Shandong Ttca Biochemistry Co. v. United States
774 F. Supp. 2d 1317
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Plaintiffs Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co. and others challenge ITC Final Determination in Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and China, alleging injury from Chinese imports; the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c).
- ITC found material injury due to imports from China (and cumulated with Canada) after investigations 701-TA-456 and 731-TA-1151-1152; Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing orders in 2009.
- POI covered 2006–2008; ITC evaluated three statutory injury factors: import volume, price effects, and impact on domestic producers, potentially supplemented by other factors.
- Plaintiffs argue the volume and price analyses are not supported by substantial evidence and allege improper attribution of injury to intra-industry competition; the court denies the motion and affirms ITC’s determinations.
- ITC’s approach allowed cumulation and a market-wide analysis rather than a segmentation, and it considered petition effects on pricing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether ITC volume analysis is supported by substantial evidence | TTCA contends volume growth and market share shifts do not prove injury to US industry | ITC reasonably found significant cumulated imports displaced both non-subject and domestic shares | Yes; volume analysis supported by substantial evidence |
| whether ITC underselling finding is supported | TTCA claims data misaggregation overstated underselling instances | ITC used reasonable methods focusing on pricing data and contract/spot segments | Yes; underselling finding supported by substantial evidence |
| whether ITC price suppression finding is supported | TTCA argues no nexus from overselling to price suppression beyond 2007 | Large and increasing subject import volume suppressed prices needed to cover rising costs | Yes; price suppression supported by record and COGS-to-net-sales analysis |
| whether ITC non-attribution analysis properly insulated intra-industry competition | TTCA argues ITC failed to distinguish intra-industry effects from subject imports | ITC reasonably found intra-industry competition did not override evidence of import-driven pricing pressure | Yes; non-attribution analysis supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (court deferential standard for agency findings; cannot reweigh evidence)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed.Cir.1984) (substantial evidence standard requires reasoned, plausible evidence)
- Altx, Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1108 (Fed.Cir.2004) (court defers to agency’s choice among conflicting views if reasonable)
- NSK Corp. v. United States, 577 F.Supp.2d 1322 (CIT 2008) (market-wide approach permitted; no obligation to segment market for injury analysis)
- Cemex, S.A. v. United States, 16 CIT 251, 790 F.Supp.2d 290 (1992) (price suppression can sustain injury finding even without underselling)