Downhole Pipe & Equipment, LP v. United States, 2014 WL 7139860

The ITC investigated whether imports of finished and unfinished steel drill pipe and drill collars from China threatened material injury to the U.S. domestic industry (POI: Jan 2007–Jun 2010). Commerce found dumping and countervailable subsidies; ITC initially found no present injury but an affirmative threat determination.
Downhole Pipe & Equipment (a Chinese producer) challenged the ITC threat finding; the CIT (Downhole Pipe I) remanded, holding two ITC factual findings unsupported by substantial evidence and asking for additional explanation on other points.
On remand the ITC adopted the Original Dissenting Views in full and issued a Remand Redetermination reversing its prior threat finding and again finding no present material injury.
Domestic producer intervenors (VAM, Texas Steel Conversion, Rotary Drilling Tools, TMK IPSCO, U.S. Steel) objected and sought a second remand, arguing several statutory threat factors (unused capacity, volume/market penetration, inventories, price underselling) were improperly analyzed and that the ITC misassessed U.S. industry financials.
The CIT reviewed the Remand Redetermination under the substantial-evidence standard and affirmed the ITC, rejecting intervenors’ challenges to the remand outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant-Intervenors' Argument	Held
Likely volume/market share from Chinese unused capacity	N/A (plaintiff sought reversal of ITC threat finding)	ITC wrongly concluded third-country markets and POI trends made U.S. surge unlikely despite extensive unused Chinese capacity	Court: ITC reasonably considered export patterns, POI volume trends, U.S. market conditions and did not misstate findings; substantial evidence supports ITC conclusion
Role of inventories as threat indicator	N/A	Rising importer and producer inventories signaled an overhang likely to increase future imports and harm U.S. industry	Court: ITC permissibly weighed absolute vs. relative inventory data and market conditions; no compelled inference of imminent threat
Underselling / pricing effect on likely increased imports	N/A	Increased underselling in early 2010 showed importers used low prices to expand U.S. sales, indicating likely future surge	Court: ITC reasonably found underselling incidence/margins and trends did not demonstrate likely future price-driven surge; substantial evidence supports finding
U.S. industry financials & vulnerability (NOV Grant Prideco data)	N/A	ITC improperly discounted a decline in profitability at a dominant U.S. firm and thus understated industry vulnerability relevant to threat	Court: ITC considered the firm-specific adjustment and industry-wide measures (profitability returned by interim 2010); vulnerability finding upheld

Downhole Pipe & Equip. v. United States, 963 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (prior remand opinion reversing parts of ITC threat finding)
Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1948) (definition of substantial evidence)
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (review requires considering evidence that detracts from agency finding)
Consolo v. Fed. Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (1966) (possibility of drawing inconsistent conclusions does not preclude substantial evidence)
Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962) (agency decisions must show rational connection between facts found and choices made)