Eregli Demir Ve Celik Fabrikalari T.A.S. v. Itc

Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 1 Filed: 06/01/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC., STEEL DYNAMICS, INC., SSAB ENTERPRISES LLC, NUCOR CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2024-2242 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:22-cv-00350-TMR, Judge Timothy M. Reif. ------------------------------------------ EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, STEEL DYNAMICS, INC., SSAB ENTERPRISES LLC, CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC., NUCOR CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 2 Filed: 06/01/2026 2 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC 2024-2243 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:22-cv-00349-TMR, Judge Timothy M. Reif. ------------------------------------------ EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC., STEEL DYNAMICS, INC., SSAB ENTERPRISES LLC, NUCOR CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2024-2249 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:22-cv-00351-GSK, Judge Gary S. Katzmann. ______________________ Decided: June 1, 2026 ______________________ CHRISTINE STREATFEILD, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. RAVI DHANANJAYEN SOOPRAMANIEN, SPENCER TOUBIA Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 3 Filed: 06/01/2026 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC 3 Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, argued for defend- ant-appellee United States International Trade Commis- sion. Also represented by Michael HALDENSTEIN; DAVID GOLDFINE in 2024-2249. JEFFREY DAVID GERRISH, Schagrin Associates, Wash- ington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees Steel Dynam- ics, Inc., SSAB Enterprises LLC. Also represented by NICHOLAS J. BIRCH, SAAD YOUNUS CHALCHAL, CHRISTOPHER TODD CLOUTIER, ELIZABETH DRAKE, WILLIAM ALFRED FENNELL, LUKE A. MEISNER, NICHOLAS PHILLIPS, ROGER BRIAN SCHAGRIN. THOMAS M. BELINE, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee United States Steel Corporation. STEPHEN VAUGHN, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. Also rep- resented by NEAL JOSEPH REYNOLDS. ALAN H. PRICE, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee Nucor Corporation. Also represented by THEODORE PAUL BRACKEMYRE, JOHN ALLEN RIGGINS, MAUREEN E. THORSON, CHRISTOPHER B. WELD. ______________________ Before TARANTO, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges. TARANTO, Circuit Judge. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Commerce, acting un- der 19 U.S.C. § 1673e, issued an antidumping-duty order covering certain hot-rolled steel flat products imported from seven countries, including Turkey, for which only two mandatory respondents were investigated: Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları T.A.Ş. (Erdemir) and Çolakoğlu Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 4 Filed: 06/01/2026 4 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC Metalurji A.S. and Çolakoğlu Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively Çolakoğlu). One predicate for that order was a finding by Commerce that both Erdemir and Çolakoğlu had been dumping; another predicate was the determination in Sep- tember 2016 by the International Trade Commission (Com- mission) that the dumping was causing material injury to a U.S. industry. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a), (b). Erdemir did not file an action in the Court of International Trade (Trade Court or CIT) to challenge the September 2016 Commis- sion determination. But both Erdemir and Çolakoğlu sued in the Trade Court to challenge Commerce’s dumping de- termination, and that case resulted, in 2020, in a finding of no dumping by Çolakoğlu and, thus, its exclusion from the antidumping-duty order. Erdemir thereupon sought relief from the antidump- ing-duty order from the Commission. It requested that the Commission both reconsider its September 2016 final de- termination of material injury and, under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(b), institute a changed-circumstances review. The Commission denied both requests. Relatedly, and concur- rently, the Commission conducted its required five-year re- view (a “sunset review”) under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c), and it determined in that review that the antidumping-duty or- der should not be revoked. Erdemir filed three separate lawsuits in the Trade Court, challenging, respectively, the Commission’s non- revocation determination in the sunset review (the subject of appeal No. 22-2249), the Commission’s denial of the re- quest to institute a changed-circumstances review (the subject of appeal No. 22-2242), and the Commission’s de- nial of reconsideration of its September 2016 determina- tion (the subject of appeal No. 22-2243). Several United States producers of hot-rolled steel—the United States Steel Corporation, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., Steel Dynamics, Inc., SSAB Enterprises LLC, and Nucor Corporation (col- lectively, Domestic Interested Parties)—intervened in var- ious combinations as defendants in the cases. Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 5 Filed: 06/01/2026 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC 5 The Trade Court ruled against Erdemir in all three cases. It sustained the Commission’s determination in the sunset review on the merits. Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fab- rikaları T.A.Ş. v. United States International Trade Com- mission, 710 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (CIT Sunset Review). It dismissed Erdemir’s complaint chal- lenging the refusal to institute a changed-circumstances review, concluding that such a review could provide no re- lief not already available (and which was denied) in the sunset review. Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları T.A.Ş. v. United States International Trade Commission, 719 F. Supp. 3d 1302 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (CIT CCR). And it dismissed Erdemir’s complaint challenging the denial of re- consideration as outside the Trade Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları T.A.Ş. v. United States International Trade Commission, 723 F. Supp. 3d 1354 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (CIT Reconsideration). Erdemir appeals from all three judgments. We affirm each judgment. I A 1 Under the general legal framework governing anti- dumping investigations, 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673–1673h, when an interested party submits a petition on behalf of an in- dustry alleging that “foreign merchandise is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than its fair value” and that a domestic industry is, or is threatened to be, materially injured as a result, id. § 1673, Commerce must evaluate whether to initiate an investigation, id. § 1673a(b), (c)(1)(A). During an investigation, Commerce (the “administering authority”) is to decide the issue of sale for less than fair value (dumping), while the Commission is to decide the issue of material injury. Id. §§ 1673b, 1673d. Both agencies are assigned a role during the preliminary and final stages, and at the final-determination stage, Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 6 Filed: 06/01/2026 6 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC Commerce’s determination precedes any Commission de- termination. Id. § 1673d. If affirmative final determina- tions of dumping and material injury are made, Commerce is to impose dumping duties on the subject merchandise to offset the underpricing. Id. §§ 1673, 1673e(a). Two aspects of that process are significant here. First, regarding Commerce: During either stage, Commerce is to “disregard any weighted average dumping margin that is de minimis,” id. §§ 1673b(b)(3) (preliminary determina- tion), 1673d(a)(4) (final determination), with “de minimis” defined as a Commerce-determined margin of “less than 2 percent ad valorem or the equivalent specific rate for the subject merchandise,” id. § 1673b(b)(3). Second, regarding the Commission: During either stage, “[i]f the Commission determines that imports of the subject merchandise are negligible, the investigation shall be terminated.” Id. § 1673d(b)(1)(B) (final determination); see id. § 1673b(a)(1)(B) (same for preliminary determination). The parties agree that those provisions are country-specific even though, as a general matter, the Commission is to con- duct its final material-injury determination by cumulating data in an investigation of multiple countries subject to cer- tain conditions and exceptions. Id. § 1677(7)(G)–(H). The negligibility provision is a particular focus of the dispute before us, and the definitions of “subject merchan- dise” and “negligible” clarify when the Commission is to make a negligibility determination that requires termina- tion of an investigation as to a particular country. In gen- eral, “imports from a country of merchandise . . . are ‘negligible’ if such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States.” Id. § 1677(24)(A)(i) (emphases added). The Commission is to make that determination based on the most recent 12-month period for which data is available that precedes either the filing of the petition for an inves- tigation or the initiation of the investigation. Id. Under § 1673d(b)(1)(B), the imports in both the numerator and Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 7 Filed: 06/01/2026 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC 7 denominator consist of “subject merchandise,” defined, as relevant here, as “the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of an investigation.” Id. § 1677(25). 1 2 Section 1675 provides two mechanisms, as relevant here, by which an antidumping-duty order may be revoked. First, under § 1675(c), no later than 30 days before the fifth anniversary of a published antidumping-duty order, Com- merce is to initiate a sunset review, in which Commerce and the Commission are to determine whether revocation of the order “would be likely to lead to continuation or re- currence of dumping . . . and of material injury.” Id. § 1675(c)(1), (2). Commerce is to conduct its review within 240 days of initiation, and if it determines that the anti- dumping-duty order should not be revoked (a so-called 1 A similar framework applies to a countervailing- duty investigation—into whether a foreign government or public entity is providing a certain kind of subsidy (coun- tervailable) with respect to the manufacture, production, or export of merchandise. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671–1671h. Com- merce makes preliminary and final determinations about whether a countervailable subsidy is being provided, and the Commission makes material-injury determinations. Id. §§ 1671(a), 1671b, 1671d. An investigation must termi- nate if the Commission finds relevant imports from a coun- try to be negligible. Id. §§ 1671b(a)(1) (preliminary determination), 1671d(b)(1)(B) (final determination); see also id. § 1677(24)(A)(i). And Commerce is to disregard any de minimis countervailable subsidy, id. §§ 1671b(b)(4) (pre- liminary determination), 1671d(a)(3) (final determination), with “de minimis” defined to exist if Commerce determines that “the aggregate of the net countervailable subsidies is less than 1 percent ad valorem or the equivalent specific rate for the subject merchandise,” id. § 1671b(b)(4). Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 8 Filed: 06/01/2026 8 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC affirmative determination), the Commission is to make its own determination within 360 days of initiation. Id. § 1675(c)(5)(A), (d)(2)(A); see also id. § 1675a(c). Originat- ing with the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), Pub. L. No. 103-465, § 220, 108 Stat. 4809, 4861–64 (1994), and not relevantly amended since, the sunset-review provision requires revocation of the antidumping-duty order if either agency’s determination is negative, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2). The statute provides a second mechanism for revoca- tion in § 1675(b). That provision generally authorizes an interested party, after two years have passed since publi- cation of the pertinent determination by either Commerce or the Commission, to request that either agency conduct a changed-circumstances review (CCR). Id. § 1675(b)(1), (4). The agency is to conduct a CCR if a party seeking revoca- tion carries the burden of demonstrating “changed circum- stances sufficient to warrant a [CCR].” Id. § 1675(b)(1); see also 19 C.F.R. § 207.45 (detailing procedure by which the Commission institutes a CCR). If the Commission con- ducts a CCR, it is to “determine whether revocation of the [antidumping-duty] order or [material-injury] finding is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material in- jury.” 19 U.S.C. § 1675(b)(2)(A). The CCR originated with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, Pub. L. No. 96-39, § 751(b), 93 Stat. 144, 175–76 (1979), and we addressed that version in Borlem S.A. Empreedimentos Industriais v. United States, 913 F.2d 933, 936, 940 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Congress rewrote the subsection in 1994, see URAA, § 220, 108 Stat. at 4860–61, and no later amendment is relevant here. Two particular aspects of the revocation mechanisms are worth highlighting here. Both of them are contained within § 1675a, which immediately follows § 1675 and which sets forth “Special rules for section 1675(b) and 1675(c) reviews,” i.e., CCRs and sunset reviews. First, for both such reviews, the Commission must consider Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 9 Filed: 06/01/2026 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC 9 whether revocation of an order . . . would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material in- jury within a reasonably foreseeable time . . . [by] consider[ing] the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1) (emphasis added); see id. § 1675a(a)(2)–(4) (explaining how the Commission is to evaluate volume, price, and industry impacts). In so doing, the Commission is to take into account its “prior injury de- terminations.” Id. § 1675a(a)(1)(A). Second, as in the in- vestigation at the start, see supra p.6 (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)–(H)), the Commission may “cumulatively as- sess” data for imports across multiple countries in a partic- ular review, 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7). But the Commission may do so only if [first] reviews under section 1675(b) or (c) of this title were initiated on the same day, [second] if such imports would be likely to compete with each other[,] and [third such imports compete] with do- mestic like products in the United States market. Id. The Commission must not cumulate imports for a par- ticular country if its “imports are likely to have no discern- ible adverse impact on the domestic industry.” Id. 3 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), the Trade Court has exclu- sive jurisdiction to review Commerce and Commission final determinations underlying an antidumping-duty order, relevant CCR determinations (including a refusal to initi- ate a CCR), and final sunset review determinations. Of particular significance here, the provision confers jurisdic- tion over any action commenced under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a) within thirty days after the date of publication in the Fed- eral Register. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i) (Commis- sion’s final material-injury determination), (a)(2)(B)(iii) Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 10 Filed: 06/01/2026 10 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC (Commission’s determination in a sunset review), and (a)(1)(B) (Commission’s denial to institute a CCR); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2636(c). In subsection (i) of § 1581, Congress provided for an ad- ditional residual grant of jurisdiction, subject to express and long-established limitations. As relevant here, section 1581(i)(1) states that, “[i]n addition to the jurisdiction con- ferred upon the [Trade Court] by subsections (a)–(h),” the Trade Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced against the United States, its agencies, or its officers, that arises out of any law of the United States providing for— . . . (D) administra- tion and enforcement with respect to the matters referred to in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of this paragraph and subsections (a)–(h) of this section. 