Government of Israel, Ministry of Economy and Industry v. United States

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 1
PUBLIC VERSION
Slip Op. 26-57
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL, MINISTRY
OF ECONOMY AND INDUSTRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
AMERICAN BRASS ROD FAIR TRADE
COALITION, et al.,
Defendant-Intervenors.
Before: Lisa W. Wang, Judge
Court No. 24-00197
PUBLIC VERSION
OPINION AND ORDER
[Sustaining in part and remanding in part the United States International Trade
Commission’s final affirmative determinations.]
Dated:
Bernd G. Janzen & Julia K. Eppard, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, of
Washington, D.C., argued for Plaintiff Government of Israel, Ministry of Economy and
Industry. With them on the brief were Devin S. Sikes, Daniel M. Witkowski, Sydney L.
Stringer, and Paul S. Bettencourt.
John D. Henderson, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, of Washington, D.C., argued for Defendant United States. With him
on the brief were Margaret D. Macdonald, General Counsel, and Karl S. von Schriltz,
Assistant General Counsel.
Noah A. Meyer & Paul K. Keith, Rock Creek Trade LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued on
behalf of Defendant-Intervenors American Brass Rod Fair Trade Coalition and its
members, Mueller Brass Co. and Wieland Chase LLC. With them on the brief were Jack
A. Levy and Daniel J. Calhoun.
June 8, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 1 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 2
PUBLIC VERSION
Wang, Judge: This action stems from final affirmative material injury
determinations made by the United States International Trade Commission
(“Commission”) in the antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations of brass
rod from Israel. Brass Rod from Israel, 89 Fed. Reg. 78,330 (USITC Sep. 25, 2024), PR
216; Brass Rod from Israel, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-687 and 731-TA-1614 (Final), USITC
Pub. 5545 (Sep. 2024), PR 212. The Government of Israel, Ministry of Economy and
Industry (“Plaintiff”), moves for judgment on the agency record pursuant to CIT Rule
56.2. Plaintiff challenges as unsupported by substantial evidence or otherwise not in
accordance with law: (1) the Commission’s treatment of information from outside of the
period of investigation (“POI”) in its present material injury analysis; (2) the
Commission’s volume analysis; (3) the Commission’s pricing analysis; (4) the
Commission’s finding of negative impact on the domestic industry; and (5) the
Commission’s non-attribution analysis.
For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the agency record is
granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Government of Israel, Ministry of Economy and Industry, is a “foreign
government of a country in which subject merchandise is manufactured and from which
subject merchandise is exported.” Public Compl. (“Compl.”) ¶ 3, ECF No. 9.
The underlying investigations that form the basis of this action were initiated after
“the American Brass Rod Fair Trade Coalition … ; Mueller Brass Co. … ; and Wieland
Chase LLC … filed petitions with the Commission and [the United States Department of]
Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 2 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 3
PUBLIC VERSION
threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of brass rod from India,
Israel, and South Korea and [less than fair value] imports of brass rod from Brazil, India,
Israel, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea” on April 27, 2023. Brass Rod from Brazil,
India, Israel, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea, 88 Fed. Reg. 39,477 (USITC June
16, 2023), PR 83. The American Brass Rod Fair Trade Coalition and its members
Mueller Brass Co. (“Mueller”) and Wieland Chase LLC (“Wieland”) (collectively
“Defendant-Intervenors”) are respectively “an association, a majority of whose members
is composed of U.S. producers of a domestic like product to [b]rass [r]od from Israel”
and “U.S. producers of a domestic like product to [b]rass [r]od from Israel.” Def.-Ints.’
Consent Mot. to Intervene as a Matter of Right (“Def.-Ints.’ Consent Mot. to Intervene”)
at 2, ECF No. 12.
Once the petitions were filed, “effective April 27, 2023, the Commission instituted
countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-686-688 and antidumping duty
investigation Nos. 731-TA-1612-1617 (Preliminary).” Brass Rod from Brazil, India,
Israel, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea, 88 Fed. Reg. 39,477 (USITC June 16,
2023). The Commission published the results of its preliminary investigation on June 16,
2023. Id. The Commission “determine[d] … that there is a reasonable indication that an
industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of brass rod from
Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea … that are alleged to be
sold in the United States at less than fair value (‘LTFV’) and to be subsidized by the
governments of India, Israel, and South Korea.” Id.
After receiving “notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that
imports from India were subsidized[,]” “[t]he Commission scheduled the final phase of
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 3 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 4
PUBLIC VERSION
the investigations ….” Brass Rod from Israel, 89 Fed. Reg. 78,330 (USITC Sep. 25,
2024). As part of the final phase, “[t]he Commission conducted [a] hearing on December
12, 2023.” Id. At the hearing, among others,
Representatives of Mueller and Wieland appeared … accompanied by
counsel 	and 	submitted 	prehearing 	and 	posthearing 	briefs 	and 	final
comments 	… 	Representatives 	for 	Finkelstein 	Metals 	Ltd., 	a
producer/exporter of brass rod in Israel, and Finkelstein Metals USA Inc.
(“Finkelstein USA”), a U.S. importer of brass rod from Israel (collectively,
“Finkelstein”), appeared at the hearing accompanied by counsel and
submitted prehearing and posthearing briefs and final comments. The
Government of Israel, Ministry of Economy and Trade Affairs, submitted
pre-hearing and post-hearing statements, and a representative of the
Government of Israel appeared at the hearing accompanied by counsel.
Brass Rod from India, Inv. No. 701-TA-686 (Final), USITC Pub. 5485 (Feb. 2024)
(“Public Views”) at 4, PR 172.
Over the course of the investigations by both the United States Department of
Commerce (“Commerce”) and the Commission,
The 	investigation 	schedules 	became 	staggered 	when 	Commerce
postponed its final antidumping duty determinations regarding brass rod
from 	Brazil, 	India, 	Israel, 	Mexico, 	and 	South 	Korea 	and 	its 	final
countervailing duty determinations regarding brass rod from Israel and
South Korea (“the trailing investigations”), but did not postpone its final
countervailing 	duty 	determination 	regarding 	brass 	rod 	from 	India.
