Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.s. v. United States, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., Steel Dynamics, Inc., Ssab Enterprises LLC

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
HABAS SINAI VE TIBBI GAZLAR ISTIHSAL
ENDUSTRISI A.S.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES, CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC.,
STEEL DYNAMICS, INC., SSAB ENTERPRISES
LLC,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2024-1158
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in No. 1:21-cv-00527-MMB, Judge M. Miller Baker.
______________________
Decided: July 29, 2025
______________________
NANCY NOONAN , ArentFox Schiff LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
JESSICA R. D IPIETRO , M ATTHEW M OSHER N OLAN , LEAH N.
SCARPELLI.
EMMA E. BOND , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also
Case: 24-1158 Document: 60 Page: 1 Filed: 07/29/2025

-- 1 of 9 --

HABAS SINAI VE TIBBI GAZLAR ISTIHSAL ENDUSTRISI v. US 2
represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON , T ARA K. HOGAN ,
PATRICIA M. M CCARTHY; ALEXANDER FRIED , Office of the
Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance,
United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
D ANIEL SCHNEIDERMAN , King & Spalding LLP, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee Cleveland-Cliffs
Inc. Also represented by STEPHEN VAUGHN .
ROGER BRIAN S CHAGRIN , Schagrin Associates, for de-
fendants-appellees Steel Dynamics, Inc., SSAB Enter-
prises LLC. Also represented by NICHOLAS J. BIRCH , S AAD
Y OUNUS CHALCHAL, CHRISTOPHER TODD C LOUTIER,
ELIZABETH D RAKE , WILLIAM ALFRED F ENNELL, J EFFREY
D AVID G ERRISH , LUKE A. M EISNER.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, H UGHES and CUNNINGHAM,
Circuit Judges.
H UGHES , Circuit Judge.
Appellant Habaş Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endüs-
trisi A.S. appeals a decision of the Court of International
Trade sustaining the United States Department of Com-
merce’s final determination in an administrative review of
an antidumping duty order covering hot-rolled steel flat
products from Turkey. Habaş Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Isti-
hsal Endüstrisi A.S. v. United States, No. 21-00527,
2023 WL 5985777 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 14, 2023). Habaş,
the sole mandatory respondent in the administrative re-
view, provided Commerce with data regarding its home-
market sales, and Commerce determined that Habaş’s
Turkish lira-denominated sales values were the only relia-
ble sales data that could be reconciled with Habaş’s finan-
cial records. As a result, Commerce used the lira values of
Habaş’s home-market sales to calculate normal value, re-
sulting in the calculation of a final weighted-average
dumping margin of 24.32 percent for Habaş. Certain Hot-
Case: 24-1158 Document: 60 Page: 2 Filed: 07/29/2025

-- 2 of 9 --

HABAS SINAI VE TIBBI GAZLAR ISTIHSAL ENDUSTRISI v. US 3
Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Turkey: Fi-
nal Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2018–2019,
86 Fed. Reg. 47058, 47059 (Dep’t of Com. Aug. 23, 2021).
Because Habaş has not shown that Commerce exceeded its
authority, and substantial evidence supports Commerce’s
valuation of Habaş’s home-market sales in lira, we affirm.
I
On October 3, 2016, Commerce issued an antidumping
order on hot-rolled steel from various countries, including
Turkey. Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Aus-
tralia, Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Nether-
lands, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom,
81 Fed. Reg. 67962 (Dep’t of Com. Oct. 3, 2016). In 2019,
Commerce initiated the third administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on Turkey, Initiation of Anti-
dumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Re-
views, 84 Fed. Reg. 67712 (Dep’t of Com. Dec. 11, 2019),
and selected Habaş, “the exporter accounting for the larg-
est volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably
be examined,” as the mandatory respondent. J.A. 1100; see
also J.A. 1102 (letter from Commerce transmitting Initial
Questionnaire to Habaş).
Commerce’s questionnaire requested data on Habaş’s
home-market sales and a detailed reconciliation of those
sales with Habaş’s reported financial statements.
J.A. 1102, 1134–39. Habaş reported home-market sales in
both U.S. dollars and Turkish lira and stated that Habaş
and its customers negotiated sale prices in dollars.
J.A. 1631–32. Habaş further reported, however, that only
the lira-denominated prices were “booked into the account-
ing system since all accounting entries must be made in
[lira], regardless of the transaction currency.” J.A. 1632;
see also Appellant’s Opening Br. 24–28 (asserting that
Turkish VAT regulations require companies like Habaş to
report financial statements in lira); J.A. 3068–78
Case: 24-1158 Document: 60 Page: 3 Filed: 07/29/2025

