## Facts

- The Department of Commerce investigated antidumping allegations involving oil country tubular goods (OCTG) imported from Canada and determined Algoma made U.S. sales at less than fair value (LTFV) during a six-month period.
- Commerce found Algoma’s LTFV sales were slightly less than half of Algoma’s total U.S. OCTG sales for the period.
- In the International Trade Commission (ITC) injury phase, Algoma sought to introduce a computer printout quantifying the split between LTFV and more-than-fair-value (MTFV) sales to show most sales were MTFV.
- The ITC refused to receive or consider the printout, concluding the injury inquiry did not require excluding or separately weighting MTFV sales.
- The ITC determined that LTFV imports injured or threatened injury to a U.S. industry.
- The Court of International Trade affirmed, rejecting Algoma’s claim that the ITC’s refusal to consider the MTFV evidence was legal error.
- Algoma appealed, arguing the ITC acted contrary to statute and U.S. international obligations and that the evidentiary refusal was arbitrary and capricious.

## Issues

1. Whether, in determining material injury or threat of material injury by reason of LTFV imports, the ITC must consider, segregate, or exclude MTFV sales from its injury analysis.
2. Whether the ITC’s refusal to admit and consider Algoma’s MTFV/LTFV breakdown evidence was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to law.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court of International Trade and sustained the ITC’s injury/threat determination.
- The court held the ITC was not required to consider or give separate legal effect to evidence that a substantial portion of Algoma’s U.S. sales were MTFV.
- The court upheld the ITC’s decision not to receive or rely on the proffered computer printout because the information was not legally required for the injury determination.

## Legal Principles

- Antidumping law assigns distinct roles: Commerce determines dumping (LTFV) and calculates margins; the ITC determines whether a domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports.
- The injury statute does not impose a quantitative threshold (e.g., more than 50% dumped sales) as a prerequisite to an affirmative injury finding.
- The ITC may assess injury based on the effects of LTFV imports on the domestic industry without excluding or separately discounting non-dumped (MTFV) sales.
- An agency does not act arbitrarily or contrary to law by declining evidence that is not material to the statutory inquiry it must perform, so long as its approach is reasonable within the statutory scheme.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit sustained the ITC’s injury determination, holding that the ITC need not segregate or exclude MTFV sales when evaluating whether LTFV imports cause or threaten material injury, and that refusing evidence offered solely to quantify the MTFV/LTFV split was not legal error.


Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)