Commerce published its final determination with respect to brass rod from
India on December 18, 2023. This necessitated that the Commission issue
an earlier final determination in the countervailing duty investigation of brass
rod from India than in the trailing investigations.
Id. at 3; Public Views at I-1–I-2. Additionally, “[t]he investigation schedules became
further staggered when Commerce aligned its countervailing duty investigation
regarding Israel with its antidumping duty investigation regarding Israel and tolled all
deadlines for its antidumping duty investigation regarding Israel by 90 days.” Brass Rod
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 4 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 5
PUBLIC VERSION
from Israel, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-687 and 731-TA-1614 (Final) at 2, USITC Pub. 5545 (Sep.
2024).
Notably, “[p]ursuant to the statutory provision on staggered investigations, the
record for the trailing investigations [was] the same as the record in the countervailing
duty investigation of brass rod from India except that, prior to the Commission’s final
antidumping duty determinations on brass rod from Brazil, India, Israel, Mexico, South
Africa, and South Korea, and its final countervailing duty determinations on brass rod
from Israel and South Korea, the Commission include[d] in the record Commerce’s final
dumping and countervailing duty determinations and the parties’ final comments
concerning those determinations.” Public Views at 3–4. As such, the Views of the
Commission in Brass Rod from India, Inv. No. 701-TA-686 (Final), USITC Pub. 5485
(Feb. 2024), include detailed findings regarding subject imports from Israel.
Ultimately, “Commerce issued its final affirmative determinations in its
antidumping and countervailing duty investigations concerning imports of brass rod from
Israel on August 5, 2024.” Brass Rod from Israel, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-687 and 731-TA-
1614 (Final) at 4, USITC Pub. 5545 (Sep. 2024). After “notification of final
determinations by Commerce that imports of brass rod from Israel were being sold at
LTFV within the meaning of section 735(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(a)) and were
being subsidized by the government of Israel within the meaning of section 705(a) of the
Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(a)),” the Commission provided “notice of the supplemental
scheduling of the final phase of [its] antidumping duty and countervailing duty
investigations regarding brass rod from Israel ….” Brass Rod from Israel, 89 Fed. Reg.
78,330 (USITC Sep. 25, 2024).
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 5 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 6
PUBLIC VERSION
On September 19, 2024, the Commission “completed and filed its determinations
in” the trailing antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of subject
merchandise from Israel. Id. The Commission defined the POI as January 2020 to
September 2023. Public Views at 11. The Commission determined “that an industry in
the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of brass rod from Israel …
that have been found by the U.S. Department of Commerce … to be sold in the United
States at less than fair value … and subsidized by the government of Israel.” Brass Rod
from Israel, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-687 and 731-TA-1614 (Final) at 1, USITC Pub. 5545 (Sep.
2024). 1
The Commission found “that the volume of such imports from Israel is significant
in absolute terms and relative to consumption in the United States, and that the
increase in that volume is significant in absolute terms.” Public Views at 35. The
Commission also “conclude[d] that subject imports from Israel caused significant price
effects.” Id. at 50. Further, the Commission “considered other factors to ensure that [it
was] not attributing injury from other factors to the subject imports from Israel” and
determined “that subject imports from Israel had a significant impact on the domestic
industry.” Id. at 59, 61.
1 Notably, “Section 771(G)(ii)(IV) of the Tarriff Act provides an exception to cumulation
with respect to subject imports from Israel [given the existence of the United States-
Israel Free Trade Agreement] … Thus, where, as here, antidumping or countervailing
duty investigations involve both Israel and other countries, the Commission must first
determine whether a domestic industry is [materially] injured or threatened with material
injury by reason of imports from Israel. If this inquiry is answered in the affirmative, the
imports from Israel are then eligible for cumulation with imports from the other subject
[countries]. If this inquiry is answered in the negative, the Commission cannot cumulate
the imports from Israel.” Public Views at 14.
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 6 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 7
PUBLIC VERSION
On November 22, 2024, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) and
(a)(2)(B)(i), Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking judicial review in this court of final
affirmative injury determinations made by the Commission. Compl. ¶ 2. Defendant-
Intervenors filed a motion to intervene on December 2, 2024. Def.-Ints.’ Consent Mot. to
Intervene. The motion was granted on the same day. Order Granting Def.-Ints.’ Consent
Mot. to Intervene as a Matter of Right, ECF No. 16.
Plaintiff filed its CIT Rule 56.2 motion for judgment on the agency record on May
9, 2025. Pl.’s Public Mot. for J. on Agency R. (“Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 30. Defendant
United States filed its opposition on August 15, 2025. Def.’s Public Mem. in Opp. to Pl.’s
Mot. for J. on Agency R. (“Def.’s Mem.”), ECF No. 34. Defendant-Intervenors filed their
opposition on August 29, 2025. Def.-Ints.’ Public Mem. in Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. for J. on
Agency R., ECF No. 38. Plaintiff filed its reply on September 19, 2025. Pl.’s Public
Reply in Supp. of its Mot. for J. on Agency R. (“Pl.’s Reply”), ECF No. 40. Oral
arguments were held on February 4, 2026. ECF No. 51.
JURISDICTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court has jurisdiction over this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (“The Court of
International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced
under section 516A or 517 of the Tariff Act of 1930.”). This action is commenced under
19 U.S.C. §§ 1516a(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) and (a)(2)(B)(i).
The court will uphold the Commission’s final injury determinations unless they
are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance
with law." 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i); Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, 155
F.4th 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 7 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 8
PUBLIC VERSION
The United States Supreme Court has specified that “substantial evidence is
more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340
U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).
When determining whether an agency action is supported by substantial evidence, the
court “asks whether a reasonable fact finder could have arrived at the agency's decision
….” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In reviewing the Commission’s injury determination, the court “may not reweigh
the evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of the agency.” Usinor v. United
States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1272 (CIT 2004); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
United States, 750 F.2d 927, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. United
States, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1306 (CIT 2006). The Commission “must examine the
relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational
connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Timken United States Corp.
v. United States, 421 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs.
Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)). Thus, “even if it is
possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from evidence in the record, such a
possibility does not prevent [the Commission’s] determination from being supported by
substantial evidence.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (quoting Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States, 261 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir.
2001)).
The court “must consider the record as a whole, including that which fairly
detracts from its weight.” Id. at 1351. However, “when the totality of the evidence does
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 8 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 9
PUBLIC VERSION
not illuminate a black-and-white answer to a disputed issue, it is the role of the expert
factfinder — here the majority of the Presidentially-appointed, Senate-approved
Commissioners — to decide which side’s evidence to believe.” Id. at 1359. Ultimately,
the court will “affirm a Commission determination if it is reasonable and supported by
the record as a whole, even if some evidence detracts from the Commission’s
conclusion.” Altx, Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1108, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting
Atlantic Sugar, Ltd. v. United States, 744 F.2d 1556, 1562–64 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff challenges five elements of the Commission’s determinations as
unsupported by substantial evidence or otherwise not in accordance with law: (1) the
Commission’s treatment of information from outside of the POI in its present material
injury analysis; (2) the Commission’s volume analysis; (3) the Commission’s pricing
analysis; (4) the Commission’s finding of negative impact on the domestic industry; and
(5) the Commission’s non-attribution analysis. The United States (“Defendant”) and
Defendant-Intervenors argue that all challenged elements of the determinations are
supported by substantial evidence or otherwise in accordance with law. Each challenge
is addressed in turn.
I. 	The Commission’s Treatment of Information from Outside of the POI
Was Lawful
Plaintiff argues that the Commission was required to consider information from
outside of the POI, specifically the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, in its
present material injury analysis. Plaintiff argues that the Commission was required to do
so, given: (1) the language of 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(1)(A); and (2) such information was
placed on the record and “seriously undermine[s] … [the] reasoning and conclusion” of
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 9 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 10
PUBLIC VERSION
the Commission. Pl.’s Mot. at 13–17 (quoting Wind Tower Trade Coal. v. United States,
569. F. Supp. 3d 1221, 1248 (CIT 2022)).
A. 	Statutory Requirements
The first issue before the court is whether 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(1)(A) requires
the Commission to consider post-POI data as part of its present material injury
determination.
Plaintiff argues that “[t]he statute requires (in the present tense) the Commission
to determine whether the domestic [industry] ‘is materially injured’ or ‘is threatened with
material injury.’” Pl.’s Mot. at 15 (emphasis in original). In Plaintiff’s view, this means
that “the Commission is not permitted to end its analysis at the end of the POI. Rather,
the statute requires the Commission to make a determination of present material injury,
warranting greater emphasis on events at the end of or after the POI.” Id. at 15–16.2
In Defendant’s view, “[h]aving reasonably selected the January 2020-September
2023 POI and collected data with respect to that POI, the Commission appropriately
relied on [this] data for its determination of present material injury, and not on post-POI
data.” Def.’s Mem. at 16.3
In determining the requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(1)(A), the court is
required “to exercise [its] independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has
acted within its statutory authority ….” Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369
2 At oral argument, Plaintiff appears to have changed course, declaring “the statute itself
does not require expressly the Commission to look at post-POI developments,
absolutely.” Oral Arg. (Feb. 4, 2026) at 21:25–21:32.
3 For this and other issues, Defendant-Intervenor largely echoes Defendant’s
arguments. See Def.-Ints.’ Public Mem. in Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. for J. on Agency R.
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 10 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 11
PUBLIC VERSION
(2024). The court must use the “relevant interpretive tools” to reach “the best reading of
the statute and resolve … ambiguity.” Id. at 373. Those interpretive tools include the
canons of statutory construction. Timex V.I. v. United States, 157 F.3d 879, 882 (Fed.
Cir. 1998) (“Beyond the statute’s text, those ‘tools’ [of statutory construction] include the
statute’s structure, canons of statutory construction, and legislative history.”); Metro.
Area EMS Auth. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affs., 122 F.4th 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
The disposition of this issue turns on the proper interpretation of the phrase “is
injured.” Whether “is” has a continuous or contemporaneous meaning in a sentence is
determined by the words that follow it. 4 Determining the meaning of “is” in the statute
therefore requires turning to the meaning of “injured.” The Oxford English Dictionary
defines “injured” as “wronged” or “hurt, damaged, impaired.” Injured, Oxford English
Dictionary, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/injured_adj (last visited May 21, 2026).
Other dictionaries adopt similar definitions. 5 The statutory pairing of “is” with “injured”
(conjugated in the past tense) means that something or someone can be injured in the
present, even if the event that caused the injury occurred at a discrete moment in the
past.
Given that the phrase “is injured” indicates a continuous state of being, not an
assessment of injury at a singular moment in time, the statute’s use of the phrase “is
4 See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts
140 (2012) (“[w]ords are to be given the meaning that proper grammar and usage would
assign them.”).
5 See, e.g., Injured, Cambridge Dictionary,
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/injured (last visited May 21, 2026)
(similarly defining “injured” as “hurt or physically harmed”).
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 11 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 12
PUBLIC VERSION
injured” does not impose a requirement on the Commission to consider information at a
specific point in time. Thus, Plaintiff’s argument that the statute requires a “greater
emphasis on events at the end of or after the POI” is incorrect. See Pl.’s Mot. at 15-16.
Here, the Commission chose to rely primarily on data collected during the POI
(i.e., January 2020 to September 2023). Public Views at 11. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explained that “the Commission has broad discretion
with respect to the period of investigation that it selects for purposes of making a
material injury determination.” Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed.
Cir. 2005). The court has further noted that “[w]hile [the Commission] has the discretion
to use post-POI data to bolster POI data or to further support its decision, there is no
requirement to include such post-POI data, as the POI is the centerpiece of the
investigation's time frame.” AWP Indus. v. United States, 783 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1282
(CIT 2011). In sum, the Commission’s reliance on POI data does not run counter to the
statute and is reasonable.