-- 3 of 9 --

HABAS SINAI VE TIBBI GAZLAR ISTIHSAL ENDUSTRISI v. US 4
(asserting the same in brief to Commerce); J.A. 40 (Com-
merce acknowledging Habaş’s argument to this effect).
In its preliminary results, Commerce determined that
Habaş had only successfully reconciled its financial records
to its lira-denominated prices. Decision Memorandum for
the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administra-
tive Review and Preliminary Determination of No Ship-
ments: Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the
Republic of Turkey; 2018-2019, 86 ITADOC 11227 (Feb. 24,
2021), J.A. 3011–3029 (Preliminary Results Memo). “Be-
cause the sales values in [lira] [we]re the only sale values
that [could] be directly tied to the audited financial rec-
ords,” Commerce decided to calculate the normal value of
Habaş’s hot-rolled steel flat products by measuring Habaş’s
home-market sales in lira instead of dollars. Id. at J.A.
3024.
In August 2021, Commerce issued the final results of
its administrative review. Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat
Products From the Republic of Turkey: Final Results of An-
tidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determi-
nation of No Shipments; 2018-2019, 86 Fed. Reg. 47058
(Dep’t of Com. Aug. 23, 2021), J.A. 46–48 (Final Results);
Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results,
86 ITADOC 47058 (Aug. 23, 2021), J.A. 33–45 (Final Re-
sults Memo). It continued to use the lira values of Habaş’s
home-market sales to calculate normal value, Final Results
Memo at J.A. 40, and as a result, calculated a final
weighted-average dumping margin of 24.32 percent for
Habaş, 86 Fed. Reg. at 47059; Final Results at J.A. 47.
The Final Results Memo provided a detailed response
to Habaş’s concern that Commerce’s methodological reli-
ance on its lira-denominated sales values was “unlawful.”
Final Results Memo at J.A. 38. Commerce explained that
“[h]aving an accurate sales reconciliation is a prerequisite
for calculating an accurate weighted-average dumping
margin,” id. at J.A. 40, and that its “practice has been . . .
Case: 24-1158 Document: 60 Page: 4 Filed: 07/29/2025

-- 4 of 9 --

HABAS SINAI VE TIBBI GAZLAR ISTIHSAL ENDUSTRISI v. US 5
to use the sales value that can be reconciled to the com-
pany’s audited financial statements,” id. at J.A. 41.
Though Habaş reported its home-market sales in both dol-
lars and lira, Commerce found that it had only “accurately
and completely” reconciled its home-market sales reported
in lira. See id. at J.A. 40–41. Because Habaş had failed to
provide data regarding the payment dates or applicable ex-
change rates for each invoice, the dollar prices on its in-
voices could not be reconciled with its payment data
recorded in lira. See id. at J.A. 42 (reproducing Habaş’s
own admission that it “is not able to report the date of the
receipt of payment on a transaction-specific basis because
its information system does not link payments to invoices”
(quoting J.A. 1628)). Citing as an example a sample home-
market sale reported in dollars, Commerce found that “the
USD-denominated price shown on the invoice has no con-
nection with the ultimate payment.” Id. Thus, Commerce
determined that “only the [lira]-denominated sales values
are reliable for calculating [normal value].” Id. at J.A. 41.
Habaş challenged Commerce’s final results in the
Court of International Trade, alleging that Commerce’s
valuation of its home-market sales in lira (1) was “arbi-
trary and unreasonable” and (2) distorted the calculation
of the dumping margin applicable to Habaş. Habaş Sinai
ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endüstrisi A.S. v. United States,
No. 21-00527, 2023 WL 5985777, at *2, *4 (Ct. Int’l Trade
Sept. 14, 2023). The Trade Court rejected both contentions
and sustained Commerce’s final results. Id. at *1, *4. It
found that Commerce’s valuation relying on the currency
values that were found to control home-market transac-
tions was consistent with precedent, supported by substan-
tial evidence, and did not result in any distortion to the
margin calculations. Id. at *3–4. Habaş timely filed an ap-
peal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(5).
Case: 24-1158 Document: 60 Page: 5 Filed: 07/29/2025

