33 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1641
Ct. Int'l Trade2011Background
- ITC concluded no material injury or threat from Chinese wire decking imports during 2006-2009 (POI).
- Plaintiffs (AWP et al.) challenged five subsidiary findings underlying the ITC's negative injury determination.
- ITC relied on importer questionnaire data to assess import volumes and market share, and on responses from a limited set of Chinese producers for capacity.
- ITC found significant underselling but did not find significant price suppression, attributing price declines to declining demand and substitutes.
- ITC acknowledged data gaps from non-responding importers/producers but treated certified responses as the most reliable record evidence and weighed credibility of Kedaitis’s testimony.
- The court affirms ITC’s determination, holding substantial evidence supports the ITC’s readings and conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Volume and market share data sufficiency | AWP argues questionnaire data understates imports | ITC used certified importer data representing majority of imports | Affirmed: data deemed reasonable and substantial despite gaps. |
| Price effects—underselling vs price suppression | Underselling implies price suppression from imports | Demand decline and substitutes limited price increases; underselling present but not price suppression | Affirmed: not substantial evidence of price suppression. |
| Declining demand as sole injurious factor | Imports significantly displaced domestic sales | Demand decline largely explains injury; imports not the primary cause | Affirmed: reasonable reading linking demand to injury. |
| Chinese capacity assessment | Few Chinese responses understate true capacity | Responses cover substantial portion of Chinese production/export; credibility given to Kedaitis | Affirmed: capacity findings reasonable. |
| Major importer Atlas/Worldwide status | Atlas ceased operations due to case; potential resumption | Record shows changed business model; not import focus | Affirmed: not likely to increase imports imminently. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence and causal analysis standard; by reason of)
- Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (causal nexus and injury standards for ITC)
- Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (by reason of standard; not incidental injury)
- Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (context on ITC data and post-poi considerations)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (substantial evidence review standard)