Swiff-Train Co. v. United States, 2014 WL 3512886

ITC Remand Views sustain the domestic MLWF injury determination following the remand addressing scope, price effects, and causation in MLWF from PRC.
Record on remand reopened to solicit input from 20 U.S. hardwood plywood producers about domestic MLWF production and scope.
Plaintiffs argued procedural defects and lack of input on questionnaire tailoring; ITC maintained its remand approach and definition of domestic MLWF industry.
Remand found evidence of price depression and significant underselling by subject imports, supporting injury findings, though not always ‘price suppression’ as a threshold.
Court analyzed causation under ‘by reason of’ and the substantial-evidence standard, discussing but-for causation within the Commission’s discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural propriety of remand questionnaire	Pls contend input on remand questions was needed.	ITC followed its remand rules; no due process breach.	Remand procedures were proper; no abuse of discretion.
Price effects finding on price suppression/depression	Record shows elasticity and substitution; price effects not adequately proven.	Record supports price underselling and price effects; substantial evidence supports injury.	Price effects analysis sustained; substantial evidence supports injury.
Causation analysis under by reason of / but-for framework	Commission avoided proper but-for causation; natural experiment data show alternative outcomes.	Commission may use substantial-factor causation within its discretion; not required to adopt rigid but-for approach.	Commission properly framed causation; substantial-evidence standard satisfied.
Use of POI and periods for causation and demand analysis	Shorter periods (e.g., Jan 2009–June 2011) should be given probative weight; 2008–2010 data is less relevant.	Commission adheres to its three-year-plus interim-period convention; no basis to deviate.	Court upheld the Commission’s use of the POI and remand periods.

Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (causation as substantial factor; but-for is encompassed within substantial-factor analysis)
Nippon Steel Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 345 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (but-for causation framework in context of injury and substitution)
Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (commodity product concept and causation discussion in injury analysis)
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (substantial-evidence review in ITC determinations)
Thai Pineapple Pub. Co. v. United States, 187 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (reasonableness of agency methodologies; deference to agency in method selection)