-- 5 of 9 --

HABAS SINAI VE TIBBI GAZLAR ISTIHSAL ENDUSTRISI v. US 6
II
“In reviewing the Trade Court’s decision to affirm Com-
merce’s final determination, we apply anew the Trade
Court’s standard of review; thus, we will uphold Com-
merce’s determination unless it is unsupported by substan-
tial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance
with law.” Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Pub.) Co. v. United States,
635 F.3d 1335, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted); see also 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). The applicable “substantial evidence
standard . . . require[s] a court to ask whether a reasonable
mind might accept a particular evidentiary record as ade-
quate to support a conclusion.” Dickinson v. Zurko,
527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999) (internal quotation marks and ci-
tations omitted).
III
Habaş disagrees with how Commerce calculated nor-
mal value in the administrative review on appeal, but it
does not show that Commerce’s methodology was incorrect
as a matter of law or unsupported by substantial evidence.
The Tariff Act of 1930 defines “normal value” as “the price
at which the foreign like product is first sold . . . for con-
sumption in the exporting country [i.e., the home market].”
19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i). Commerce’s obligation in cal-
culating a dumping margin is to undertake “a fair compar-
ison . . . between the export price . . . and normal value.” Id.
§ 1677b(a). In the record below, Commerce repeatedly indi-
cated that it sought to achieve such a fair comparison by
calculating normal value using only sales values which
could be reconciled with financial records. Final Results
Memo at J.A. 40–42; see also J.A. 1139. Habaş does not ob-
ject to this aim or point to any authority prohibiting Com-
merce from determining which set of a respondent’s sales
data is more accurate.
We hold that Commerce’s reliance on Habaş’s lira-de-
nominated sales to calculate normal value comports with
Case: 24-1158 Document: 60 Page: 6 Filed: 07/29/2025

-- 6 of 9 --

HABAS SINAI VE TIBBI GAZLAR ISTIHSAL ENDUSTRISI v. US 7
Commerce’s statutory obligations. Furthermore, Com-
merce’s finding that Habaş does not have payment records
which can be reconciled with the dollar values on its in-
voices is substantial evidence supporting Commerce’s pref-
erence for Habaş’s lira values which can be reconciled.
Habaş contends that Commerce legally erred in failing
to follow its precedent in similar cases where Commerce
used a respondent’s reported dollar-denominated sales
prices to calculate the normal value of steel flat products
from Turkey. Appellant’s Opening Br. 9–18. As Commerce
explained, “[t]he past cases cited by Habas are not analo-
gous to this administrative review.” Final Results Memo
at J.A. 42. Significantly, the respondents in those cases
were able to reconcile their reported dollar prices. For ex-
ample, in the first administrative review of the antidump-
ing duty order applicable to Habaş, Commerce used then-
mandatory respondent Colakoglu’s dollar-denominated
prices because Colakoglu was able to reconcile the amount
it was paid in lira with its dollar invoice prices by offering
information on the date and specific exchange rate applica-
ble to payments. Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Re-
view of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Re-
public of Turkey; 2016-2017, 84 ITADOC 30694, at cmt. 2,
¶ 38 (June 27, 2019). As a result, Commerce was able to
verify that the “USD price controls” because “the buyer
paid the [lira] equivalent amount of the USD price at the
time of payment.” Id. Similarly, in Commerce’s final deter-
mination of its investigation of cold-rolled steel flat prod-
ucts from Turkey, Commerce used “USD prices instead of
[lira] prices” where it found that the USD price on the in-
voice, and not the lira price, controlled the final price be-
tween the parties. Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Car-
bon Steel Flat Products from Turkey; Notice of Final Deter-
mination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 67 ITADOC
62126 at cmt. 1 (Sept. 23, 2002).
Case: 24-1158 Document: 60 Page: 7 Filed: 07/29/2025

