United States v. Eurodif S. A.

Background

A domestic company that runs the only U.S. uranium enrichment plant (USEC) challenged imports of low-enriched uranium (LEU) from European suppliers. Utilities obtain LEU either by paying a cash price for a finished LEU product (EUP contracts) or by giving unenriched uranium plus cash for enrichment services (SWU contracts). Because unenriched uranium is fungible and not tracked once delivered, the material a utility gives is not the same atoms returned as LEU. USEC asked the Commerce Department to impose antidumping duties — import taxes to counteract sales made at unfairly low prices — on LEU from Europe. The Department found that LEU sold under both contract types could be treated as sales of goods and thus subject to antidumping duties. Lower courts disagreed, but the Supreme Court reviewed the question.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Commerce Department could reasonably treat mixed cash-plus-uranium transactions as sales of goods under the antidumping law. It applied deferential review to the agency’s interpretation, saying the statute is ambiguous and the agency’s view governs if reasonable. The Court accepted two key points: the statute is not limited to cash-only sales, and regulators are not bound by private contractual labels that call fungible-commodity transfers services. The Court emphasized that enrichers substantially transform feed uranium into LEU and that the feedstock is untracked, so treating the transaction as a sale of the produced LEU was reasonable. Practical concerns about parties restructuring deals to avoid duties reinforced the decision.

Real world impact

The ruling allows the Commerce Department to pursue antidumping duties against imported LEU even when contracts label the deal as a service. It protects the U.S. enrichment industry from low-priced imported LEU and reduces incentives for foreign suppliers to split or relabel contracts solely to evade duties. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s view, so specific duties and remedies will be determined later.