JMC Steel Group v. United States, 70 F.Supp.3d 1309

Background

Plaintiffs (JMC Steel Group and industry intervenors) petitioned the ITC alleging material injury from circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (CWP) imports from India, Oman, UAE, and Vietnam; ITC investigated POI Jan 2009–June 2012.
In Dec. 2012 the ITC found subject imports increased significantly and frequently undersold domestic product but concluded no material injury or threat to the domestic industry.
The Court in JMC I (2014) affirmed many ITC findings but remanded two issues: (1) treatment of domestic producers’ lost sales/revenue allegations (including whether the ITC improperly treated inability to supply such data as adverse) and (2) whether the ITC evaluated industry performance within the context of the business cycle (esp. post‑2009 recession effects).
On remand the ITC declined to reopen the record, abandoned reliance on lost‑sales/revenue allegations in its price‑effects analysis, and explained its business‑cycle analysis concluding improved domestic performance reflected recovery rather than injury from subject imports.
The ITC reaffirmed no correlation between subject import volume/underselling and domestic industry performance, noting competitive nonsubject imports and various industry indicators (shipments, prices, operating income) that improved during the POI.
Plaintiffs challenged the remand results on grounds that the ITC (a) relied on absence of lost sales evidence, (b) failed to explain why market‑share losses did not require an affirmative injury finding, and (c) erred in its correlation analysis; the Court sustained the remand results.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ITC’s use of absent lost‑sales/revenue allegations in price‑effects analysis	Plaintiffs: ITC effectively drew adverse inference from inability to provide lost‑sales data and should have adjusted requests or assisted per 19 U.S.C. §1677m(c)	ITC: reporting of lost‑sales is voluntary; it did not use absence as adverse inference and abandoned reliance on lost‑sales on remand	Held: ITC’s abandonment and explanation cures the court’s concern; remand results sustained
Whether increased subject import volume/market share alone required affirmative injury finding given product fungibility	Plaintiffs: fungibility means volume gains likely represent lost domestic sales and ITC must explain why volume increases don’t compel affirmative finding	ITC: considered volume but reasonably relied on comprehensive indicators rather than forcing anecdotal lost‑sales evidence	Held: Court rejects plaintiffs’ re‑litigation; ITC methodology was reasonable and law‑of‑the‑case bars reconsideration
Business‑cycle analysis (did recovery mask injury?)	Plaintiffs: improvements may reflect recovery, masking injurious effects of imports	ITC: performed two‑part analysis distinguishing effects of 2009 downturn/recovery from subject import impacts; cited numerous industry metrics showing recovery unrelated to imports	Held: ITC satisfactorily explained evaluation within business‑cycle context; analysis supported by substantial evidence
Correlation between subject imports (volume/prices) and domestic financial performance	Plaintiffs: record evidence shows correlation and ITC analysis is erroneous	ITC: no correlation shown; nonsubject imports and other factors explain trends; ITC’s prior correlation findings were affirmed in JMC I	Held: Court affirms ITC’s correlation findings; plaintiffs failed to show need for reconsideration

Key Cases Cited

JMC Steel Group v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 3d 1290 (CIT 2014) (remand decision identifying need to reassess lost‑sales treatment and business‑cycle analysis)
Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (definition of substantial evidence review)
Consol. Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1938) (standard for substantial evidence)
Granges Metallverken AB v. United States, 716 F. Supp. 17 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989) (in fungible product markets, volume can be best indicator of lost sales)
Kori Corp. v. Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, Inc., 761 F.2d 649 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine limits relitigation)
Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co. v. United States, 774 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2011) (court reviews reasonableness of ITC methodology rather than plaintiffs’ preferred method)