-- 7 of 9 --

HABAS SINAI VE TIBBI GAZLAR ISTIHSAL ENDUSTRISI v. US 8
As the Trade Court explained, Commerce “would have
acted inconsistently with its precedent only if Habaş’s
home-market sales were negotiated in dollars and the dol-
lar price ultimately controlled the amount paid.” Habaş,
2023 WL 5985777 at *3 (emphasis in original). Habaş may
have negotiated prices in dollars and put dollar prices on
its invoices, but Commerce made a factual finding that
Habaş could not demonstrate that its dollar prices con-
trolled the price it was paid for home-market sales. See Fi-
nal Results Memo at J.A. 42–43 (finding that, to the
contrary, Habaş’s dollar-denominated prices had “no con-
nection with the ultimate payment”). Though Habaş insists
that its dollar prices did control, the fundamental problem
is that Habaş “does not know the payment date of each in-
voice.” Id. at J.A. 42. As such, no one could discern the ex-
change rate that was in effect at the time of each payment,
and Habaş was unable to reconcile its lira-denominated
payment records with its reported dollar prices. Id. This is
substantial evidence supporting Commerce’s choice to cal-
culate a dumping margin using Habaş’s lira-denominated
prices—for which Habaş offered a complete reconciliation
with its financial statements—instead. See id. at J.A. 41–
42
Habaş also asserts that Commerce’s reliance on lira-
denominated sales values “introduce[d] an extraordinary
distortion to the margin calculations.” Appellant’s Opening
Br. 29–30. Per 19 U.S.C. § 1677b-1(a), Commerce’s calcula-
tion of normal value involves “convert[ing] foreign curren-
cies into United States dollars using the exchange rate in
effect on the date of sale of subject merchandise.” Habaş
complains that it conducts sales in dollars to avoid the im-
pact of Turkey’s “volatile exchange rate,” Appellant’s Open-
ing Br. 25, but ignores that only its lira-denominated prices
were found to be reliable and thus had to be converted.
Habaş does not suggest that Commerce failed to comply
with § 1677b-1(a) or otherwise applied the incorrect ex-
change rate, but it does characterize Commerce as having
Case: 24-1158 Document: 60 Page: 8 Filed: 07/29/2025

-- 8 of 9 --

HABAS SINAI VE TIBBI GAZLAR ISTIHSAL ENDUSTRISI v. US 9
introduced distortions by converting its “USD-
denominated price from U.S. Dollars to Turkish Lira and
back again to U.S. Dollars[.]” Appellant’s Opening Br. 30.
As the Trade Court explained, that characterization is in-
correct because Commerce “directly relied on Habaş’s re-
ported [lira] values . . . . Therefore, no unnecessary
currency conversion occurred.” Habaş, 2023 WL 5985777,
at *4 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
IV
We have considered Habaş’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. Because Commerce’s use of lira-
denominated prices to value Habaş’s home-market sales is
lawful and supported by substantial evidence, we affirm
the Trade Court’s decision sustaining Commerce’s final de-
termination.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1158 Document: 60 Page: 9 Filed: 07/29/2025

-- 9 of 9 --