Full opinion text
OPINION RIDGWAY, Judge. In this action, Plaintiff Committee For Fairly Traded Venezuelan Cement (“Venezuelan Cement”) contests the five-year “sunset” review determination of the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) that termination of the suspended antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of gray port-land cement and cement clinker from Venezuela would not likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion for judgment upon the agency record is denied. I. Background On May 21, 1991, Venezuelan Cement filed a petition with the Commission and the International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”), alleging that an industry in the United States was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of gray portland cement and cement clinker imported from Venezuela at less than fair value. Complaint ¶ 7. After conducting preliminary investigations, the Commission determined that there was a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States was being materially injured by reason of imports from Venezuela. See Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Venezuela, 56 Fed.Reg. 32,589 (July 17, 1991) (import investigation); Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Venezuela, USITC Pub. 2400, Inv. Nos. 303-TA-21 and 731-TA-519 (July 1991) (prelim. determinations and investigation information). See also Complaint ¶ 7. Commerce issued affirmative preliminary determinations in its antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of cement from Venezuela. See Gray Port-land Cement and Clinker from Venezuela, 56 Fed.Reg. 56,390 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 4,1991) (notice of preliminary determinations of sales at less than fair value) (finding dumping margins for certain Venezuelan exporters: 50.02 % for Cementos Caribe (“Caribe”), 49.20% for Venezolana de Cementos (“Vencemos”), and 49.26% for “all others”); Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Venezuela, 56 Fed.Reg. 41,522 (Dep’t Commerce Aug. 21, 1991) (preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determination) (finding countervaila-ble subsidies benefitting Caribe and Vencemos). See also Complaint ¶ 7. Based on suspension agreements with Venezuela, Commerce suspended the anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations of gray portland cement and cement clinker from Venezuela. See Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Venezuela, 57 Fed.Reg. 6706 (Dep’t Commerce Feb. 27, 1992) (suspension of antidumping investigation); Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Venezuela, 57 Fed.Reg. 9242 (Dep’t Commerce Mar. 17, 1992) (suspension of countervailing duty investigation). See also Complaint ¶ 9. Effective January 1, 1995, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), Pub.L. No. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809 § 220 (1994), added a requirement in section 751(c) of the Act, which obligates the Commission and Commerce to conduct five-year “sunset” reviews of countervailing duty orders, antidumping orders, and notices suspending investigations. See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(1)(A) (2000). The present action involves the Commission’s determination whether termination of the notices suspending the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy ... and of material injury.” 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(1)(A) (2000). As stated by the Statement of Administrative Action to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (“SAA”), a document expressly approved by Congress in relation to the URAA, “[t]he recurrence of material injury standard is prospective in nature.” SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 884 (1994), reprinted, in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4209. See also Pl.’s Brief at 10. On August 2, 1999, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(1)(A), Commerce and the Commission published their respective notices initiating and instituting its “sunset” review of the suspended antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of subject imports from Venezuela. Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Japan, Mexico, and Venezuela, 64 Fed.Reg. 41,-915 (Dep’t Commerce Aug. 2, 1999) (initiation of five-year reviews); Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Japan, Mexico, and Venezuela, 64 Fed.Reg. 41,958 (Aug. 2, 1999) (institution of five-year reviews). See Complaint ¶ 11. The Commission published notice of its schedule of reviews and of a public hearing to be held on August 15, 2000 in connection with the reviews. Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Japan, Mexico, and Venezuela, 65 Fed.Reg. 17,901 (Apr. 5, 2000). After conducting a regional industry analysis pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(C), the Commission published notice of its final negative determination that “termination of the suspended investigations on gray portland cement and cement clinker from Venezuela would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.” Gray Portland, Cement and Cement Clinker from Japan, Mexico, and Venezuela, 65 Fed.Reg. 65,327 (Nov. 1, 2000). See also Commission Views. See generally Complaint ¶ 13. In a regional industry analysis, the Commission may find “material injury, the threat of material injury, or material retardation of the establishment of an industry ... even if the domestic industry as a whole ... is not injured.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(C) (2000). The Commission must satisfy three prerequisites before reaching an affirmative determination in a regional industry analysis. Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 17 CIT 428, 432, 822 F.Supp. 773, 777 (1993) (“Texas Crushed Stone I”), aff'd, 35 F.3d 1535 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“Texas Crushed Stone II”). With respect to the first prerequisite, i.e., a regional industry satisfying the requirements of section 1677(4)(C), the Commission determined that “the record again supports finding three separate regional industries, which correspond, or are similar, to those defined in the original investigations.” Commission Views at 17. See generally 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(C) (2000). As a result, the Commission found that “a regional industry exists for the State of Florida region.” Id. at 23. See also Commission Views at 15-18, 22-23 (discussing and applying the requirements of section 1677(4)(C) for a regional industry). However, the Commission majority found that the record did not satisfy the second prerequisite, i.e., a concentration of dumped imports into the regional market. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(C) (2000) (requiring, inter alia, “a concentration of dumped imports or imports of merchandise benefiting from a countervailable subsidy into ... an isolated market”). Instead, it found that “subject imports from Venezuela into the Florida region are not likely to account for a substantial proportion of total U.S. imports of cement from Venezuela in the reasonably foreseeable future if the suspended investigations are terminated.” Commission Views at 30. See also Complaint ¶ 20. See generally Commission Views at 26-30. The Commission then concluded in its prospective analysis that “termination of the suspended ... investigations would.not be likely to lead continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to [19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2) ]” and ordered the termination of the suspended investigations on subject imports from Venezuela. Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Venezuela, 65 Fed.Reg. 68,974 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 15, 2000) (final determination). See Commission Views at 27-30; Complaint ¶ 14. See generally 19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2) (2000) (addressing termination of suspended investigations); SAA at 891-92 (same). While Commissioner Miller determined that there was sufficient evidence to satisfy the import concentration criteria, she declined to cumulate the likely volume and effect of imports from Venezuela and Mexico into Florida if the suspended agreements were terminated. C.D. 193, Separate Views of Commissioner Marcia E. Miller (Oct. 27, 2000) (“Separate Views”) at 78-79. See Complaint ¶¶ 27-28. In its USCIT R. 56.2 motion for judgment upon the agency record, Venezuelan Cement contests the Commission’s final negative determination. Specifically, Venezuelan Cement challenges: 1). the Commission majority’s finding that subject imports in the Florida region are not likely to satisfy the concentration standard if the suspended antidumping and countervailing duty investigations are terminated; 2). the Commission’s finding that subject imports in the Florida region are unlikely to increase in the reasonable future if the suspended investigations are terminated; and 3). Commissioner Miller’s decision not to cumulate subject imports from Venezuela and Mexico. Complaint ¶¶21, 24, 28-29. II. Jurisdiction This action is brought pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). As a preliminary matter, the Government raises an issue of exhaustion. The Government claims that Venezuelan Cement is barred from arguing that “Congress changed, and in effect lowered, the standard for the import concentration criterion primarily considered by the Commission in past practice” for the first time on appeal. Def.’s Response Brief at 3, 31. See also Tr. at 33, 38, 46-47. Specifically, the Government objects to