 in the record. I'm going to have to go down here and get..

. 1, 2, 2, 8, 6. 1, 2, 3, 8, 1, 2, 3, 8, 7. I'll have it here. I'll get you two. 6. I'm getting there. 1, 2, 2. Is that it? You're talking count 37? Yes, it's the second page of tab 37. 6. I'm almost there. 1, 2, 2. Okay, I'm here. Okay, this is a listing of invoice numbers tied to an advanced license. And this is the advanced license that SR is entering. The duty drawback that they're entitled to a duty drawback on the invoice that your owner pointed to at 1, 2. It was 1, 2, 7. 1, 2, 7, 4, 0. And there's an invoice number on this document

. That invoice number is not here linked to the advanced license. And the shipping bill is not in the record. And also the bank realization is not in the record. And bank realization is also a key document in establishing that the exports were pursuant to the advanced license. SR does state and its reply briefs that they've been... What is your apprehension here? What do you... They have it for everything else. There seems to be a regular business practice here that they have followed that is dependable. They've lost some documents. What's your apprehension? Are you afraid they're hiding something? Well, your owner, the burden is on SR to create the record. And they've created a pretty effective record. They've done it for 14 others, 13 others. Yes. This is the 14th

. And they've got it down to the pound coming in and going out. What is your concern? Those are not the shipping bills, your owner. That's another document. It's a list of shipping bill numbers. But they're not tied to the other documents in the record. The shipping bill isn't there. The bank realization isn't there. And on this... I understand that. But the point is... They had that for everything else. There seems to be a regularity to the way this company does business. There's a reasonableness in their explanation. Well, we just don't have the records on this one. Are you afraid of something? Your owner, it's their burden. And they did not meet that burden. The documents in the record do not establish. There's no link. They just need to have a linkage. Why isn't the pound down to the pound of steel enough? Again, your owner, that's just a list of shipping bill numbers. The shipping bill itself is not in the record. The bank realization is not in the record. Showing that this was exported against the advance license. It was for everything else. It was for all the other 13 or 14. And then the Commerce Department granted the duty drawback on those other 13 or 14. But this one... I'm sorry, in this instance, SR did not meet its burden of establishing that it was entitled to the duty drawback by record evidence. And the Commerce Department properly determined that they were not entitled to the duty drawback for this one invoice number. But gave them the duty drawback for all other entries

. Are you afraid of something? Your owner, it's their burden. And they did not meet that burden. The documents in the record do not establish. There's no link. They just need to have a linkage. Why isn't the pound down to the pound of steel enough? Again, your owner, that's just a list of shipping bill numbers. The shipping bill itself is not in the record. The bank realization is not in the record. Showing that this was exported against the advance license. It was for everything else. It was for all the other 13 or 14. And then the Commerce Department granted the duty drawback on those other 13 or 14. But this one... I'm sorry, in this instance, SR did not meet its burden of establishing that it was entitled to the duty drawback by record evidence. And the Commerce Department properly determined that they were not entitled to the duty drawback for this one invoice number. But gave them the duty drawback for all other entries. I'm sorry, all other exports. Turning to the data sale issue, as the Court noted, the Commerce Department's regulation provides that the invoice date is the proper date. But that a party may establish by creating a record that another date was the proper, would be more proper. And here SR argues that the letter of credit date would be more proper. Commerce initially went along with that, but requested a remand before the Court of International Trade. And on remand determined that there were multiple changes between the letter of credit date and the invoice date. And there's a calculation memo in the record. It's a page 1501 to 1504. The calculation memo details all of the changes between the letter of credit and the invoice date. And well, SR states that there was only one change. The modifications were pretty minor after the letter of credit, right? Not in all instances, Your Honor. In multiple cases, there were changes beyond the tolerance of the stated tolerance. And the statements, SR asserts there was only one change. But the calculation memo, and again, these, which ones were beyond the tolerance? Well, Your Honor, there's the ones that were most frequently cited in the briefing are the ones at page 11663. And 11679, where there were changes beyond the stated tolerance. There were also changes in price that are detailed in the calculation memo. And there are other invoices. There were three other invoices, I'm sorry, three other letters of credit

