## Facts

- Antidumping investigations covered seamless stainless steel pipes, tubes, hollow bars, and blanks imported from Sweden.
- Commerce issued a final determination that the subject imports were sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).
- The ITC issued a final affirmative determination that a U.S. industry was materially injured by reason of the LTFV imports.
- Sandvik AB and related entities produced/exported the subject products; Sandvik Steel Company, a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, also domestically produced similar products.
- In its injury analysis, the ITC excluded Sandvik Steel Company from the domestic industry as a “related party” to a Swedish exporter.
- The ITC relied on evidence of adverse performance trends in the investigation period, including declines in shipments, shipment value, and employment.
- Sandvik challenged both Commerce’s dumping methodology and the ITC’s injury/industry analysis in the Court of International Trade under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a.

## Issues

1. Whether Commerce’s LTFV determination was supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law.
2. Whether the ITC’s determination of material injury “by reason of” the subject imports was supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law.
3. Whether the ITC lawfully defined the domestic industry by excluding Sandvik Steel Company as a related party.

## Decision

- The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s LTFV determination.
- The Court sustained the ITC’s affirmative material-injury determination.
- The Court upheld the ITC’s exclusion of Sandvik Steel Company from the domestic industry as a related party.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed per curiam without opinion.

## Legal Principles

- In trade-remedy judicial review, agency determinations are sustained unless unsupported by substantial evidence on the record or otherwise not in accordance with law.
- The ITC’s material-injury and causation findings will be upheld when the agency reasonably evaluates record evidence and explains the connection between the facts found and its conclusions; the reviewing court does not reweigh evidence.
- For “related party” domestic producers, the ITC has statutory discretion to exclude a domestic producer related to an exporter/importer from the domestic industry definition when the relationship could distort the injury analysis, provided the determination is supported and explained.
- Commerce’s technical methodological choices in antidumping calculations are generally upheld when reasonable and adequately explained within the statutory framework.

## Conclusion

The Court of International Trade upheld the antidumping determinations against Swedish stainless steel hollow products, sustaining Commerce’s LTFV finding and the ITC’s material-injury determination, including the ITC’s discretionary exclusion of a related domestic producer from the domestic industry definition; the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion.


Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1989), aff'd per curiam, 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990)