Venezuelan Cement’s argument that “[t]he standard is now stated to be whether regional imports account for a ‘substantial proportion’ of national imports ... plainly indicating] that import concentration can be found where far less than 50 percent of imports enter the region.” Pl.’s Brief at 33. See also id. (“This new standard supersedes the Commission’s prior practice.”). According to the Government, Venezuelan Cement did not raise this argument at the agency level, there by failing to exhaust its administrative remedies. See Def.’s Response Brief at 3, 31-38. See generally Plaintiffs Reply Brief in Support of Motion For Judgment on the Agency Record (“Pl.’s Reply Brief’) at 22-29 (contesting Government’s claim); Tr. at 90-93 (same). Generally, courts have recognized that “a litigant may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal.” See, e.g., Cemex S.A. v. United States, 16 CIT 251, 258, 790 F.Supp. 290, 296 (1992) (subseq. history omitted); Wieland Werke, A.G. v. United States, 13 CIT 561, 567, 718 F.Supp. 50, 55 (1989). Indeed, “[t]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies generally requires that a party present a claim at the agency level prior to raising it before the court.” Usinor Industeel v. United States, No. 01-00006, 2002 WL 31864771, *4, n. 12, 2002 Ct. Int'l. Trade LEXIS 151, at *17 n. 12 (Dec. 20, 2002) (citing Pacific Giant, Inc. v. United States, 26 CIT-, 223 F.Supp.2d 1336 (2002); Sandvik Steel Co. v. United States, 164 F.3d 596, 599 (Fed.Cir.1998)). However, it is within the Court’s discretion to require the exhaustion of administrative remedies “where appropriate.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2637(d)(2000). See, e.g., Budd Co., Wheel & Brake Div. v. United States, 15 CIT 446, 452 n. 2, 773 F.Supp. 1549, 1555 n. 2 (1991) (listing “examples of cases where the Court has not required exhaustion of administrative remedies”). In the present case, it appears that Venezuelan Cement formulated its “substantial proportion” argument at the agency level based on Congress’s own language regarding the standard for import concentration. SAA at 860. See Pl.’s Reply Brief at 22-29. Indeed, Venezuelan Cement interpreted the standard for import concentration as requiring “(1) the import penetration in the region [that] is ‘clearly higher’ than the import penetration outside the region and (2) subject imports in the region [that] are a ‘substantial proportion’ of total subject imports into the United States.” Pl.’s Reply Brief, Exh. B (C.D. 127, Prehearing Brief on Behalf of the Domestic Industry, Inv. Nos. 303-TA-21 (Review) and 731-TA-451, 461, and 519 (Review)) at 29 (quoting SAA at 860). See also Pl.’s Reply Brief at 23-24. Even the Government acknowledges that Venezuelan Cement contended at the agency level that “Florida imports accounted for a substantial share of national imports-averaging 54 percent of national imports during 1997-1999” and that the import concentration standard was satisfied. Def.’s Response Brief at 32-33 (quoting C.D. 127, Prehearing Brief at 32). See Pl.’s Reply Brief at 24-25. See also P.D. 170, Posthearing Brief on Behalf of the Domestic Industry, Inv. Nos. 303-TA-21 (Review) and 731-TA-451, 461, and 519 (Review) at 23 (arguing that “Florida ... accounted for a ‘substantial proportion of total subject imports entering the United States’-54 percent”) (citations omitted). However, the Government claims that Venezuelan Cement “never argued, as it does now, that the criterion had been substantially revised.” Def.’s Response Brief at 32 (citing P.D. 154, Hearing Transcript at 110-11). But in its pre-hearing brief to the Commission, Venezuelan Cement did present its claim that Congress had since clarified the standard for finding a concentration of subject imports in the regional industry. C.D. 127, Prehearing Brief at 28-29 (citing SAA at 860; H. Rep. 103-826, Pt. 1, at 66 (1994); S. Rep. 103-412 at 53-54 (1994)) (emphasis added). Even so, [wjhile a plaintiff cannot circumvent the requirements of the doctrine of exhaustion by merely mentioning a broad issue without raising a particular argument, [the] plaintiffs brief statement of the argument is sufficient if it alerts the agency to the argument with reasonable clarity and avails the agency with an opportunity to address it. Timken Co. v. United States, 25 CIT-, -, 166 F.Supp.2d 608, 628 (2001). See generally Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 557, 61 S.Ct. 719, 85 L.Ed. 1037 (1941); Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi S.A. v. United States, 25 CIT -, -, 155 F.Supp.2d 801, 806 (2001); Rhone Poulenc, S.A. v. United States, 7 CIT 133, 134-35, 583 F.Supp. 607, 609-10 (1984) (subseq. history omitted). In any event, the Government has suffered no prejudice as a result of Venezuelan Cement’s alleged failure