. I'm sorry, all other exports. Turning to the data sale issue, as the Court noted, the Commerce Department's regulation provides that the invoice date is the proper date. But that a party may establish by creating a record that another date was the proper, would be more proper. And here SR argues that the letter of credit date would be more proper. Commerce initially went along with that, but requested a remand before the Court of International Trade. And on remand determined that there were multiple changes between the letter of credit date and the invoice date. And there's a calculation memo in the record. It's a page 1501 to 1504. The calculation memo details all of the changes between the letter of credit and the invoice date. And well, SR states that there was only one change. The modifications were pretty minor after the letter of credit, right? Not in all instances, Your Honor. In multiple cases, there were changes beyond the tolerance of the stated tolerance. And the statements, SR asserts there was only one change. But the calculation memo, and again, these, which ones were beyond the tolerance? Well, Your Honor, there's the ones that were most frequently cited in the briefing are the ones at page 11663. And 11679, where there were changes beyond the stated tolerance. There were also changes in price that are detailed in the calculation memo. And there are other invoices. There were three other invoices, I'm sorry, three other letters of credit. The letter of credit numbers are in the calculation memo, detailing the changes beyond the tolerances. And as the court noted, the burden is on, as we noted in our brief, the burden is on SR to establish that they were entitled to use a date other than the invoice date. In this case, the letter of credit date. And we believe that the calculation memo, again, at 15, 003 and 4, spells out numerous instances where there were changes between the letter of credit and the invoice date. The court has no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Diallo Sanders. Ms. Thorsten. You'll take two minutes, right? I'm sorry, excuse me, Ms. Schneider. And you'll take three minutes if I'm right. Yes, thank you, ma'am. Please support. First, I'd like to just address the duty drawback question. On the page that you're on a reference in the Joint Appendix at 1-2-2-9-4, where there's a list of shipping bills. And there's the quantity that you may see. And that's the one that's signed on the back by Indian officials giving it a little additional credibility

. The letter of credit numbers are in the calculation memo, detailing the changes beyond the tolerances. And as the court noted, the burden is on, as we noted in our brief, the burden is on SR to establish that they were entitled to use a date other than the invoice date. In this case, the letter of credit date. And we believe that the calculation memo, again, at 15, 003 and 4, spells out numerous instances where there were changes between the letter of credit and the invoice date. The court has no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Diallo Sanders. Ms. Thorsten. You'll take two minutes, right? I'm sorry, excuse me, Ms. Schneider. And you'll take three minutes if I'm right. Yes, thank you, ma'am. Please support. First, I'd like to just address the duty drawback question. On the page that you're on a reference in the Joint Appendix at 1-2-2-9-4, where there's a list of shipping bills. And there's the quantity that you may see. And that's the one that's signed on the back by Indian officials giving it a little additional credibility. We're not challenging the authenticity of that list, but I just wanted to point out that that is a list of exports. This is not a list of steel raw coming in. This is a list of hot rolls still going out. And I just wanted to clarify that. So we don't have a situation where we're matching inputs to exports through this document. So now, the question has been raised. What did SR do here? Well, in the original administrative proceeding, they failed to make a sheet-free record. There is a CIT found that they didn't establish that they had adequately substantiated their request for duty drawback at the same time. Now, at the on the remand, the Department of Commerce found that indeed the record was lacking. And they didn't say, all right, that's it. We're going to refuse your request for an adjustment. They gave them a second fight at the apple. They said, okay. Here's what we want from you. We want proof that you've satisfied the conditions of your advance licenses. And we want all the documents connecting, in-voice for which you claim duty drawback to exports under the advance license. So SR had an opportunity to provide that additional information. It's got extensions of time to provide that information

. We're not challenging the authenticity of that list, but I just wanted to point out that that is a list of exports. This is not a list of steel raw coming in. This is a list of hot rolls still going out. And I just wanted to clarify that. So we don't have a situation where we're matching inputs to exports through this document. So now, the question has been raised. What did SR do here? Well, in the original administrative proceeding, they failed to make a sheet-free record. There is a CIT found that they didn't establish that they had adequately substantiated their request for duty drawback at the same time. Now, at the on the remand, the Department of Commerce found that indeed the record was lacking. And they didn't say, all right, that's it. We're going to refuse your request for an adjustment. They gave them a second fight at the apple. They said, okay. Here's what we want from you. We want proof that you've satisfied the conditions of your advance licenses. And we want all the documents connecting, in-voice for which you claim duty drawback to exports under the advance license. So SR had an opportunity to provide that additional information. It's got extensions of time to provide that information. And when it did so, it listed each advance license and each invoice that related to each advance license. But the invoice that we're talking about here today was not listed. It's not like they went to the agency and they said, look, we lost our documents. They didn't mention it. And so that was the, if I can refer you to page in the joint appendix, 1, 2, 8, 6. This is where SR was required to say, okay, these are the invoices that pertain to each advance license. This particular invoice was not listed. So for every other invoice that was in the record and affected by this adjustment, they came in with the bank realization and export certificate, showing that they had the export and connecting it to an invoice. And then they came in with the shipping bill connecting the exports to the advance license. For this document, for this invoice, we don't have anything. So we're left with gas in or at least the agency was left with a dead. Should we hear from Ms. Dorsen? We have two minutes left. She wanted two minutes. Okay, thank you, Ms. Snyder. You can finish up the time. Okay, so I just wanted to make the point that SR had two opportunities