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1)(D). 2 Subsection (i) adds: (2) This subsection shall not confer jurisdiction over an antidumping or countervailing duty deter- mination which is reviewable by—(A) the [Trade Court] under section 516A(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)) . . . . Id. § 1581(i)(2). As discussed infra, the quoted limitation makes express for the present context a long-established implicit limitation on § 1581(i) residual jurisdiction: “‘Sec- tion 1581(i) jurisdiction may not be invoked when 2 The referred-to paragraphs (A) through (C) are: “(A) revenue from imports or tonnage; (B) tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the raising of revenue; [and] (C) embar- goes or other quantitative restrictions on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the protection of public health or safety.” 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1)(A)–(C). Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 11 Filed: 06/01/2026 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC 11 jurisdiction under another subsection of § 1581 is or could have been available, unless the remedy provided under that other subsection would be manifestly inadequate.’” ARP Materials, Inc. v. United States, 47 F.4th 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States, 963 F.2d 356, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). B In August 2015, some of the Domestic Interested Par- ties (along with others not party to these appeals) peti- tioned under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671a(b) and 1673a(b) for initiation of antidumping-duty and countervailing-duty in- vestigations of imports of certain hot-rolled steel flat prod- ucts from Turkey and six other countries. See Certain Hot- Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil, the Republic of Ko- rea, and Turkey: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Inves- tigations, 80 Fed. Reg. 54,261, 54,261 (Dep’t of Commerce Sept. 9, 2015). In September 2015, Commerce initiated both investigations, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671a(c), 1673a(c). See id. at 54,261–66; Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investi- gations, 80 Fed. Reg. 54,267, 54,267–72 (Dep’t of Com- merce Sept. 9, 2015). In the antidumping-duty investigation with respect to Turkey, in which Çolakoğlu and Erdemir (the latter treated together with a similarly named company as a sin- gle entity) were the only required respondents from Tur- key, the Commission and Commerce each made affirmative preliminary determinations under 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)– (b). Next, in August 2016, Commerce made an affirmative final determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(a), finding weighted-average dumping margins at or above 2%, hence not de minimis under 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)(3). Certain Hot- Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Turkey: Fi- nal Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81 Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 12 Filed: 06/01/2026 12 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC Fed. Reg. 53,428, 53,428–30 (Dep’t of Commerce Aug. 12, 2016); see id. at 53,429 n.10 (treating two related Erdemir entities as a single entity). The Commission then completed the investigation: On September 26, 2016, it made an affirmative final determi- nation that a domestic industry was materially injured by reason of the subject imports under 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b). Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, 81 Fed. Reg. 66,996, 66,996–97 (Int’l Trade Comm’n Sept. 29, 2016) (Commission 2016 Final De- termination) (citing, as discussed infra, Int’l Trade Comm’n Pub. 4638 (Sept. 2016)). In so doing, the Commission ana- lyzed subject imports by cumulating imports across all seven countries, including Turkey. Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-545–547, 731-TA-1291–1297, USITC Pub. 4638, 2016 WL 5845649, at *12–15 (Sept. 2016) (Final); see 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)–(H). On September 27, 2016, Com- merce issued, and on October 3, 2016, it published, an an- tidumping-duty order on imported subjected merchandise from Turkey (with the dumping margins identified in its final determination corrected to eliminate a ministerial er- ror). Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Aus- tralia, Brazil, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands the Republic of Turkey, and the United King- dom: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determina- tions for Australia, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Turkey and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 Fed. Reg. 67,962, 67,962–66 (Dep’t of Commerce Oct. 3, 2016) (2016 Antidumping-Duty Order). 