B. 	Conditions of Competition and Information on the Record
The next issue is whether the Commission was required to consider information
from outside of the POI because such information impacted the “conditions of
competition” and “seriously undermine[s] [the Commission’s] reasoning and conclusion.”
See Pl.’s Mot. at 14–15 (quoting Wind Tower Trade Coal., 569 F. Supp. 3d at 1248).
Plaintiff argues that “[i]n its determinations, the Commission failed to consider
economic factors in the conditions of competition as required by statute.” Pl.’s Mot. at
15. Per Plaintiff, “[t]he war impacted the conditions of competition by affecting the
operations of the only Israeli producer of subject merchandise and the condition of the
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 12 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 13
PUBLIC VERSION
domestic [industry] at the time of the Commission’s determinations.” Pl.’s Reply at 2
(emphasis in original). Plaintiff argues that “[b]y failing to address the significant factual
information on the record, the Commission ignored ‘significant arguments and evidence
which seriously undermine[s] its reasoning and conclusion[,]’” rendering the
Commission’s determination unsupported by substantial evidence. Pl.’s Mot. at 15.
Defendant counters that “in its discussion of supply constraints affecting various
market participants, the Commission specifically noted Finkelstein’s report that the
Hamas attack and subsequent Gaza war caused shortages and constraints affecting its
production in the post-POI period.” Def.’s Mem. at 15. Further, Defendant argues that
the Commission was only required to address post-POI events as part of its threat of
material injury analysis. Id. at 17–18. Defendant contends that because “[t]he
Commission made a final determination that subject imports from Israel caused present
material injury to the domestic industry … [it] did not have occasion to address in its
Views whether subject imports from Israel threatened material injury to the industry.”
Def.’s Mem. at 15.
The court has explained that “[a]bsent some showing to the contrary, [the
Commission] is presumed to have considered all evidence in the record in making its
determination.” Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Found v. United States, 74 F. Supp.
2d 1353, 1373 (CIT 1999). Further, there is a difference between ignoring record
evidence, as Plaintiff argues, and disagreeing with the Commission’s determination of
the probative value and relevance of that evidence. See SeAH Steel VINA Corp. v.
United States, 950 F.3d 833, 842–43 (Fed. Cir. 2020). This situation falls into the latter
category.
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 13 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 14
PUBLIC VERSION
In its Views, the Commission discussed the Hamas attack on Israel as one of the
“conditions of competition [that] inform our analysis of whether there is material injury by
reason of subject imports.” Public Views at 22, 26. Specifically, the Commission
explained that “Finkelstein states that it did not experience any supply constraints during
the POI. After the end of the POI, Finkelstein reported that the war in Gaza following
Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel caused labor shortages and logistical
constraints that forced it to reduce production of brass rod.” Id. at 26. The Commission
then addressed the supply constraints facing the domestic industry, as well as other
“supply considerations” as part of its discussion of the conditions of competition and the
business cycle. Id. at 22–34.
In making its material injury determination, the Commission expressly noted the
“labor shortages and logistical constraints” caused by the Hamas attack as well as other
supply constraints and conditions of competition related to the Israeli producer of
subject merchandise. Id. at 26. Given these statements, Plaintiff’s argument that the
Commission ignored such evidence falls flat. Plaintiff may be dissatisfied as to the
weight assigned to certain evidence, but such a responsibility “falls exclusively within
the authority of the Commission.” Nippon Steel, 458 F.3d at 1358. The court will not
disturb such calls. See United States Steel Group – a Unit of USX Corp. v. United
States, 96 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
II. 	The Commission’s Volume Analysis Is Not Supported by Substantial
Evidence
The next issue is whether the Commission’s determination that the volume of
subject imports was significant is supported by substantial evidence.
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 14 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 15
PUBLIC VERSION
Plaintiff argues that “[t]he Commission improperly determined that the small
volume of subject imports from Israel was significant,” given that “the increase in subject
import volumes was minor, in absolute terms and relative to apparent U.S. consumption
and domestic production.” Pl.’s Mot. at 17. According to Plaintiff, “in finding that import
volumes from Israel were significant, the majority impermissibly read the word
‘significant’ out of the statute.” Pl.’s Mot. at 20. 6
Defendant argues that “it is … well settled that there is no minimum threshold for
import volumes to be found significant, and that the significance of the volume of
imports may be affected by the conditions of competition for the industry at issue.”
Def.’s Mem. at 20.
6 Plaintiff also argues that the Commission was required to address the significance of a
previous Commission investigation on certain pipe fittings from Israel, which was “raised
… multiple times in briefing during the final phase of the investigations.” Pl.’s Mot. at 19;
see Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from France, India, Israel, Malaysia,
The Republic of Korea, Thailand, The United Kingdom, and Venezuela, Inv. Nos. 701-
TA-360-361 (Final) and 731-TA-688-695 (Final), USITC Pub. 2870 (Apr. 1995) (“Pipe
Fittings”). The court has explained that “the ITC need not address every argument and
piece of evidence, [but] it must address significant arguments and evidence which
seriously undermines its reasoning and conclusions.” Altx, Inc. v. United States, 167 F.
Supp. 2d 1353, 1374 (CIT 2001), aff’d, 370 F.3d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations
omitted). Pipe Fittings predates the underlying investigation in this case by
approximately 30 years and involves a different industry and subject merchandise.
Given these differences, and the sui generis nature of Commission investigations,
Plaintiff has not established the significance of Pipe Fittings would seriously undermine
the Commission’s reasoning in this case. Nucor, 414 F.3d at 1340; see also Cleo Inc. v.
United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“For that reason, prior
determinations by the Commission with regard to one industry typically provide little
guidance for later determinations with regard to different industries. Each of the prior
Commission determinations on which the appellants rely on involved significantly
different facts.”).
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 15 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 16
PUBLIC VERSION
19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i) establishes that “[i]n evaluating the volume of imports
of merchandise, the Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the
merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to
production or consumption in the United States, is significant.” In order “for the
Commission’s findings under section 1677(7)(C)(i) to be supported by substantial
evidence, the Commission must analyze the volume and market share data in the
context of conditions of competition. This is especially crucial where, as here, subject
imports represent a small percentage of market share relative to that held by the
domestic industry.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1335
(CIT 2001). Further, the Commission “must defend its actions based on the reasons it
gave when it acted.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1,
24 (2020).