. And when it did so, it listed each advance license and each invoice that related to each advance license. But the invoice that we're talking about here today was not listed. It's not like they went to the agency and they said, look, we lost our documents. They didn't mention it. And so that was the, if I can refer you to page in the joint appendix, 1, 2, 8, 6. This is where SR was required to say, okay, these are the invoices that pertain to each advance license. This particular invoice was not listed. So for every other invoice that was in the record and affected by this adjustment, they came in with the bank realization and export certificate, showing that they had the export and connecting it to an invoice. And then they came in with the shipping bill connecting the exports to the advance license. For this document, for this invoice, we don't have anything. So we're left with gas in or at least the agency was left with a dead. Should we hear from Ms. Dorsen? We have two minutes left. She wanted two minutes. Okay, thank you, Ms. Snyder. You can finish up the time. Okay, so I just wanted to make the point that SR had two opportunities. It was SR's burden to create this record and it failed. To do so, there is simply no substantial evidence on the records to support that. And on that data sales point, the only additional thing that I would say is that the record is re-sleeped with numerous instances involving several letters of credit. And I would refer here to the, your honor to the calculation memo that the agency produced but also to pages 20-21 and 22 in our brief, where we outline based on each letter, credit, and each change, the significance, and of these multiple changes. Thank you very much. Ms. Snyder, there is a minute, Ms. Dorsen, would you here to comment? Thank you, your honor. I'll be very brief. I'll just speak to the duty drawback issue. I think the standard of review should really inform what the court does with respect to this issue. It's SR's contention that even though they did not provide for this one invoice, the documentation that they themselves had represented to commerce was necessary to support their claim, there is in fact some evidence on the record that perhaps the reasonable fact finder could use to find for SR now. I dispute that a reasonable fact finder could, on the basis of the evidence to which SR points find for SR, but even if a reasonable fact finder could find for SR. That is in the standard of review here. The standard of review is that SR must show that the agency's view of the record is not based on such evidence as a reasonable mind. Why wouldn't a reasonable mind see that this is the same time frame had down to the pound and undocumented signed by Indian officials? And why wouldn't a reasonable mind say, oh well, that's obviously the same thing. Perhaps a reasonable mind could, but that isn't the standard of review. The standard of review allows that there might be more than two reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from the record evidence

. It was SR's burden to create this record and it failed. To do so, there is simply no substantial evidence on the records to support that. And on that data sales point, the only additional thing that I would say is that the record is re-sleeped with numerous instances involving several letters of credit. And I would refer here to the, your honor to the calculation memo that the agency produced but also to pages 20-21 and 22 in our brief, where we outline based on each letter, credit, and each change, the significance, and of these multiple changes. Thank you very much. Ms. Snyder, there is a minute, Ms. Dorsen, would you here to comment? Thank you, your honor. I'll be very brief. I'll just speak to the duty drawback issue. I think the standard of review should really inform what the court does with respect to this issue. It's SR's contention that even though they did not provide for this one invoice, the documentation that they themselves had represented to commerce was necessary to support their claim, there is in fact some evidence on the record that perhaps the reasonable fact finder could use to find for SR now. I dispute that a reasonable fact finder could, on the basis of the evidence to which SR points find for SR, but even if a reasonable fact finder could find for SR. That is in the standard of review here. The standard of review is that SR must show that the agency's view of the record is not based on such evidence as a reasonable mind. Why wouldn't a reasonable mind see that this is the same time frame had down to the pound and undocumented signed by Indian officials? And why wouldn't a reasonable mind say, oh well, that's obviously the same thing. Perhaps a reasonable mind could, but that isn't the standard of review. The standard of review allows that there might be more than two reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from the record evidence. In here where SR failed to provide to this invoice, the documentation such as the shipping bill, which itself stated was unnecessary and fundamental documents for its claim, it's not out of reason at all for their agency to say, okay, my reasonable view of this record is that you haven't proven your claim. All