3 3 In the concurrent countervailing-duty investiga- tion for Turkey, Commerce (after making a negative pre- liminary determination) made an affirmative final Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 13 Filed: 06/01/2026 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC 13 Erdemir and Çolakoğlu each timely filed suit in the Trade Court—respectively, on October 14, 2016, and Octo- ber 28, 2016 (within 30 days of issuance of the October 3, 2016 antidumping-duty order)—challenging Commerce’s final dumping-margin determination. Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları T.A.Ş. v. United States, 308 F. Supp. 3d 1297, 1304–05 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018). The Trade Court con- solidated those actions. No suit was filed to challenge the Commission’s final determination of material injury, and it is not disputed that any such challenge had to be presented in a lawsuit separate from the margin-challenging suit. See U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) Rule 3(h). determination but computed a de minimis subsidy rate for Çolakoğlu (less than 1%) under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(b)(4), 1671d(a)(3). Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Turkey: Final Affirmative Determination, 81 Fed. Reg. 53,433, 53,433–35 (Dep’t of Commerce Aug. 12, 2016). With im- ports from Çolakoğlu excluded by that de minimis determi- nation from the “subject merchandise,” the Commission found that subject (subsidized) imports of hot-rolled steel from Turkey were “negligible” under the 3% standard of § 1671d(b)(1)(B). Commission 2016 Final Determination, 81 Fed. Reg. at 66,996. That is, although the Commission had found that dumped imported subject merchandise from Turkey amounted to 7.4% of total imports, and hence were not “negligible,” it found that subsidized imports (which did not include those produced by Çolakoğlu) fell below the 3% threshold, and hence were negligible, adding that “there is not a potential that subsidized subject im- ports from Turkey w[ould] imminently exceed three per- cent of total imports.” No. 24-2249 J.A. 320–21. The Commission thus terminated the countervailing-duty in- vestigation on hot-rolled steel products from Turkey. No. 24-2249 J.A. 321. Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 14 Filed: 06/01/2026 14 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC In 2018, the Trade Court remanded the matter to Com- merce for further action. Id. at 1305. Commerce made a new dumping-margin determination on remand, which only Çolakoğlu challenged, and the Trade Court remanded again—which was followed by another Commerce determi- nation and another Trade Court remand. Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları T.A.Ş. v. United States, 357 F. Supp. 3d 1325, 1327–28 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018); Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları T.A.Ş. v. United States, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1216, 1220–21 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019). Finally, acting pursuant to the third remand, Commerce determined (on January 27, 2020) that the dumping margin for Çolakoğlu was 0%. See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Turkey: No- tice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Amended Final Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investi- gation; Notice of Amended Final Determination, Amended Antidumping Duty Order; Notice of Revocation of Anti- dumping Duty Order in Part; and Discontinuation of the 2017–18 and 2018–19 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, in Part, 85 Fed. Reg. 29,399, 29,400 (Dep’t of Com- merce May 15, 2020) (Commerce May 2020 Order) (recount- ing Commerce’s third remand redetermination). Some of the Domestic Interested Parties challenged that determination in the Trade Court, but on April 13, 2020, the Trade Court sustained the Commerce May 2020 Order. Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları T.A.Ş. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 3d 1378, 1379–80 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2020). Zero percent is obviously de minimis, 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)(3), requiring exclusion of Çolakoğlu from the anti-dumping duty order, id. § 1673d(a)(4). As a result, on May 11, 2020, Commerce excluded Çolakoğlu and its im- ports from coverage by the antidumping-duty order. See Commerce May 2020 Order, 85 Fed. Reg. at 29,400. Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 15 Filed: 06/01/2026 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC 15 C 1 Erdemir thereafter immediately started seeking relief from the Commission’s 2016 material-injury determina- tion. It argued that the determination could not stand in light of the exclusion of Çolakoğlu from the antidumping- duty order, because the relevant imports from Turkey were assertedly negligible once Çolakoğlu was excluded (the countervailing-duty investigation having been terminated for such reasons, see supra n.3). Erdemir pursued that re- lief through three paths: reconsideration, changed-circum- stances review, and sunset review. Thus, on May 18, 2020, Erdemir, not having filed suit to challenge the Commission’s final determination in 2016, requested reconsideration of that final determination from the Commission. 24-2242 J.A. 625–32. 