The Commission’s volume analysis is not supported by substantial evidence.
Specifically, the Commission failed to draw a rational connection between the record
evidence and why subject import volumes were “significant.” See Timken United States
Corp., 421 F.3d at 1355. The Commission offers only a conclusory statement “that the
volume of subject imports from Israel is significant in absolute terms and relative to
consumption in the United States, and that the increase in that volume is significant in
absolute terms.” Public Views at 35.
The Commission fails to link its conclusion regarding the significance of the
volume of subject imports to the conditions of competition of the affected industry. See
Confidential Views of the Commission, ECF No. 21-1 (“Conf. Views”) at 45–46, CR 232;
Public Views at 34–35. The relevant section of the Views summarizes metrics regarding
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 16 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 17
PUBLIC VERSION
Confidential Information Omitted
the volume of subject imports, absolute and relative to consumption, without sufficient
analysis. Id. The recitation of metrics does not provide a sufficient basis for evaluating
whether the volume of subject imports was “significant,” particularly when such imports
represent a small percentage of market share relative to that held by the domestic
industry.
Here, the volume of subject imports ranged from [[ 	]] pounds in 2020
to [[ 	]] pounds in 2021 and [[ 	]] pounds in 2022. Conf. Views at 45;
Public Views at 34. In contrast, the domestic industry’s production volume ranged from
[[ 	]] pounds in 2020 to [[ 	]] pounds in 2021 and [[
]] pounds in 2022. Conf. Views at 68; Public Views at 51. In other words, the
volume of subject imports accounted for less than [[ 	]] percent of the comparable
volume of domestic production during this period.
The Commission also found that the market share of subject imports from Israel
ranged from [[ 	]] percent at the beginning of the POI in 2020 to [[ 	]] percent in
2022. Conf. Views at 46; Public Views at 34. In contrast, the domestic industry’s market
share ranged from [[ 	]] percent in 2020 to [[ 	]] percent in 2022. Conf. Views at
29–30; Public Views at 23-24. When Finkelstein noted the contrast between the market
share of subject imports and that of the domestic industry, the Commission summarily
dismissed these arguments by asserting that “there is no minimum threshold for the
market share or increase to be ‘significant’ under the statute.” Conf. Views at 46, n.189;
Public Views at 35, n.189.
Defendant is correct that the statute does not define the term “significant,” nor
does it impose a minimum threshold for a finding that subject imports are significant.
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 17 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 18
PUBLIC VERSION
Confidential Information Omitted
See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i). However, the Commission cannot use this statutory
silence as a justification for failing to provide a reasoned analysis of its conclusions.
Defendant’s proffered explanation as to the sufficiency of the Commission’s volume
analysis is a post-hoc rationalization. Defendant contends that “the conditions of
competition in the U.S. brass rod market found by the Commission support its
conclusion that the volume of subject imports from Israel was significant[,]” citing the
Commission’s findings regarding product substitutability, price as a factor in purchasing
decisions, price transparency, and price sensitivity. Def.’s Mem. at 21. Such an
explanation is missing from the Views.
On remand, the Commission must provide an adequate explanation of whether
the volume of subject imports, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms
or relative to apparent consumption, is significant. As part of its explanation, the
Commission must examine the volume of subject imports in the context of the
conditions of competition, particularly as subject imports represent a [[
]] share of the market than the domestic industry.
III. 	The Commission’s Pricing Analysis Is Supported by Substantial
Evidence
Plaintiff argues that the Commission’s pricing analysis is unsupported by
substantial evidence and otherwise not in accordance with law because: (1) “the
[Commission] attempted to adjust the pricing data to account for price differences
distinct to the channels of distribution, but in so doing, the majority failed to quantify the
true net price to the Petitioners, undermining the comparison of domestic prices to
subject import prices”; and (2) “the [Commission] improperly found that subject imports
caused negative price effects.” Pl.’s Mot. at 22–23, 27.
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 18 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 19
PUBLIC VERSION
A. Pricing Data Adjustment
The court next turns to whether the Commission’s decision to use a price-based
adjustment is supported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff argues that the Commission’s choice of a price-based adjustment is
unsupported by substantial evidence because the Commission “unreasonably rejected”
the use of a “cost-based adjustment” and “substantial evidence supports using a cost-
based adjustment.” Pl.’s Mot. at 26 –27.
Defendant argues that “[t]he Commission reasonably found that, notwithstanding
some limitations, including limitations in the available data, the price-based adjustment
… was the most reliable approach.” Def.’s Mem. at 24.
Under 19 U.S.C § 1677(7)(C)(ii)(I), when “evaluating the effect of imports of …
merchandise on prices,” the Commission must consider whether “there has been
significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price
of domestic like products of the United States.” To conduct an underselling analysis, the
Commission may have to adjust price data. This may require the Commission to choose
among adjustment methodologies. See, e.g., Nucor Corp. v. United States, 318 F.
Supp. 2d 1207, 1256–1257 (CIT 2004).
Under the substantial evidence standard, “[w]hen evaluating challenges to the
[Commission’s] methodology, the court will affirm the chosen methodology as long as it
is reasonable.” Coal. of Gulf Shrimp. Indus. v. United States, 71 F. Supp. 3d 1356, 1365
(CIT 2015); see, e.g., United States Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1362.
In this case, the Commission explained that an adjustment to the pricing data
was necessary to account for the fact that brass rod is sold through multiple channels of
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 19 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 20
PUBLIC VERSION
distribution. Public Views at 17–18, 42 –44. The Commission decided to use a price-
based adjustment to calculate the cost of domestic goods for its underselling analysis.
Id. at 42–44.