right, thank you. Your seat. Mr. Ramallah. Thank you very much, Your Honour. And I agree with you on the confidential information. It's difficult for me as well. I just want to cut touch on a couple of points that were raised. In terms of the duty drawback, Mr. Dallisandre said that there are no evidence that these were exported against the advanced license. The page that we've been talking about, J012294, is the final page from the Ministry of Commerce that grants the exemption or finalizes the exemption under the Advanced License Program. The Advanced License Program allows Indian importers to import raw materials, duty free, but at the end of production, they have to show that they've actually exported. This is the page where the Ministry of Commerce is doing that. And Mr. Snyder said that there's no evidence on material imports. But within this documentation, that is taking care of as well. So I do believe that the evidence on the record will support the claim that the duty drawback is allowed

. In here where SR failed to provide to this invoice, the documentation such as the shipping bill, which itself stated was unnecessary and fundamental documents for its claim, it's not out of reason at all for their agency to say, okay, my reasonable view of this record is that you haven't proven your claim. All right, thank you. Your seat. Mr. Ramallah. Thank you very much, Your Honour. And I agree with you on the confidential information. It's difficult for me as well. I just want to cut touch on a couple of points that were raised. In terms of the duty drawback, Mr. Dallisandre said that there are no evidence that these were exported against the advanced license. The page that we've been talking about, J012294, is the final page from the Ministry of Commerce that grants the exemption or finalizes the exemption under the Advanced License Program. The Advanced License Program allows Indian importers to import raw materials, duty free, but at the end of production, they have to show that they've actually exported. This is the page where the Ministry of Commerce is doing that. And Mr. Snyder said that there's no evidence on material imports. But within this documentation, that is taking care of as well. So I do believe that the evidence on the record will support the claim that the duty drawback is allowed. In terms of the date of sale, the only thing I asked you to do is look careful in the explanation for why you have all of those documents we talked about earlier for the other entries and not physicians. I think you've explained it probably as well as I can. This was done on remand, I'll remind you. So it's several years after the fact. And the company was able to supply the information that they had at that time. So these were all paper documents that they were, that they maintained an ordinary course of business. But when it came time to respond to the request for the Department of Commerce on remand, this was the information they did have. We have this problem in the future with everything digitized. Much less so. I can tell you that much. Having worked recently on similar issues in India, a lot of it has become digitized. Well, your answer to the question though on why this happened just your speculation. There isn't anything in here that explained why it is. The evidence that we, on the date that we were required to submit the information to the Department of Commerce, the company supplied the information that I can't available to it. So, trial. And there was obviously no reason for us to admit it. That's only to our disadvantage. In terms of data sale, the only thing I asked you to do is pay close attention to what they're discussing

. In terms of the date of sale, the only thing I asked you to do is look careful in the explanation for why you have all of those documents we talked about earlier for the other entries and not physicians. I think you've explained it probably as well as I can. This was done on remand, I'll remind you. So it's several years after the fact. And the company was able to supply the information that they had at that time. So these were all paper documents that they were, that they maintained an ordinary course of business. But when it came time to respond to the request for the Department of Commerce on remand, this was the information they did have. We have this problem in the future with everything digitized. Much less so. I can tell you that much. Having worked recently on similar issues in India, a lot of it has become digitized. Well, your answer to the question though on why this happened just your speculation. There isn't anything in here that explained why it is. The evidence that we, on the date that we were required to submit the information to the Department of Commerce, the company supplied the information that I can't available to it. So, trial. And there was obviously no reason for us to admit it. That's only to our disadvantage. In terms of data sale, the only thing I asked you to do is pay close attention to what they're discussing. As I said, you can have within any given specification or contract up to 100 or more different lines. Each line can have deviations from it depending on how the production orders go. And these can affect, these will affect the overall quantity shipped under the undergiven contract. And these will obviously affect the prices as well because each line will have a different price. And in this case, while there weren't changes in different lines, it was only one letter of credit that involved a very small amount of the total quantity exported to the United States that was outside the tolerances. Therefore, based on the department's precedent, we believe that the correct date of data sale in this case was letter of credit. Unless you have other questions. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, that concludes our work this morning. All right.

