## Facts

- Domestic producers and unions sought antidumping relief concerning U.S. imports of pure primary magnesium from Russia, Ukraine, and China.
- The Department of Commerce found certain pure magnesium imports were sold at less than fair value (LTFV), with varying dumping margins among exporters; some traders, including Gerald Metals, received a zero margin.
- The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued an affirmative material-injury determination, including as to LTFV imports from Ukraine.
- Evidence indicated buyers generally treated magnesium as a commodity and did not differentiate among sources or between dumped and fairly traded magnesium in purchasing decisions.
- During the period examined, both LTFV and fair-value imports were significant; by the end of the period, fair-value imports’ market share exceeded LTFV imports’ share.
- Gerald Metals challenged only the Ukraine-related injury determination, arguing domestic price suppression would have persisted due to large volumes of fair-value imports even if LTFV Ukrainian imports were removed.
- The Court of International Trade (CIT) upheld the ITC’s determination as supported by substantial evidence, and Gerald appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the CIT’s affirmance of the ITC’s finding that the domestic industry was materially injured “by reason of” LTFV imports of pure magnesium from Ukraine.
2. Whether the ITC adequately distinguished the injurious effects attributable to LTFV Ukrainian imports from the effects of fair-value imports and other market factors.
3. Whether the CIT improperly upheld the ITC by supplying reasoning not clearly articulated in the ITC’s own explanation.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit vacated the CIT’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that, on the record presented, the ITC’s causation analysis as sustained by the CIT was not supported by substantial evidence.
- The court declined to make a negative injury determination itself, instead requiring a more reasoned causation explanation separating the effects of LTFV imports from other causes.

## Legal Principles

- An affirmative antidumping injury determination requires a showing that material injury occurred “by reason of” LTFV imports, requiring a causal link between dumping and injury rather than mere coincidence in the market.
- Substantial evidence means more than a scintilla and must be enough that a reasonable mind could accept it as adequate to support the agency’s conclusion.
- The ITC must address non-dumped (fair-value) imports and other causal factors where they plausibly explain price effects; the agency must distinguish the injurious effects of LTFV imports from those other effects.
- Reviewing courts may not sustain agency action through post hoc rationalizations; the agency’s own stated reasoning must supply the basis for affirmance under substantial-evidence review.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit required a causation analysis that ties injury to dumped imports specifically, holding that the ITC and CIT could not uphold an affirmative injury finding where the record and agency explanation did not adequately separate the effects of LTFV Ukrainian imports from significant fair-value imports and other market forces.


Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716 (Fed. Cir. 1997)