## Facts

- The President requested a global safeguard investigation under § 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 covering certain steel products, including cold-rolled steel.
- While the safeguard investigation was pending, Nucor Corp., U.S. Steel, and other domestic producers filed petitions seeking antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) relief on cold-rolled steel imports under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930.
- In March 2002, safeguard tariffs on steel imports took effect.
- The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) later issued negative Title VII determinations, finding the domestic cold-rolled steel industry was not materially injured or threatened with material injury “by reason of” the subject imports.
- The ITC gave significant weight to market conditions after the safeguard tariffs, concluding post-tariff import levels, pricing effects, and industry performance did not support present injury or threat.
- Nucor and U.S. Steel challenged the ITC’s approach as improperly narrowing the period of investigation and distorting causation by treating safeguard tariffs as effectively curative.
- The Court of International Trade affirmed the ITC, and the domestic producers appealed to the Federal Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the ITC acted unlawfully in emphasizing post-safeguard-tariff market conditions when determining material injury and threat in Title VII AD/CVD investigations.
2. Whether the ITC’s findings on injury and causation (“by reason of” subject imports) were supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s judgment sustaining the ITC’s negative injury determinations.
- The court held the ITC did not violate Title VII by giving substantial weight to post-safeguard conditions while considering the record as a whole.
- The court upheld the ITC’s conclusion that, after safeguard tariffs took effect, subject imports were not a material cause of current injury or threat.
- Applying substantial-evidence review, the court declined to reweigh economic evidence and deferred to the ITC’s reasoned explanations.

## Legal Principles

- In Title VII AD/CVD investigations, the ITC has discretion to determine the weight given to different time periods, so long as its evaluation is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.
- The ITC may consider the real-world effects of other governmental measures (including safeguard tariffs) when assessing whether imports are causing present material injury or threat.
- The ITC must assess whether injury is “by reason of” subject imports and address other potential causes, but the statute does not require a mechanical or mathematical separation of causal effects.
- Findings from a § 201 safeguard proceeding do not control the outcome of a Title VII material-injury inquiry because the proceedings apply different legal standards and serve different purposes.
- On judicial review, the ITC’s determinations are sustained if supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law; courts do not substitute their economic judgments for the agency’s.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit sustained the ITC’s negative injury determinations in cold-rolled steel AD/CVD investigations, concluding the agency permissibly relied on post-safeguard-tariff market evidence and provided a substantial-evidence-supported explanation that subject imports were not causing present material injury or threat.


Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005)