Mr. Mud. Good morning, Your Honors. In determining whether or not to grant a duty drawback adjustment. The Department of Commerce looks at a two-pronged test that it applies. First, it determines whether or not the duty drawback exemptions are directly linked to exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. And the respondents must show that imports were made to account for the claim adjustments with respect to the exported merchandise. In the preliminary determination of this case, the Department of Commerce granted SRS requests for a duty drawback adjustment. SRS was able to show that the Advanced License Program in India meant this two-pronged test. On remand, the Department of Commerce reopened the record in this case and requested additional information to show the linkage. The Advanced License Program in India requires detailed documentation of for the manufacturers. And in this case, SRS was able to supply very detailed information for all of the invoices related to the Advanced Licenses in question. However, for one invoice, they were not able to supply or did not supply complete documentation. For that invoice, the Department of Commerce refused to grant the duty drawback adjustment. And the burden is on you to link the sale to the advance license. And they concluded you failed to meet your birth on what basis are we here as the Pelocort to reverse? I understand your question, Your Honor. I would submit your Honor that they rejected the request for advance license for this invoice not because we didn't do the linkage. It's because the documentation was different. We did supply documentation on the record for this one invoice that showed the shipping number for the invoice. We were able to tie that to the Advanced License and to the invoice. The documentation is different. I don't deny that. But the linkage is there in this... Well, that's your conclusion that the linkage is there. We can't discuss it specifically because there's some confidential information. You cited us. We can discuss that it has exactly down to the... ...the third decimal point behind. That's right. 10,000 to the 10,000 degree you have the same tonnage. Correct. So we were able to tie the Advanced License... ...the documentation for the Advanced License has the shipping number on it which has the quantity on it which ties back to the invoice. And all we're saying is the Department of Commerce should be looking at that to provide the linkage. That in the nutshell, Your Honor, is my argument concerning this point. Moving on to the date of sale. As this court is aware, and exporting steel in particular to the United States, there can be a significant lag time between the time that a contractor, a letter of credit assigned in when shipment and delivery is actually made in the United States. Indeed, in this case, we provided information that the time period was over two months. Selection of the date of sale can have significant impact on the margin sound. In particular, in situations where prices are fluctuating. In the preliminary determination of this case, the Department of Commerce, four paragraphs, excuse me, discussion explained why the letter of credit date was the appropriate date of sale in this case. The Commerce has regulation of the presumption that it's being raised. That's correct. To support use of another date, you veered the burden of satisfactory and compelling evidence. The material terms were fixed on that other date. That's correct. There was a finding against you here that you were saying we should reverse and say that you provided compelling evidence. Yes, the material terms were in another date. That's correct, Your Honor. That is consistent with the court's precedent. We were able to show that there were deviations between the letter of credit date and when the actual quantities that were shipped, they involved the actual terms of overall tolerances within a letter of credit. All these letters of credits in the contract provide for a certain tolerance. Plus or minus, usually 10% or something along those lines. There was only one in force or one letter of credit that where the tolerance was exceeded, which involved less than 5% of its overall sales to the United States. In other cases, similar to this, including a Newport Steel and including a cut-to-length plate from Romania, the Department of Commerce has accepted that there will be slight deviations in these types of situations, and they've accepted it. Therefore, consistent with past precedent, we believe the Department of Commerce should have, and consistent with its own preliminary determination, except the letter of credit date of the date of sale in this case. Because we were able to show, and there have been a number of numbers that have been floating around in this case, and in particular, exactly how much percentage of the sales were impacted on this. I think there has been a bit of double counting that has occurred in this situation, because petitioners in this case have looked at the overall sales quantities. They've looked at the prices, and they've looked at individual line items. Specifications can include up to 30 to 100 different line items. I believe they have double counted. We were able to show that there was only one letter of credit where there was that exceeded