## Facts

- Commerce determined that cold-rolled carbon steel plates and sheets from Argentina were sold in the United States at less than fair value.
- The International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a negative injury determination in 1985, finding no material injury or threat “by reason of” the subject imports.
- USX challenged the determination; the court previously upheld findings on like product, domestic industry, and industry condition, but remanded for further analysis of causation, cumulation, and threat.
- During the period investigated (approximately 1981–1984), Argentine import volumes rose consistently, but the ITC characterized market penetration as minimal.
- Argentine imports undersold domestic products by margins of about 5% to 14% in a price-sensitive, fungible market.
- On remand, the ITC issued a second negative determination (1987), expanding its analysis of import volume/market share, investigating lost sales and lost revenue allegations more fully, addressing other causal factors, and revisiting threat indicators.

## Issues

1. Whether the ITC’s remand determination that the domestic industry was not materially injured “by reason of” Argentine less-than-fair-value imports was supported by substantial evidence and a legally sufficient explanation.
2. Whether the ITC’s remand treatment of cumulation (whether to aggregate effects of subject imports with other imports) was lawful and adequately explained.
3. Whether the ITC’s remand determination of no threat of material injury was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with statutory requirements.

## Decision

- The court sustained the ITC’s remand determination.
- The court held it could discern that a majority of the Commission relied on legally sufficient reasoning, curing deficiencies identified in the prior remand.
- On causation, the court found the ITC adequately explained why Argentine import volume/market share and underselling did not materially contribute to injury, given record evidence and other explanatory factors.
- On cumulation, the court found the ITC provided an adequate legal and factual basis for its approach and explained how it affected the injury analysis.
- On threat, the court found the ITC reasonably evaluated forward-looking indicators (capacity, export orientation, inventories/orders, and industry responsiveness) and supported its no-threat finding with substantial evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of an ITC injury determination asks whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and is in accordance with law.
- The ITC must provide a reasoned explanation that connects record facts (including volume, price effects, and market conditions) to its causation and threat conclusions; conclusory assertions are insufficient.
- If the ITC relies on the absence of confirmed lost sales or lost revenue to negate injury, its investigation must be adequate; an acknowledged failure to investigate material allegations cannot, by itself, support a negative determination where underselling is established.
- Where the ITC supplies a coherent rationale and addresses relevant statutory factors, the court will not reweigh competing evidence and will defer to the agency’s permissible judgments.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the ITC’s remand determination that Argentine cold-rolled steel sold at less than fair value did not materially injure or threaten the U.S. industry, concluding the revised causation, cumulation, and threat analyses were legally sufficient and supported by substantial evidence.


USX Corp. v. United States, 682 F. Supp. 60 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988)