to make the specific assertion that Congress had revised its import concentration criterion. See, e.g., Saarstahl A.G. v. United States, 20 CIT 1413, 1420-21, 949 F.Supp. 863, 868-69 (noting the “exception to the exhaustion requirement set forth in Timken and Rhone Poulenc-that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required when plaintiff raises a new argument purely legal in nature which requires no further agency involvement”) (citing Timken Co. v. United States, 15 CIT 658, 659-60, 779 F.Supp. 1402, 1404-05 (1991); Rhone Poulenc, S.A., 7 CIT at 137-38, 583 F.Supp. at 611-12, aff'd, 177 F.3d 1314 (Fed.Cir. 1999)). The agency’s interpretation of the import concentration standard under section 1677(4)(C) is clearly at the heart of the dispute presented here. See, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 17-18, 21-22, 24-25. The Government expresses its concern that Venezuelan Cement’s argument “would have this Court rewrite both Commission practice and legislative history to serve [its] interests.” Def.’s Response Brief at 33. But Venezuelan Cement’s claim that the “new standard supersedes the Commission’s prior practice” is part and parcel of its interpretation of the import concentration standard, as expressed in the SAA and legislative history of section 1677(4)(C). Pl.’s Brief at 33. See also Def.’s Response Brief at 33. If Venezuelan Cement’s overarching arguments with respect to the import concentration standard fail, its claim that Congress “revised” the standard necessarily fails as well. See, e.g., Rhone Poulenc, S.A., 7 CIT at 136, 583 F.Supp. at 610-11 (“It appears to the court that had plaintiffs raised the alternative argument different results would not have materialized in the administrative proceedings. There is no reason to believe that [this alternative argument] would have served any useful function in this case.”). Accordingly, exhaustion of administrative remedies is neither necessary nor appropriate here. III. Standard of Review An agency determination may be overturned if it is “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i) (2000). “[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, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). Even if two inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence, the agency interpretation may be supported by substantial evidence. Consolo v. Fed. Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966). Furthermore, “[t]he Commission’s decision does not depend on the ‘weight’ of the evidence, but rather on the expert judgment of the Commission based on the evidence of record.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 933 (Fed.Cir.1984). Therefore, “[t]he court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency, nor may it reweigh the evidence.” Acciai Speciali Terni, S.p.A. v. United States, 19 CIT 1051, 1054 (1995). Instead, the Commission’s determination will be “sustained when it is reasonable and supported by the record as a whole, even where there is evidence which detracts from the substantiality of the evidence.” Mitsubishi Materials Corp. v. United States, 17 CIT 301, 304, 820 F.Supp. 608, 613 (1993) (subseq. history omitted) (citing Atlantic Sugar, Ltd. v. United States, 744 F.2d 1556 (Fed.Cir. 1984)). Finally, “if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to [a] specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984) (citation omitted). See also, e.g., Suramerica de Aleaciones, C.A. v. United States, 966 F.2d 660, 665 (Fed.Cir.1992) (stating that courts have a duty to “respect legitimate policy choices made by the agency in interpreting and applying the statute”). IV. Analysis As noted above, in conducting a “sunset” review, the Commission must determine whether the termination of the suspended antidumping and countervailing duty investigations would be likely to: 1). “lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy”; and 2). material injury. For the purposes of a “sunset” review, the Commission may make a finding of material injury if it concludes from a regional industry analysis that subject imports from Venezuela are sufficiently concentrated in a regional industry, thereby resulting in material injury (or the threat thereof) in that regional market. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(C) (2000). A. Commission’s Regional Industry Analysis The regional industry statute was added to the antidumping and countervailing duty statute as part of the Trade Agreements of 1979 (“1979 Act”), Pub.L. No. 96-39, Title I, § 771(4)(C), 93 Stat. 144, 177. See H.R.Rep. No. 96-317, at 73 (1979); S.Rep. No. 96-249, at 61, reprinted in 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. 