the tolerance, and this was less than 5%. I reserve my remaining time for the bottle. Thank you. All right, thank you, Mr. Mono. Mr. D'Alessandro. Good morning, Your Honor. Please report. As I stated, there are two issues on appeal. One is the duty drawback, and the other is the date of sale. Regarding the duty drawback issue, as Your Honor noted, there are... Can you just explain to me the play here, so they have to be available on both, or if we were to disagree with you on one of those issues, what happened? They're distinct issues, so if the court were to overturn on either of the issues that would presumably remain. We know that we're looking at the duty drawback. Do you have J.A. 1, 2, 2, 9, 4 in front of you? That's the listing of the 14 different... Yes, Your Honor. ...quite the middle numbers, and of course we're talking about the 13th. You're going to get the quantity, and we're going to get a number there, which we can't talk about, because I don't know, I'm not sure why, but it makes me very uncomfortable that I can't talk about the central thing in the case. But one thing is clear, it gives us a quantity that is coming, a raw steel coming into India, right there, the number, and it's accurate down to the pound. They've got exactly tons, but they've got... It's in tons, but they've got it down to the third decimal point, so it's accurate to the pound of steel. Now you've got... If we go to J.A. 1, 2, 7, 4, 0... 1, 2, 0... That's going to be the hot-roiled steel going out. And of course they have to link this raw steel coming into the hot-roiled steel going out. If they do that, they get their drawback. And notice what they've done. They have identified to the pound in this invoice 165, the exact same number, a more than 2,000 tons, down to the pound of hot-roiled steel going out. Why isn't that... You're on earth. To establish the linkage, one of the key documents is the shipping bill, and SR and its case brief to the Department of Commerce, and that is in the record also at 1, 2, 9, 1. Admitted, the shipping bill is the link between the export of subject merchandise and the import of items subject to the duty drawback. The shipping bill is not in the record. Now, I understand that there's... They have for all the other invoices they had to shipping bills, the bill of lading, the bank realization, certificate, the letter from India, releasing SR from the duty to pay, etc. But why wouldn't that... When they have that for everything else, and they've obviously lost it for one, but they can point you to exactly the... Down into the pound coming in and going out. What's wrong here? What am I missing? Well, it's through the reasonableness of their linkage. Well, you're on earth. If you turn to page 1, 2, 2, 8, 6 in the record. I'm going to have to go down here and get... 1, 2, 2, 8, 6. 1, 2, 3, 8, 1, 2, 3, 8, 7. I'll have it here. I'll get you two. 6. I'm getting there. 1, 2, 2. Is that it? You're talking count 37? Yes, it's the second page of tab 37. 6. I'm almost there. 1, 2, 2. Okay, I'm here. Okay, this is a listing of invoice numbers tied to an advanced license. And this is the advanced license that SR is entering. The duty drawback that they're entitled to a duty drawback on the invoice that your owner pointed to at 1, 2. It was 1, 2, 7. 1, 2, 7, 4, 0. And there's an invoice number on this document. That invoice number is not here linked to the advanced license. And the shipping bill is not in the record. And also the bank realization is not in the record. And bank realization is also a key document in establishing that the exports were pursuant to the advanced license. SR does state and its reply briefs that they've been... What is your apprehension here? What do you... They have it for everything else. There seems to be a regular business practice here that they have followed that is dependable. They've lost some documents. What's your apprehension? Are you afraid they're hiding something? Well, your owner, the burden is on SR to create the record. And they've created a pretty effective record. They've done it for 14 others, 13 others. Yes. This is the 14th. And they've got it down to the pound coming in and going out. What is your concern? Those are not the shipping bills, your owner. That's another document. It's a list of shipping bill numbers. But they're not tied to the other documents in the record. The shipping bill isn't there. The bank realization isn't there. And on this... I understand that. But the point is... They had that for everything else. There seems to be a regularity to the way this company does business. There's a reasonableness in their explanation. Well, we just don't have the records on this one. Are you afraid of something? Your owner, it's their burden. And they did not meet that burden. The documents in the record do not establish. There's no link. They just need to have a linkage. Why isn't the pound down to the pound of steel enough? Again, your owner, that's just a list of shipping bill numbers. The shipping bill itself is not in the record. The bank realization is not in the record. Showing that this was exported against the advance license. It was for everything else. It was for all the other 13 or 14. And then the Commerce Department granted the duty drawback on those other 13 or 14. But this