Nippon Steel Corporation, Nkk Corporation, Kawasaki Steel Corporation, and Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd. v. International Trade, Commission, and Weirton Steel Corporation
Docket: 03-1018
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; October 3, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Weirton Steel Corporation and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) are appealing a decision by the United States Court of International Trade that vacated the ITC's renewed finding of material injury to the domestic industry from certain imports of specialized steel products by Nippon Steel Corporation and three other Japanese manufacturers. The Court of International Trade directed a finding of no material injury, which the appellants contend exceeded the court's authority by making credibility determinations and fact-finding that belong to the ITC. They argue the court erred in stating that the ITC's findings lacked substantial evidence and that it should have remanded the case for further clarity from the ITC. The Federal Circuit agrees with the appellants, vacating the lower court's decision and remanding the case to the ITC for further investigation and analysis. The court did not address the substantiality of the evidence supporting the ITC’s original decision or any potential threats of material injury from the imports at this stage. The record includes extensive opinions from both the ITC and the Court of International Trade, detailing complex evidence regarding numerous transactions and competitive dynamics in the steel market. Voluminous records exist detailing bid prices, sale prices, market shares, and other relevant data concerning various corporations, alongside extensive hearing testimony from major purchasers. The central issue is the disagreement between the Court of International Trade and the Commission regarding the impact of purchasers' testimony on the increase in imports, which was challenged by subsequently produced documents. The Commission viewed these documents as significantly undermining the testimony, while the Court deemed their impact minimal. The Court attributed the decline in the domestic industry to non-price factors like delivery delays, whereas the Commission identified the low pricing of Japanese products as a substantial factor. Both parties concur that an affirmative material-injury determination requires only a substantial causal link, not necessarily the sole cause of injury. The document emphasizes that the Commission is the sole entity authorized to find facts and determine causation under the statute, subject to review by the Court under a substantial-evidence standard. The Court of International Trade exceeded its authority by attempting to refind facts and determine causation, rather than remanding the case for further Commission consideration. The Court's critiques of the Commission's decision are noted, and it is assumed that the Commission will address these points on remand. The decision is vacated and remanded, allowing the Commission to potentially reopen the evidentiary record at its discretion. No costs are awarded.