Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited v. United States, 56 F.4th 1345

MSI, a U.S. importer of quartz surface products (QSPs), challenged standing and industry-support calculations after Cambria (a domestic QSP slab producer) filed an antidumping petition on QSPs from India.
QSP production involves slab manufacturing (mixing, molding, pressing, curing, polishing) and separate fabrication steps (cutting, edge/surface finishing) performed by fabricators.
MSI submitted fabricator letters opposing the petition and argued fabricators should count as domestic “producers” in the industry-support calculation; Commerce disagreed, finding fabricators do not perform sufficient production-related activities to be “producers.”
Commerce applied a six-factor “sufficient production-related activities” test (capital, technical expertise, value added, employment, U.S. parts, other production costs/activities) and excluded fabricators from the industry-support tally.
The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s Final Determination; MSI appealed to the Federal Circuit challenging (1) Commerce’s interpretation of “producer” and (2) whether the exclusion of fabricators was supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (MSI)	Defendant's Argument (Cambria & U.S.)	Held
Whether the statutory term “producer” includes fabricators for industry-support calculations	"Producer" has its ordinary meaning and includes fabricators; Commerce unlawfully excluded fabricators absent the statute’s limited exceptions and should have gathered more info or terminated the investigation	Statute is silent on “producer”; Commerce reasonably filled the gap (consistent with Eurodif) by requiring a stake in the domestic industry via sufficient production-related activities	Affirmed: "producer" may be defined as an entity with a sufficient stake; Commerce reasonably used the production-activities test to exclude fabricators
Whether Commerce’s determination that fabricators are not producers is supported by substantial evidence	Commerce failed to consider contrary evidence and provide a rational explanation; ITC reached different conclusions suggesting Commerce erred	Commerce considered record exhibits showing differences in capital, processes, and employment between slab producers and fabricators; differing ITC conclusions do not compel reversal	Affirmed: Commerce’s finding was supported by substantial evidence; Commerce and ITC may reach different results

Eurodif S.A. v. United States, 411 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.) (Commerce may define “producer” as an entity with a stake in the domestic industry via production-related activities)
Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101 (Fed. Cir.) (standard for upholding Commerce determinations)
Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (U.S.) (definition of substantial evidence)
In re Jolley, 308 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir.) (agency may choose between reasonable, inconsistent inferences from the record)
Mitsubishi Heavy Indus. Ltd. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir.) (possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions does not defeat substantial-evidence review)
Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs. of Am., 85 F.3d 1561 (Fed. Cir.) (Commerce and the ITC have distinct roles and may reach different conclusions)
Torrington Co. v. United States, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir.) (recognizing lawful divergence between Commerce and ITC findings)
Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir.) (same: division of labor between agencies may produce differing results)