JMC Steel Group v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 3d 1290

Background

Domestic producers (JMC, Allied, U.S. Steel, Wheatland) petitioned the ITC alleging material injury from dumped/subsidized circular welded carbon‑quality steel pipe (CWP) imports from India, Oman, UAE, and Vietnam; ITC investigated POI Jan 2009–Jun 2012.
The ITC found large increases in cumulated subject import volume and pervasive underselling but concluded (4–2) that imports neither caused nor threatened material injury to the U.S. industry and issued a negative final determination.
Plaintiffs challenged multiple aspects of the ITC determination under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b), arguing the ITC erred on correlations between import volume, price effects, lost sales, industry performance, capacity/threat, treatment of the business cycle, methodology (COMPAS), pre‑POI data, and interim data.
The Court reviews agency factfinding for substantial evidence and legal questions under Chevron; it may not reweigh evidence but must ensure the ITC considered required factors and explained its reasoning.
The court affirmed many aspects of the ITC’s analyses (volume, price correlation methodology, capacity/threat findings, use of interim/pre‑POI data) but identified legal/record deficiencies on two principal issues and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did ITC assume volume alone cannot establish injury?	JMC: ITC effectively treated negative volume effects as insufficient per se and must state whether volume alone can support affirmative injury.	ITC: No such blanket rule; statute requires weighing factors and volume alone need not be decisive.	Denied remand on this point; no record showing ITC adopted a per se rule.
Price effects and methodology (correlation vs COMPAS)	Plaintiffs: ITC’s correlation analysis is inadequate; COMPAS better accounts for supply/demand and business‑cycle effects.	ITC: Correlation analysis is a reasonable, accepted method; COMPAS is not required.	Court upheld ITC’s methodology and price‑effect findings as supported by substantial evidence.
Lost sales & lost revenue evidence	Plaintiffs: Lack of confirmed lost sales is attributable to market structure (distributors cannot trace lost sales), so ITC erred in treating absence of confirmations as lack of injury.	ITC: Requested specific corroborating information; producers failed to provide; ITC may rely on anecdotal/confirmed instances.	Remanded: ITC improperly relied on absence of confirmed lost sales without addressing statutory provisions (19 U.S.C. §§ 1677m(c), 1677e) and must reconsider and, if appropriate, collect/assist or explain.
Business cycle context	Plaintiffs: POI begins at 2009 trough; ITC failed to separate recovery‑driven improvements from import effects, masking injury.	ITC: Acknowledged recession and used pre‑POI data for context; improvements show lack of injury.	Remanded: ITC must more clearly explain how it evaluated industry performance within the business cycle context and distinguish recovery effects from import impacts.
Use of interim/post‑petition data	Plaintiffs: Interim 2011/2012 data distorted by atypical items and petition filing (post‑filing effects), so should be discounted.	ITC: Discretion to weigh post‑filing data; record shows petition effects largely involved India and nonsubject imports gained the vacated share.	Affirmed: ITC acted within discretion and gave a reasoned explanation for using interim data.
Threat/Excess capacity and likely shifts to U.S.	Plaintiffs: Large excess capacity and underreported capacities indicate likely surge of exports to U.S. absent relief.	ITC: Although excess capacity exists, evidence showed limited export orientation, projected domestic demand in subject countries, modest planned expansions, and stable inventories—no persuasive threat.	Affirmed: Substantial evidence supports ITC’s threat analysis and conclusions about capacity, inventories, and likely export behavior.

Key Cases Cited

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (agency interpretation framework)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (standard that courts may not reweigh evidence)
Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (definition of substantial evidence)
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (consider whole record; weigh supporting and detracting evidence)
Altx, Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (affirming ITC’s methodology choices; COMPAS not required)
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Chevron governs statutory interpretation of antidumping law)
Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (agency substantial evidence test)