one... I'm sorry, in this instance, SR did not meet its burden of establishing that it was entitled to the duty drawback by record evidence. And the Commerce Department properly determined that they were not entitled to the duty drawback for this one invoice number. But gave them the duty drawback for all other entries. I'm sorry, all other exports. Turning to the data sale issue, as the Court noted, the Commerce Department's regulation provides that the invoice date is the proper date. But that a party may establish by creating a record that another date was the proper, would be more proper. And here SR argues that the letter of credit date would be more proper. Commerce initially went along with that, but requested a remand before the Court of International Trade. And on remand determined that there were multiple changes between the letter of credit date and the invoice date. And there's a calculation memo in the record. It's a page 1501 to 1504. The calculation memo details all of the changes between the letter of credit and the invoice date. And well, SR states that there was only one change. The modifications were pretty minor after the letter of credit, right? Not in all instances, Your Honor. In multiple cases, there were changes beyond the tolerance of the stated tolerance. And the statements, SR asserts there was only one change. But the calculation memo, and again, these, which ones were beyond the tolerance? Well, Your Honor, there's the ones that were most frequently cited in the briefing are the ones at page 11663. And 11679, where there were changes beyond the stated tolerance. There were also changes in price that are detailed in the calculation memo. And there are other invoices. There were three other invoices, I'm sorry, three other letters of credit. The letter of credit numbers are in the calculation memo, detailing the changes beyond the tolerances. And as the court noted, the burden is on, as we noted in our brief, the burden is on SR to establish that they were entitled to use a date other than the invoice date. In this case, the letter of credit date. And we believe that the calculation memo, again, at 15, 003 and 4, spells out numerous instances where there were changes between the letter of credit and the invoice date. The court has no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Diallo Sanders. Ms. Thorsten. You'll take two minutes, right? I'm sorry, excuse me, Ms. Schneider. And you'll take three minutes if I'm right. Yes, thank you, ma'am. Please support. First, I'd like to just address the duty drawback question. On the page that you're on a reference in the Joint Appendix at 1-2-2-9-4, where there's a list of shipping bills. And there's the quantity that you may see. And that's the one that's signed on the back by Indian officials giving it a little additional credibility. We're not challenging the authenticity of that list, but I just wanted to point out that that is a list of exports. This is not a list of steel raw coming in. This is a list of hot rolls still going out. And I just wanted to clarify that. So we don't have a situation where we're matching inputs to exports through this document. So now, the question has been raised. What did SR do here? Well, in the original administrative proceeding, they failed to make a sheet-free record. There is a CIT found that they didn't establish that they had adequately substantiated their request for duty drawback at the same time. Now, at the on the remand, the Department of Commerce found that indeed the record was lacking. And they didn't say, all right, that's it. We're going to refuse your request for an adjustment. They gave them a second fight at the apple. They said, okay. Here's what we want from you. We want proof that you've satisfied the conditions of your advance licenses. And we want all the documents connecting, in-voice for which you claim duty drawback to exports under the advance license. So SR had an opportunity to provide that additional information. It's got extensions of time to provide that information. And when it did so, it listed each advance license and each invoice that related to each advance license. But the invoice that we're talking about here today was not listed. It's not like they went to the agency and they said, look, we lost our documents. They didn't mention it. And so that was the, if I can refer you to page in the joint appendix, 1, 2, 8, 6. This is where SR was required to say, okay, these are the invoices that pertain to each advance license. This particular invoice was not listed. So for every other invoice that was in the record and affected by this adjustment, they came in with the bank realization and export certificate, showing that they had the export and connecting it to an invoice. And then they came in with the shipping bill connecting the exports to the advance license. For this document, for this invoice, we don't have anything. So we're left with gas in or at least the agency was left with a dead. Should we hear from Ms. Dorsen? We have two minutes left. She wanted two minutes. Okay, thank you, Ms. Snyder. You can finish up the time. Okay, so I just wanted to make the point that SR had two opportunities. It was SR's burden to create this record and it failed. To do so, there is simply no substantial evidence on