## Facts

- Russian producers/exporters of silicon metal challenged an antidumping injury determination involving imports from Russia sold at less than fair value.
- Commerce found dumping, and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) found the domestic silicon metal industry materially injured “by reason of” the dumped imports; the Court of International Trade (CIT) affirmed.
- Silicon metal was treated as a fungible commodity supplied to the U.S. market by many countries.
- During the investigation period, non-subject imports comprised roughly 73–83% of the U.S. silicon metal market.
- The ITC found increasing Russian import volumes, declining U.S. prices, loss of domestic market share, and worsening domestic financial performance.
- The ITC emphasized that Russian imports were often the lowest priced and undersold non-subject imports in 42 of 56 price comparisons.
- The ITC did not clearly explain whether removing Russian imports (through duties) would improve domestic conditions or instead shift sales to other foreign suppliers.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the ITC’s finding that the domestic industry was materially injured “by reason of” dumped Russian silicon metal where non-subject imports dominated the market.
2. Whether, in a commodity market with significant non-subject imports, the ITC must address whether non-subject imports would replace subject imports if subject imports were removed.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the CIT’s judgment sustaining the ITC’s affirmative injury determination.
- The court held that, in commodity-product cases with substantial non-subject imports, the ITC must explain why eliminating subject imports would benefit the domestic industry, including whether non-subject imports would likely replace the subject imports.
- Because the ITC did not provide that explanation, its causation finding was not supported by substantial evidence.
- The case was remanded to the ITC for further proceedings consistent with the court’s causation analysis requirement.

## Legal Principles

- The statutory “by reason of” requirement demands a reasoned causation analysis linking subject imports to material injury, not mere correlation between import trends and industry condition.
- When a fungible commodity market is supplied largely by non-subject imports, the ITC must address whether duties on subject imports would likely result in replacement by non-subject imports, leaving domestic producers in essentially the same position.
- The ITC need not perform a specific econometric model in every case, but it must confront the expected market outcome if subject imports are removed and explain why that outcome supports a finding of injury caused by subject imports.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit required the ITC, in commodity cases dominated by non-subject imports, to explain why removing dumped subject imports would improve domestic industry conditions rather than simply shifting demand to other foreign suppliers; absent that explanation, an affirmative injury finding lacks substantial evidence.


Bratsk Aluminium Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006)