381, 468-89. See generally 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(C) (2000). Once the Commission finds a regional market satisfying the requirements of section 1677(4)(C), material injury, the threat of material injury, or material retardation of the establishment of an industry may be found to exist with respect to an industry even if the domestic industry as a whole, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that product, is not injured, if there is a concentration of dumped imports or imports of merchandise benefiting from a counter-vailable subsidy into such an isolated market.... 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(C) (2000). By allowing the Commission to make a material injury finding in a regional industry, given certain circumstances, section 1677(4)(C) is “designed to reheve a domestic industry’s burden of demonstrating injury on a nationwide basis.” Gifford-Hill Cement Co. v. United States, 9 CIT 357, 363, 615 F.Supp. 577, 582 (1985) (citations omitted). See also Tr. at 72 (counsel for Vencemos noting that the requirement of a concentration of imports “is quite reasonable, since imports nationwide will be affected by a finding of injury to a small portion of the country”). The plain language of the statute does not define “a concentration of dumped or subsidized imports” under section 1677(4)(C). In the absence of the “unambiguously expressed intent of Congress,” the Commission’s reasonable statutory interpretation is entitled to deference. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. See, e.g., United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) (“Congress would expect the agency to be able to speak with the force of law when it addresses ambiguity in the statute or fills a space in the enacted law, even one about which ‘Congress did not actually have an intent’ as to a particular result. [In such cases], a reviewing court has no business rejecting an agency’s exercise of its generally conferred authority to resolve a particular statutory ambiguity simply because the agency’s chosen regulation seems unwise, but is obliged to accept the agency’s position if Congress has not previously spoken to the point at issue and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.”) 0quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 845-846, 104 S.Ct. 2778). See generally Def.’s Response Brief at 21-22. In considering the reasonableness of the Commission’s statutory interpretation, a court may employ all “traditional tools of statutory construction,” including “the statute’s structure, canons of statutory construction, and legislative history.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778; Timex V.I., Inc. v. United States, 157 F.3d 879, 882 (Fed.Cir.1998). See also Def.’s Response Brief at 22; Pl.’s Reply Brief at 2-3. 1. Import Concentration Standard under the URAA Generally, Venezuelan Cement contests the Commission’s application of the import concentration standard in its regional industry analysis under the URAA. The enactment of the URAA did not change the regional industry statute itself, but the SAA and the legislative history of the URAA established a new two-part import concentration standard. See SAA at 860; S.Rep. No. 103-412, at 53 (1994); H.R.Rep. No. 103-826(1), at 66 (1994). See also Pl.’s Brief at 32-33; Def.’s Response Brief at 29-30; Defendant-Intervenor Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record (“Def.-Intervenor’s Brief’) at 19-20. The first part of the standard (“clearly higher” criterion) requires the Commission to determine whether “the ratio of the subject imports to consumption is clearly higher in the regional market than in the rest of the U.S. market.” SAA at 860. See also S.Rep. No. 103-412, at 53 (1994); H.R.Rep. No. 103-826(I), at 66 (1994). The Commission concluded that the “clearly higher” criterion was satisfied, noting that “[d]uring the period of review, import penetration was higher within the Florida region than outside the region.” Commission Views at 26. See also id. at 26 n. 87, 30. The Commission’s affirmative finding with respect to the “clearly higher” criterion is not challenged here. See, e.g., Def.’s Response Brief at 20-21; Tr. at 7. The SAA and the legislative history of the URAA established the second part of the import concentration standard in a regional industry analysis, i.e., that the subject imports in the regional industry “account for a substantial proportion of total subject imports entering the United States” (“substantial proportion” criterion). SAA at 860. See also S.Rep. No. 103-412 (1994); H.R.Rep. No. 103-826(1) (1994). Venezuelan Cement challenges the Commission’s determination that the “substantial proportion” criterion was not satisfied by the record. See, e.g., Pl.’s Brief at 23-55; Pl.’s Reply Brief at 3-45. 