The Commission provided an explanation of why it chose to use a price-based
adjustment and why this choice was reasonable, noting:
the most reliable approach to adjusting domestic prices on sales to end users
using scrap buyback programs for purposes of comparing them to subject
import prices on sales to end users not through such programs is the price-
based adjustment presented in Table F-2 of the Commission report, which
reflects the price “premium” paid to U.S. brass rod producers by customers
participating in the scrap buyback program relative to the prices paid to
distributors and end users not using scrap buyback.
Id. at 42 –43. The Commission “acknowledge[d] that this approach has certain
limitations” but addressed why the concerns Finkelstein raised with the price-based
adjustment methodology were unfounded and why the approach was more reliable than
Finkelstein’s preferred methodology. Conf. Views at 57–58, n. 226, Public Views at 43–
44, n. 226.
The Commission also provided an explanation of why it opted not to adopt a
cost-based adjustment methodology, including arguments regarding the approach
advocated by Finkelstein in the underlying proceeding, and by Plaintiff here. Public
Views at 42–44. Specifically, the Commission explained that Finkelstein’s preferred
cost-based approach does not take into account all the cost savings to U.S.
producers in purchasing scrap with their company’s own “chemistry" and
known quality directly from their customers participating in the scrap
buyback program, as opposed to purchasing scrap from middlemen in the
open market … [T]he approach advocated by Finkelstein assumes a
uniform scrap yield, regardless of source or product to be manufactured,
when in fact scrap yields can considerably vary from product to product and
from end user to end user.
Id. at 42.
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 20 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 21
PUBLIC VERSION
It is not the court’s role to second-guess agency decision-making so long as the
agency provides a reasoned analysis for its choices after considering the full gambit of
record evidence, including those facts that detract from its findings. See Motor Vehicle
Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43; Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365,
1369–1370 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Mittal Steel Galati S.A. v. United States, 502 F. Supp. 2d
1295, 1313 (CIT 2007). Here, the Commission provided an explanation for its choice of
a price-based adjustment methodology, which included addressing arguments and
information that detracted from its conclusion. As such, the Commission’s choice of
methodology is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in
accordance with law.
B. Price Effects
The next issue is whether the Commission’s finding that subject imports caused
negative price effects is supported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff argues that “the record contradicts the Commission’s finding that the
small volume of subject imports from Israel that undersold domestic product caused
adverse price effects.” Pl.’s Mot. at 28. 7 Specifically, Plaintiff contends that “[t]he record
does not support a finding of significant price suppression ....” Id.
7 Plaintiff also argues that “[t]he Commission did not explain its departure from past
practice that there must be more than underselling; underselling must affect the prices
for or volume of the domestic like product.” Pl.’s Mot. at 27 (emphasis added). However,
in the next paragraph of its motion, Plaintiff quotes the Commission’s determination that
“subject imports from Israel undersold the domestic like product to a significant degree,
leading to a market share shift from the domestic industry to subject imports from Israel
from 2020 to 2022, and prevented price increases, which otherwise would have
occurred, to a significant degree.” Id. at 28 (emphasis added). Given that Plaintiff
concedes their own argument by quoting to the Commission’s explanation of a link
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 21 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 22
PUBLIC VERSION
Defendant contends that the Commission’s finding “that the significant
underselling it found by subject imports from Israel prevented price increases, which
otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree” is supported by substantial
evidence. Def.’s Mem. at 29.
19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii)(II) requires the Commission to consider if “the effect of
imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or
prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant
degree.”8 The statute does not direct the Commission on what factors to consider in
determining whether price depression or suppression have occurred, nor does it define
the term significant. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii)(II).
While “a reviewing court must take into account contradictory evidence or any
evidence in the record that undermines the agency’s finding, the substantial evidence
test does not require that there be an absence of evidence detracting from the agency’s
conclusion, nor is there an absence of substantial evidence simply because the
reviewing court would have reached a different conclusion based on the same record.”
Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1296; Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378,
1385 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“An agency finding may still be supported by substantial
evidence even if two inconsistent conclusions can be drawn from the evidence.”)
between its finding of underselling and underselling’s effect on prices, the court deems
the issue no longer in dispute.
8 Given that the Commission did not make a price depression finding, Plaintiff only
challenges the Commission’s finding of price suppression. Pl.’s Mot. at 28.
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 22 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 23
PUBLIC VERSION
Confidential Information Omitted
Here, the Commission provided an explanation for its finding of price
suppression, which included a rational connection between the facts and its conclusion.
Relying on purchaser questionnaire responses to support its findings, the Commission
explained that “[[ 	]] U.S. purchaser [[ 	]] reported that U.S.
producers had reduced prices in order to compete with lower-priced subject imports
from Israel, for an estimated price reduction of [[ 	]] percent due to competition with
low-priced imports from Israel.” Conf. Views at 62; Public Views at 47. The Commission
went on to highlight that “the third largest responding purchaser of domestic product,
reported buying [[ 	]] pounds of subject imports from Israel instead of
domestic product primarily due to the lower prices of the imports ….” Conf. Views at 62–
63; Public Views at 47. Based on this explanation, a reasonable mind could have
reached the conclusion that underselling of subject imports led to significant price
suppression. See Universal Camera Corp., 340 U.S. at 477.
The Commission also addressed significant evidence and arguments that could
have undermined its conclusions. Specifically, the Commission addressed two
arguments raised by Finkelstein, and that largely continue to be raised by Plaintiff here:
(1) “that the volume of any lost sales as a result of underselling by subject imports from
Israel is too small to have caused any cost-price squeeze experienced by the domestic
industry”; and (2) “that the increase in the domestic industry’s COGS [cost of goods
sold] to net sales ratio over the POI was not significant … and that the increase
between 2020 and 2021 was due to an abnormally low COGS to net sales ratio in 2020,
as the COVID-19 pandemic initially caused raw material costs to drop significantly while
brass rod prices increased.” Public Views at 48–49.
