Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
United States
Eurodif S. A.
ISEC Inc. V. Eurodif S.A., 07-1078
(Deputy Solicitor General, argued the cause for the petitioner in 07-1059)
(argued the cause for the petitioners in 07-1078)
(argued the cause for the respondents)
Facts of the Case 

This case examines the correct application of federal antidumping statutes to so-called "separate work unit" (SWU) contracts for the production of low enriched uranium (LEU). The case, brought by the federal government and the United States Enrichment Corporation, has been consolidated from two cases both alleging that Eurodif, a French corporation, imported LEU in violation of federal antidumping laws. Based on a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit holding that SWU contracts for the production of LEU are contracts for services rather than goods and are therefore immune from the antidumping laws, the U.S. Department of Commerce excluded all LEU entering the country from antidumping regulations if accompanied by a certificate that the uranium was imported under an SWU contract. The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department decision.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the case, saying that it was "unripe" for judicial review. The court held that the issues raised by the government only concerned the application of the Department's decision regarding future importation of LEU; and, therefore, the court did not have a specific factual context in which to review the claim.


Should 19 U.S.C. Section 1673, which calls for "antidumping" duties on foreign goods, but not services, that sell at less than fair value in the U.S., apply to imported low enriched uranium?

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Tariff Act

Yes. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice David H. Souter, the Supreme Court held that the Commerce Department's view of imported low enriched uranium, as the sale of goods rather than services, was permissible. It reasoned that, since 19 U.S.C. Section 1673 did not specify whether it applied to the production of low enriched uranium, it was left to the reasonable interpretation of the Commerce Department to determine. Accordingly, the Court found the Commerce Department interpreted the statute reasonably.

Cite this Page
UNITED STATES v. EURODIF S.A.. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 30 July 2015. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_1059>.
UNITED STATES v. EURODIF S.A., The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_1059 (last visited July 30, 2015).
"UNITED STATES v. EURODIF S.A.," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed July 30, 2015, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_1059.