2. Commission’s “Percent of Imports” Test Prior to the adoption of the “substantial proportion” criterion, the Federal Circuit upheld the Commission’s use of the “percent of imports” test as a reasonable interpretation of the regional industry statute. Texas Crushed Stone II, 35 F.3d at 1541-42. The Federal Circuit found that because “Congress has not ‘unambiguously’ expressed an intent on the question of what test is to be used in determining whether there has been a concentration of dumped imports in a particular region,” the Commission could use its “percent of imports” test unless that interpretation was found to be unreasonable. Id. at 1541. The court then determined that the Commission “acted reasonably and did not abuse its discretion in applying the percent of imports test [that] case.” Id. at 1542. Venezuelan Cement states that when the Commission’s use of the “percent of imports” test was found reasonable and not inconsistent with its prior practice, the Federal Circuit created “law prior to the URAA ... that the Commission was not required to use the ‘clearly higher’ standard of import concentration, even though it was the only standard announced in the Statements of Administrative Action and legislative history of the 1979 Act.” Pl.’s Brief at 31. See also Pl.’s Reply Brief at 7-8 (stating that “by 1994[,] the Commission no longer used the ‘clearly higher’ test for import concentration”). However, contrary to Venezuelan Cement’s view, the Commission’s reviewing courts have acknowledged the Commission’s discretion to apply either its “percent of imports” test or the “clearly higher” criterion, “or both as seems appropriate to it based on the circumstances of each particular case.” Texas Crashed Stone I, 17 CIT at 435-36, 822 F.Supp. at 779 (citing Mitsubishi Materials Corp., 17 CIT at 306-07, 820 F.Supp. at 615-16). See also Texas Crashed Stone II, 35 F.3d at 1541, 1542 (holding that the Commission’s use of its “percent of imports” test is reasonable and not an abuse of discretion); Def.’s Response Brief at 22 (noting that it is within the Commission’s discretion to determine “what constitutes sufficient concentration for the statutory requirement to be satisfied,” and that “Congress did not change Commission practice regarding [its ‘percent of imports’ test] in 1994, but rather affirmed the Commission’s analysis in Mitsubishi Materials and left to the Commission the discretion to determine what constitutes a substantial percentage of imports on a case-by-case basis”) (citing SAA at 860). See generally Def.’s Response Brief at 28 (explaining that the Commission historically gave secondary consideration to the “clearly higher” test under certain circumstances prior to the enactment of the URAA). Next, Venezuelan Cement claims that the import concentration standard in a regional industry analysis was substantially revised by the SAA and the legislative history that accompanied the URAA. See Pl.’s Brief at 82-33; PL’s Reply Brief at 3. The standard in the URAA, it argues, effectively replaced the “percent of imports” test with the “substantial proportion” test. Pl.’s Brief at 33. See Def.’s Response Brief at 3, 31-38. There is nothing in the SAA or the legislative history of the URAA to support this claim. In contrast to the use of both mandatory and permissive language in the SAA and the legislative history of the 1979 Act, the SAA and the legislative history of the URAA provide a uniform mandate for finding import concentration if the “clearly higher” and “substantial proportion” criteria are both satisfied. See, e.g., SAA at 860 (“Concentration will be found to exist if the ratio of the subject imports to consumption is clearly higher in the regional market than in the rest of the U.S. market and if such imports into the region account for a substantial proportion of total subject imports entering the United States.”) (emphasis added); S.Rep. No. 103-412, at 53 (same); H.R.Rep. No. 103-826(1) (same). There is no mention of the Commission’s “percent of imports” test, nor is there any evidence that Congress expressed the “substantial proportion” criterion to the exclusion of any test other than those a “precise mathematical formula” or a “ ‘benchmark’ proportion of imports.” SAA at 860. See also S.Rep. No. 103-412, at 53-54; H.R. Rep. 103-826(1), at 66. In fact, although the Commission has continued to apply the “percent of imports” test since 1979, and Congress has since amended the antidumping and countervailing statute a number of times, the import requirement concentration remains unaltered. Texas Crushed Stone I, 17 CIT at 434, 822 F.Supp. at 778. See Def.’s Response Brief at 22 (“The Commission’s consistent practice for considering import concentration has been to use the ‘percent of imports’ analysis in all regional industry cases.”) (citation omitted), 28 (same). See also id. at 27-28 (noting that prior to the enactment of the URAA, the Commission’s