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 23 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 24
PUBLIC VERSION
Confidential Information Omitted
In response to each of Finkelstein’s arguments, the Commission cited record
evidence to underscore why these arguments were unpersuasive. Conf. Views at 63–
66; Public Views at 48–50. In response to Finkelstein’s first argument, the Commission
found that:
The record indicates that the U.S. brass market has substantial price
transparency, with both Mueller and Wieland selling brass rod off published
price lists that they revise frequently to take into account developments in
the market. Given the price sensitivity of the U.S. market for brass rod,
domestic producers report that lost sales to subject imports from Israel
prompt a downward revision to their price lists, or a forgoing of price
increases necessary to cover increases in their costs, to avoid further lost
sales to their competitors. In either case, the domestic producer's price
reductions, or forgone price increases, affect their sales prices to all of their
customers using the price lists, and accordingly affect their revenues from
sales to those customers.
Public Views at 48.
The Commission also responded to Finkelstein’s argument regarding the COGS
to net sales ratio, noting that:
Contrary to this argument, the record shows that the domestic industry’s
brass rod prices declined from the first quarter to the second quarter of
2020, and prices of copper, zinc, and yellow brass scrap also declined. Both
the domestic industry’s prices and raw material prices increased during the
third and fourth quarters of 2020, but raw material prices increased by a
greater percentage than the domestic industry's prices between the first and
fourth quarters of 2020. Thus … the [[ 	]] percentage point increase in
the domestic industry’s non-toll COGS to net sales ratio from 2020 to 2021
cannot be explained by anomalously low cost and high price conditions in
2020.
Conf. Views at 65–66; Public Views at 49–50.
Given that the Commission drew a rational connection between record evidence
and its conclusions, and addressed counterarguments, its finding that subject imports
caused significant negative price effects is supported by substantial evidence and
otherwise in accordance with law. See Universal Camera Corp., 340 U.S. at 477.
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 24 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 25
PUBLIC VERSION
IV. 	The Commission’s Finding of a Negative Impact on the Domestic
Industry Is Supported by Substantial Evidence
The court turns next to whether the Commission’s finding that “subject imports
from Israel had a significant negative impact on the domestic industry” is supported by
substantial evidence. Pl.’s Mot. at 30.
Plaintiff argues that “[t]he majority relied on isolated data points to support its
determinations[,]” did not “engage with … clear indicators of the domestic industry’s
success during the POI,” and thus “fail[ed] to take into account record evidence that
fairly detracts from its conclusions,” rendering the “impact analysis … not supported by
substantial evidence.” Pl.’s Mot. at 31 –32.
Defendant argues that the Commission’s finding of significant impact is
supported by substantial evidence. Defendant supports this contention by noting that
“[t]he Commission discussed all relevant indicators of the domestic industry’s
performance during the POI, including those that improved or were unchanged.” Def.’s
Mem. at 34.
Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(i)(III), the Commission must consider “the impact
of imports of such merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but
only in the context of production operations within the United States[.]” The statute
specifies several factors that the Commission is required to evaluate in its impact
analysis. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 9
9 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii) states that the Commission must “evaluate all relevant
economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,
including, but not limited to— (I) actual and potential decline in output, sales, market
share, gross profits, operating profits, net profits, ability to service debt, productivity,
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 25 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 26
PUBLIC VERSION
The Commission retains discretion in how it chooses to weigh these statutory
factors. Am. Bearing Mfrs. Ass’n v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1123 (CIT
2004) (Plaintiff’s “arguments go to the weight the [Commission] assigned to the
observed declines in several of the statutory factors[.] … This assignment of weight,
however, is within the [Commission’s] discretion.”); see United States Steel Group, 96
F.3d at 1357 (“It is the Commission’s task to evaluate the evidence it collects during its
investigation. Certain decisions, such as the weight to be assigned a particular piece of
evidence, lie at the core of that evaluative process.”); see generally Nucor Corp v.
United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (CIT 2008).
Here, the Commission considered the statutorily required factors. Conf. Views at
67–82; Public Views at 50–61. Among other evidence, the Commission found, and
supported with record evidence, the fact that:
(1) “The domestic industry’s capacity was flat from 2020 to 2022[,] while the
industry's production quantity and capacity utilization increased irregularly,
but all were lower in interim 2023 than in interim 2022”;
(2) “The domestic industry’s overall employment remained generally stable
between 2020 and 2022, while its hours worked and wages paid increased,
but its productivity declined”;
(3) “The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments increased irregularly from 2020
to 2022[,] but were lower in interim 2023 than in interim 2022”;
return on investments, return on assets, and utilization of capacity, (II) factors affecting
domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories,
employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and
potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the
domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of
the domestic like product, and (V) in a proceeding under part II of this subtitle, the
magnitude of the margin of dumping.”
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 26 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 27
PUBLIC VERSION
Confidential Information Omitted
(4) “The domestic industry’s net sales value and gross profit increased
irregularly from 2020 to 2022, but were lower in interim 2023 than in interim
2022”;
(5) 	“The 	industry’s 	operating 	income 	and 	net 	income 	both 	declined
irregularly from 2020 to 2022, but were higher in interim 2023 than in interim
2022”;
(6) “The domestic industry’s operating income and net income as shares of
net sales both decreased each year between 2020 and 2022, but were
higher in interim 2023 than in interim 2022”; and
(7) “The domestic industry’s capital expenditures increased irregularly from
2020 to 2022 ….”
Conf. Views at 67–72; Public Views at 51–54. The Commission further established that
“[t]he domestic industry’s financial data on a non-toll basis showed similar declines
between 2020 and [2022] in non-toll net income, non-toll operating income, and the
ratios of non-toll net income and operating income to net sales.” Conf. Views at 72;
Public Views at 54.
The Commission subsequently exercised its discretion in choosing the factors
most relevant to its finding of significant impact and explained what those factors
indicated about the state of the industry. The Commission found that “[t]he domestic
industry recorded increases in production and U.S. shipments between 2020 and 2022,
but those increases lagged behind the [[ 	]] percent increase in apparent U.S.
consumption, and the industry’s market share and most financial indicators declined.”
Conf. Views at 67; Public Views at 51.
