The Chemours Company FC LLC v. United States, 492 F.Supp.3d 1333

Chemours filed antidumping and countervailing duty petitions (Sept. 28, 2017) regarding PTFE resin from China and India; the USITC issued final determinations in 2018.
In Chemours I (the court’s earlier opinion), the Court remanded the Commission’s determinations, finding the Commission had not adequately addressed post‑petition import price data (notably Q4 2017) in its price‑effects analysis.
On remand the Commission issued Remand Results analyzing post‑petition price trends for subject imports and domestic like product, concluding price increases began earlier in 2017 and thus Q4 2017 data reflected continuing trends rather than petition effects.
Chemours challenged the Remand Results, arguing the Commission must analyze the interplay among demand, volume, price, and injury (per the statutory scheme) rather than describing price trends in isolation.
The Commission and intervenors defended the remand, asserting the Commission reasonably weighed the evidence and identified corroborating data supporting its conclusions.
The Court reviewed the Remand Results under the substantial‑evidence standard and sustained the Commission’s remand determination as supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commission adequately addressed post‑petition (Q4 2017) import price data in its price‑effects analysis	Chemours: Commission failed to explain why it did not discount Q4 2017 import prices and did not consider import price data sufficiently	Commission: Remand shows import prices rose earlier in 2017 and mirror domestic price recovery, so no discounting required	Court: Commission complied with remand and substantial evidence supports its treatment of post‑petition prices
Whether the Commission was required to analyze the interplay among demand, volume, and price rather than describing trends	Chemours: Statute requires analysis of interplay among variables, not isolated trend description	Commission: Has discretion; its price‑trend analysis was reasonable and corroborated by other record data	Court: A deeper connective analysis would help, but was not required here; Commission's approach was reasonable
Whether the Commission considered all pertinent evidence and addressed arguments that materially undermined its conclusions	Chemours: Initial determination failed; remand still insufficient	Commission: Remand addressed prior deficiencies and identified corroborating data; methodology reasonable	Court: Remand satisfied the requirement to consider pertinent evidence and significant arguments; remand results sustained

Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (agency must articulate a rational connection between facts found and decision)
Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United States, 14 C.I.T. 481, 744 F. Supp. 281 (guidance on Commission discretion and required analytic guideposts)
AWP Indus., Inc. v. United States, 35 C.I.T. 774, 783 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (Commission must consider all pertinent evidence)
Altx, Inc. v. United States, 25 C.I.T. 1100, 167 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Commission must address significant evidence that undermines its conclusions)
Nitrogen Solutions Fair Trade Comm. v. United States, 19 C.I.T. 86, 358 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (Commission has wide discretion in weighing post‑petition information)
Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co. v. United States, 35 C.I.T. 545, 774 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (focus on whether Commission’s methodology is reasonable on review)
Chemours Co. v. United States, 443 F. Supp. 3d 1315 (earlier remand order instructing the Commission to address post‑petition price data)