Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Papierfabrik August Koehler SE v. United States, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2016-2425 · judgment February 7, 2018
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Under the Tariff Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) is required to select an antidumping duty margin that is remedial and not punitive. Commerce may go outside the administrative record and set a duty rate based on adverse “facts otherwise available” to fill a gap in the record that is caused by a party’s failure to provide information. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)-(b). When employing that drastic measure, however, Commerce is required to “corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at [its] disposal.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c). Here, Commerce employed “adverse facts available” against Petitioner but then expressly refused to consider relevant evidence demonstrating that the exorbitant duty rate it selected could not be corroborated. The decision below held that Commerce’s 75.36% duty rate was “extremely aberrant” and uncorroborated in light of the available evidence, but it nonetheless affirmed Commerce’s determination because, in its view, the statute’s “purpose” of deterring misconduct trumped the statutory provision requiring corroboration. That refusal to enforce the Tariff Act’s specific terms had the effect of upholding over $80 million in unsupported duties imposed on Petitioner. The question presented is: Whether a court may rely on the Tariff Act’s perceived purpose to override its specific statutory requirements for selecting antidumping duty rates.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Michael Hugh McGinley
Dechert LLP
For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day
Proceedings
- Mar 04 2019Petition DENIED.
- Feb 13 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2019.
- Feb 08 2019Reply of petitioner Papierfabrik August Koehler SE filed.
- Jan 25 2019Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
- Dec 18 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 25, 2019.
- Dec 17 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 26, 2018 to January 25, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 19 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 26, 2018 to December 26, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 19 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 26, 2018.
- Oct 25 2018Brief amici curiae of Professors of Law filed.
- Oct 17 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 26, 2018.
- Oct 16 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 25, 2018 to November 26, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
- Sep 21 2018Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 25, 2018)
- Jul 13 2018Application (18A42) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until September 21, 2018.
- Jul 09 2018Application (18A42) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 24, 2018 to September 21, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.