The Commission also addressed significant arguments and evidence that ran
counter to its findings. Conf. Views at 67–82; Public Views at 50–61. Specifically, the
Commission responded to Finkelstein’s broad contention “that the domestic industry
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 27 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 28
PUBLIC VERSION
was not materially injured because some of its performance indicators increased from
2020 to 2022” by noting that “the record shows that the industry failed to fully benefit
from the increase in apparent U.S. consumption and its overall financial performance
deteriorated by some measures as it lost market share and sales to low-priced subject
imports from Israel which also had significant price-suppressing effects.” Public Views at
56.
In reviewing a finding of negative impact by the Commission, “[i]t is not the
province of the [c]ourt to reweigh the evidence before the agency. That said, the agency
must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action
including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Nucor,
594 F. Supp. 2d at 1332 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Having provided
satisfactory explanations, a reasonable mind could conclude that the domestic industry
was significantly negatively impacted by subject imports. As such, the court will not
disturb the Commission’s finding. See Universal Camera Corp., 340 U.S. at 477.
V. 	The Commission’s Non-attribution Analysis Is Supported by Substantial
Evidence
The final issue is whether the Commission’s finding that the domestic industry
was materially injured by reason of subject imports from Israel is supported by
substantial evidence.
Plaintiff contends that the Commission “improperly attributed changes in the
domestic industry’s performance to subject imports from Israel” by failing to account for
“alternative causes of decreased domestic industry market share,” including “that supply
constraints injured the domestic industry.” Pl.’s Mot. at 36–37 (original capitalizations
omitted). Plaintiff also argues that the Commission failed to address the impact of
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 28 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 29
PUBLIC VERSION
“increased market share by lower-priced imports from countries other than Israel.” Id. at
37.
Defendant argues that “the Commission fully explained the causal nexus it found
between subject imports from Israel and the injury to the domestic industry ….” Def.’s
Mem. at 39. Defendant argues that the Commission “addressed … domestic industry
supply constraints, imports from sources other than Israel, and demand trends during
the POI” and “found that none of these factors explained the injury that the Commission
attributed to subject imports from Israel, and that subject imports from Israel had a
significant impact on the domestic industry that was distinct from the impact of imports
from other sources.” Id.
To make an affirmative material injury determination in an antidumping or
countervailing duty case, the Commission is required to find that the domestic industry
“is materially injured” “by reason of” subject merchandise. 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(1); 19
U.S.C. § 1671d(b)(1). While the Commission is required to find a causal link between
the injury and dumping of subject merchandise, the Federal Circuit has specified that
“the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of injury. As long as its effects are
not merely incidental, tangential or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value
meets the causation requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 345 F.3d
1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716,
721–722 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The same is true of subsidized goods. See Changzhou Trina
Solar Energy Co., Ltd. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 879 F.3d 1377, 1380–1383
(Fed. Cir. 2018).
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 29 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 30
PUBLIC VERSION
Confidential Information Omitted
Establishing this causal link may require the Commission to address other
potential sources of material injury to the domestic industry. However,
To say that an affirmative determination must be based on evidence that
the injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports does not
require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular
way[.] … The Commission is simply required to give full consideration to the
causation issue and to provide a meaningful explanation of its conclusions.
Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 878 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Therefore, the court’s “review of the Commission’s causation analysis … is … limited to
whether the Commission complied with certain minimum requirements imposed by
statutory provisions and principles of administrative law.” Id. at 873.
Here, the Commission sufficiently addressed significant arguments about the
impact of supply constraints, or lack thereof, on the domestic industry. Conf. Views at
75–77, 81–82; Public Views at 56–57, 60. As part of this discussion, the Commission
directly addressed, and dismissed, arguments regarding domestic producers’ inability to
meet domestic demand increase:
Although the domestic industry experienced supply constraints in 2021 as
a result of the COVD-19 pandemic, so did importers and foreign producers,
and purchasers reported that the domestic industry no longer had such
supply 	constraints 	in 	2022. 	Moreover, 	large 	majorities 	of 	purchasers
reported that the domestic industry was comparable or superior to subject
imports from Israel in terms of availability, delivery time, and reliability of
supply. 	… 	Furthermore, 	the 	domestic 	industry’s 	production 	quantity
declined from 2021 to 2022 and its capacity utilization rate was only [[ 	]]
percent in 2022, suggesting that the industry had ample unused capacity
with which the industry could have increased its production and U.S.
shipments.
Conf. Views at 77; Public Views at 57.
The Commission also sufficiently addressed arguments about injury caused by
market share gain from lower priced imports from countries other than Israel. The
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 30 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 31
PUBLIC VERSION
Commission acknowledged that “imports from sources other than Israel gained more
market share during the 2020-2022 period” than those from Israel and “that cumulated
imports from the other five subject countries also undersold the domestic like product,
and gained sales and market share at the expense of the domestic industry.” Public
Views at 59. However, the Commission found that, “[w]hile other subject import sources
may also have been sources of pricing pressure for the domestic industry, this does not
negate the pricing pressure on the domestic industry … identified from subject imports
from Israel.” Id. The Commission went on to support this assertion with extensive
citation to the record, including purchaser response data. Conf. Views at 79–81; Public
Views at 59–60.
Having provided a rational connection between the evidence on the record and
its findings, a reasonable mind could conclude that the domestic industry was injured by
reason of subject imports from Israel. As such, the court will not disturb the
Commission’s finding. See Universal Camera Corp., 340 U.S. at 477.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission’s final affirmative material injury
determinations are sustained in part and remanded in part for further proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion.
Upon consideration of the papers and proceedings herein, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Commission’s final affirmative material injury determinations
are remanded in part for reconsideration not inconsistent with this opinion;
ORDERED that the Commission shall file a remand redetermination within sixty
(60) days following the date of this Opinion and Order; and
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 31 of 32

Court No. 24-00197 	Page 32
PUBLIC VERSION
ORDERED that the deadlines provided in CIT Rule 56.2(h) shall govern
thereafter.
/s/ 	Lisa W. Wang
Lisa W. Wang, Judge
Dated:
New York, New York
June 8, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-00197-LWW Document 56 Filed 07/08/26 Page 32 of 32