Hitachi Metals, Ltd. v. United States, 949 F.3d 710

Antidumping investigation into carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length (CTL) plate; petitions filed April 2016 and Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) opened investigations.
Commerce defined the scope of "subject merchandise"; the Commission must separately define the "domestic like product" for its injury analysis.
In its preliminary and final determinations the Commission defined a single domestic like product coextensive with Commerce’s scope (including tool steel) and adopted Commerce’s size/content limitations and seven express exclusions.
Hitachi (a Japanese producer and U.S. importer) asked the Commission to collect separate data for tool steel; the Commission issued supplemental questionnaires, collected responses from several firms, and contacted non-respondents.
The Commission concluded the record did not show a clear dividing line separating tool steel from other CTL plate products and therefore declined to treat tool steel as a separate like product.
The Court of International Trade affirmed the Commission’s like-product determination; Hitachi appealed and the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Hitachi's Argument	Commission's Argument	Held
Whether the Commission unlawfully presumed the domestic like product is coextensive with Commerce’s subject merchandise	Commission improperly relied on Commerce’s scope and treated it as controlling	Statute requires Commission to start its like-product analysis from Commerce’s subject merchandise; Commission retained independent analysis	Commission may begin with Commerce’s scope; no unlawful presumption; affirmed
Whether the Commission unlawfully departed from a 35‑year practice of treating tool steel as a separate like product	Commission ignored longstanding agency practice and failed to justify departure	Prior decisions involved different statutes/products; each investigation is sui generis so different outcomes do not show legal error	No unlawful departure; Commission adequately explained and applied its analysis
Whether the Commission’s inclusion of tool steel is unsupported by substantial evidence due to inadequate data collection	Commission failed to collect sufficient data and ignored most of the relevant industry, producing an infirm record	Commission issued supplemental questionnaires, obtained responses from tool‑steel producers, and followed up with nonrespondents; record was adequate	Substantial‑evidence standard satisfied; record supports Commission’s conclusion

Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explains Commission must perform independent six‑factor like‑product analysis but may start from Commerce’s subject‑merchandise scope)
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (antidumping investigations are sui generis; different facts can yield different outcomes)
Altx, Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (describes substantial‑evidence review and deference to reasonable agency conclusions)
Consol. Edison Co. of New York v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1938) (defines "substantial evidence" standard)
Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs. of Am., 85 F.3d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Commission must separately define like products, distinct from Commerce’s scope)
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (addresses standards of review for CIT appeals in trade cases)
Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Commerce determines the class or kind of merchandise for the investigation)