4 It asked the Com- mission to “reopen the captioned investigations to consider the impact of Çolakoğlu’s exclusion from the [antidumping- duty] order” and to determine, in particular, whether im- ports properly considered for antidumping purposes were below the negligibility threshold as in the countervailing- duty injury investigation. Id., J.A. 630. Erdemir asked the Commission to treat its request, in the alternative, as a pe- tition for a CCR. Id., J.A. 631. In July 2020, Erdemir, hav- ing received no response, renewed this two-path request. Id., J.A. 3160–62. On September 10, 2021, Erdemir re- newed its request for a CCR, without mentioning reconsid- eration. Id., J.A. 659–67. 5 4 This opinion addresses three appeals—Nos. 24- 2422, 24-2243, and 24-2249. The number before “J.A.” is the docket number for the case whose joint appendix is be- ing cited. 5 In June 2020, the United States and some of the Domestic Interested Parties timely appealed the Trade Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 16 Filed: 06/01/2026 16 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC Erdemir also pressed its argument for relief through a third path opened up by the Commission on September 1, 2021, when the Commission published its notice of institu- tion of its five-year sunset review of the 2016 Antidumping- Duty Order, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(2). Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, Turkey, and the United Kingdom; Institution of Five-Year Reviews, 86 Fed. Reg. 49,057, 49,057–60 (Int’l Trade Comm’n Sept. 1, 2021). 2 In the sunset review, Commerce, playing its assigned role, first determined under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675(c)(5), 1675a(c) that revoking the antidumping-duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping from Turkey by a margin of 24.32%. Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, the Re- public of Korea, the Netherlands the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 87 Fed. Reg. 751, 751–53 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 6, 2022). On November 25, 2022, the Commission, playing its assigned role, issued an affirmative (no revocation) determination under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675(c)(5), 1675a(a). Hot-Rolled Steel From Australia, Brazil, Japan, Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, 87 Fed. Reg. 74,167, 74,167 (Int’l Trade Comm’n Dec. 2, 2022) (24-2249 Court’s April 2020 final judgment to this court. See Notices of Appeal, Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları T.A.Ş. v. United States, No. 16-218 (Ct. Int’l Trade June 10 & 12, 2020), ECF Nos. 156 & 157. They later voluntarily dis- missed their appeals, and this court’s mandates issued on December 18, 2020, and June 4, 2021. 24-2242 J.A. 3702– 06. While the appeals were pending, the Commission con- sidered the May and July 2020 requests for reconsideration to be “premature.” Id., J.A. 3132–34. Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 17 Filed: 06/01/2026 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC 17 J.A. 28). The Commission relied on a detailed supporting analysis. Hot-Rolled Steel from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-545–546, 731-TA-1291–1297 (Review), 731-TA-808 (Fourth Review), USITC Pub. 5380, 2022 WL 17486373 (Nov. 2022) (Commission Sunset Re- view) (24-2249 J.A. 704–1416). In its analysis, the Commission cumulated the subject imports from Turkey with five of the other six countries in the original investigation under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675a(a)(7), while considering imports from Brazil separately because Brazil’s imports uniquely were covered by a national-secu- rity-based volume quota under 19 U.S.C. § 1862 and thus not likely to compete with those of the other countries. Commission Sunset Review, at *39, 41 (24-2249 J.A. 775– 76, 781–82). Regarding Turkey, the Commission noted that “Commerce found a zero antidumping-duty margin for Çolakoğlu . . . [so Çolakoğlu] is no longer a producer of sub- ject merchandise and data for it is not included in the data for subject imports from Turkey during the current re- view.” Id. at *29 n.276 (24-2249 J.A. 760 n.276); see also id. at *29 n.280 (24-2249 J.A. 761 n.280) (data “showing subject imports from Turkey minus Çolakoğlu’s imports”); id. at *31 n.298 (24-2249 J.A. 763 n.298) (“Çolakoğlu [im- ports] are no longer subject merchandise.”). The Commis- sion found that cumulating Turkey’s numbers with those of the non-Brazil countries satisfied the criteria for cumu- lation. See id. at *30–31 (24-2249 J.A. 761–62). The Commission conducted the statutory analysis re- quired by § 1675a(a). First, it found that the likely volume of cumulated subject imports during the period of the re- view (for the sunset review), comparing the data to the data of the original investigations, disfavored revocation. The Commission concluded that even if the volume of subject imports and market share were less than they were in 2016, that reduction reflected the existence of the anti- dumping-duty orders; the subject industries had a Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 18 Filed: 06/01/2026 18 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC significant unused production capacity; and the United States export market remained attractive. Id. at *52–53 (24-2249 J.A. 799–802). Second, the Commission found likely price effects of the cumulated subject imports in the event of revocation because there was a moderate-to-high degree of substitutability between domestically produced items and relevant imports in an “appreciable number of comparisons.” Id. at *54–55 (24-2249 J.A. 805–07). Third, the Commission evaluated measures of the domestic indus- try’s economic and financial health and determined that, although the measures did not suggest that the domestic industry was vulnerable during the period of review, revo- cation would have a significant impact because some of the more favorable conditions were the result of the antidump- ing-duty orders, imbalances during the pandemic, and other conditions unique to the recent years. Id. at *58–60 (24-2249 J.A. 810–15). 