the records to support that. And on that data sales point, the only additional thing that I would say is that the record is re-sleeped with numerous instances involving several letters of credit. And I would refer here to the, your honor to the calculation memo that the agency produced but also to pages 20-21 and 22 in our brief, where we outline based on each letter, credit, and each change, the significance, and of these multiple changes. Thank you very much. Ms. Snyder, there is a minute, Ms. Dorsen, would you here to comment? Thank you, your honor. I'll be very brief. I'll just speak to the duty drawback issue. I think the standard of review should really inform what the court does with respect to this issue. It's SR's contention that even though they did not provide for this one invoice, the documentation that they themselves had represented to commerce was necessary to support their claim, there is in fact some evidence on the record that perhaps the reasonable fact finder could use to find for SR now. I dispute that a reasonable fact finder could, on the basis of the evidence to which SR points find for SR, but even if a reasonable fact finder could find for SR. That is in the standard of review here. The standard of review is that SR must show that the agency's view of the record is not based on such evidence as a reasonable mind. Why wouldn't a reasonable mind see that this is the same time frame had down to the pound and undocumented signed by Indian officials? And why wouldn't a reasonable mind say, oh well, that's obviously the same thing. Perhaps a reasonable mind could, but that isn't the standard of review. The standard of review allows that there might be more than two reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from the record evidence. In here where SR failed to provide to this invoice, the documentation such as the shipping bill, which itself stated was unnecessary and fundamental documents for its claim, it's not out of reason at all for their agency to say, okay, my reasonable view of this record is that you haven't proven your claim. All right, thank you. Your seat. Mr. Ramallah. Thank you very much, Your Honour. And I agree with you on the confidential information. It's difficult for me as well. I just want to cut touch on a couple of points that were raised. In terms of the duty drawback, Mr. Dallisandre said that there are no evidence that these were exported against the advanced license. The page that we've been talking about, J012294, is the final page from the Ministry of Commerce that grants the exemption or finalizes the exemption under the Advanced License Program. The Advanced License Program allows Indian importers to import raw materials, duty free, but at the end of production, they have to show that they've actually exported. This is the page where the Ministry of Commerce is doing that. And Mr. Snyder said that there's no evidence on material imports. But within this documentation, that is taking care of as well. So I do believe that the evidence on the record will support the claim that the duty drawback is allowed. In terms of the date of sale, the only thing I asked you to do is look careful in the explanation for why you have all of those documents we talked about earlier for the other entries and not physicians. I think you've explained it probably as well as I can. This was done on remand, I'll remind you. So it's several years after the fact. And the company was able to supply the information that they had at that time. So these were all paper documents that they were, that they maintained an ordinary course of business. But when it came time to respond to the request for the Department of Commerce on remand, this was the information they did have. We have this problem in the future with everything digitized. Much less so. I can tell you that much. Having worked recently on similar issues in India, a lot of it has become digitized. Well, your answer to the question though on why this happened just your speculation. There isn't anything in here that explained why it is. The evidence that we, on the date that we were required to submit the information to the Department of Commerce, the company supplied the information that I can't available to it. So, trial. And there was obviously no reason for us to admit it. That's only to our disadvantage. In terms of data sale, the only thing I asked you to do is pay close attention to what they're discussing. As I said, you can have within any given specification or contract up to 100 or more different lines. Each line can have deviations from it depending on how the production orders go. And these can affect, these will affect the overall quantity shipped under the undergiven contract. And these will obviously affect the prices as well because each line will have a different price. And in this case, while there weren't changes in different lines, it was only one letter of credit that involved a very small amount of the total quantity exported to the United States that was outside the tolerances. Therefore, based on the department's precedent, we believe that the correct date of data sale in this case was letter of credit. Unless you have other questions. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, that concludes our work this morning. All right