3 On November 23, 2022, two days before completing the sunset review, the Commission addressed the other two paths for relief invoked by Erdemir. Specifically, it de- clined to institute a CCR under § 1675(b) or to grant recon- sideration of the negligibility analysis in its 2016 material- injury determination for the antidumping-duty investiga- tion. Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Turkey; Denial of Request To Institute a Section 751(b) Review; Denial of Request To Institute a Section 751(b) Review or Reconsider- ation Proceeding Concerning the Commission’s Affirmative Determination in Investigation No. 731-TA-1296 (Final), Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Turkey, 87 Fed. Reg. 73,331, 73,331–33 (Int’l Trade Comm’n Nov. 29, 2022) (Commission CCR and Reconsideration Denial) (24-2242 J.A. 38–40). First, the Commission declined institution of a CCR because it had already instituted the sunset review by the time it received Erdemir’s September 10, 2021 re- quest and determined that the CCR would be duplicative, the standards being relevantly the same; most Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 19 Filed: 06/01/2026 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC 19 particularly, reexamination of the original negligibility finding is not part of either the CCR or sunset review in- quiry. Id. at 73,332 (24-2242 J.A. 39). Second, the Com- mission declined reconsideration because Erdemir’s request did not present the extraordinary circumstances (e.g., fraud) required for reconsideration and Erdemir had failed to timely challenge the Commission’s 2016 final de- termination once Çolakoğlu challenged its dumping mar- gin. Id. at 73,332–33 (24-2242 J.A. 39–40). D In December 2022, Erdemir filed three actions in the Trade Court against the Commission. The Trade Court ruled against Erdemir in all three actions. 1 Erdemir challenged the Commission’s affirmative de- termination (refusing to revoke the antidumping-duty or- der for Turkey) in the sunset review. 24-2249 J.A. 1979– 91. On Erdemir’s motion for judgment on the agency rec- ord, the Trade Court sustained the Commission’s determi- nations. CIT Sunset Review, at 1357 (24-2249 J.A. 27). The Trade Court rejected both Erdemir’s central legal ar- gument and its more case-specific, fact-based challenges. As the Trade Court’s opinion makes clear, Erdemir’s main argument asserted legal error on what amounts to a three-step rationale: (a) the exclusion of imports of Çolakoğlu products from the antidumping-duty order (from its outset) rendered the covered imports from Turkey “neg- ligible,” 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(1)(B); (b) consequently, there never was material injury to support an antidumping-duty order for Turkey; and (c) therefore, there could not be a “continuation or recurrence . . . of material injury,” the like- lihood of which is required to reject revocation in a sunset review, id. § 1675(c)(1)(C). See CIT Sunset Review, at 1350–51 (24-2249 J.A. 14–15). The Trade Court rejected this rationale, reasoning that the Commission’s material- Case: 24-2242 Document: 85 Page: 20 Filed: 06/01/2026 20 EREGLI DEMIR VE CELIK FABRIKALARI T.A.S. v. ITC injury ruling in 2016 was a final agency determination that was not timely challenged, so the Commission properly took it as a starting point in its § 1675(c) inquiry into con- tinuation or recurrence of injury, id. at 1351 (24-2249 J.A. 15–16), which would be assessed under the standards spe- cific to the sunset review. The Trade Court then addressed and rejected Erdemir’s challenge to that assessment by the Commission—namely, that the Commission, in making its decision to cumulate Turkey with five other countries, (a) improperly considered data from Çolakoğlu, (b) lacked substantial evidence from which to infer that imports from Turkey would have an adverse impact on the domestic in- dustry, and (c) should have included imports from Brazil in the cumulation. Id. at 1354–57 (24-2249 J.A. 20–27). As most relevant now, the Trade Court determined that “[a]t no point did the Commission directly rely on a data set that includes Çolakoğlu’s pre-exclusion imports.” Id. at 1355– 56 (24-2249 J.A. 23–24). 2 In another case, Erdemir challenged the Commission’s denial of the request to institute a CCR. 24-2242 J.A. 1411–22. Erdemir argued that “[t]he Commission has the authority to conduct a changed circumstances review for purposes of retroactive correction of errors in the [anti- dumping-duty] negligibility determination in the original investigation, and [it] wrongfully declined to conduct a CCR to reconsider the negligibility decision of its original investigation in light of the retroactive exclusion of Çolakoğlu from the [antidumping-duty] order.” Id., J.A. 1421. On motions to dismiss the case, the Trade Court dis