reviewing courts approved its practice of using the “percent of imports” test in all regional industry cases) (citing Texas Crushed Stone II, 35 F.3d at 1541; Mitsubishi Materials, 17 CIT at 306-309, 820 F.Supp. at 615-16). See generally 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(C) (2000). Finally, Venezuelan Cement claims that the “clearly higher” criterion enacted under the URAA “is intended to alter the Commission’s prior practice by requiring it in every case to consider the [criterion] originally set forth in the 1979 legislative history.” Pl.’s Reply Brief at 8. See also Pl.’s Brief at 33 (“Congress and the Administration clearly would not have chosen to provide a new test for import concentration in 1994 if they had been satisfied with the Commission’s prior practice in applying the import concentration requirement.”). There is no indication in the SAA or legislative history of the URAA to suggest that Congress intended to “alter the Commission’s prior practice” of applying its “percent of imports” test by merely repeating the 1979 “clearly higher” criterion in the 1994 version of the import concentration standard. See, e.g., SAA at 860; S.Rep. No. 103-412 (1994); H.R.Rep. No. 103-826(1) (1994). Cf., e.g., NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 274-75, 94 S.Ct. 1757, 40 L.Ed.2d 134 (1974) (“In addition to the importance of legislative history, a court may accord great weight to the longstanding interpretation placed on a statute by an agency charged with its administration. This is especially so where Congress has re-enacted the statute without pertinent change.”). 3. “Substantial Proportion” Criterion of the Import Concentration Standard Venezuelan Cement’s claims related to the import concentration standard enacted under the 1979 Act not withstanding, it is the present antidumping and countervailing duty statute, “as amended by the URAA and interpreted by its accompanying legislative history,” that governs the regional industry analysis in this action. Def.-Intervenor’s Brief at 17-18. The SAA and the legislative history thus URAA to gauge the reasonableness of the Commission’s determination that the record does not satisfy the “substantial proportion” criterion of the import concentration standard. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778 (directing a court reviewing an agency’s construction of a statute to first determine Congressional intent, then consider whether the agency’s construction is permissible); Timex V.I., Inc., 157 F.3d at 882 (employing “tools of statutory construction” in order to determine Congressional intent) (citation omitted). See also Pl.’s Reply Brief at 2-3; Tr. at 8 (same). As in the SAA and the legislative history of the 1979 Act, Congress declined to “unambiguously” express an intent on the question of what test is to be used in satisfying the two-part import concentration standard in the SAA and legislative history of the URAA. See Texas Crushed Stone II, 35 F.3d at 1541. In fact, Congress expressly noted that neither a “precise mathematical formula” nor a “ ‘benchmark’ proportion” could be specified for in an import concentration inquiry. SAA at 860 (citations omitted). See also S.Rep. No. 103-412, at 53-54; H. Rep. No. 103-826(1), at 66. Congress therefore reserved for the Commission the discretion to determine import concentration on a “case-by-case basis.” SAA at 860. See Texas Crushed Stone I, 17 CIT at 437, 822 F.Supp. at 780 (“The Commission needs discretion in this area [of import concentration] to effectively carry out the requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(C), and Congress intended for the [Commission] to have such discretion”). a. Minimum Benchmark Proportion of 43 Percent Venezuelan Cement claims that because the Commission is now required to consider whether regional imports account for a “substantial proportion” of national imports, “import concentration can be found where far less than 50 percent of imports enter the region.” Pl.’s Brief at 33. See also Pl.’s Brief at 36, 38. Because subject imports in the Florida region “accounted for an average of 54 percent of imports from Venezuela (64 percent in 1997, 53 percent in 1998, and 45 percent in 1999),” Venezuelan Cement claims that the record supports a finding of import concentration under the plain meaning of “substantial proportion.” Pl.’s Reply Brief at 21-22 (citation omitted). See also Tr. at 8-10 (same). In particular, Venezuelan Cement relies on Certain Steel Wire Nails from the Republic of Korea for the proposition that “a concentration of imports could exist where less than 50 percent of national imports of the subject merchandise entered the region.” Pl.’s Brief at 35. See also id. at 36 (stating that “[t]he SAA and legislative history surely would not have cited Steel Wire Nails if the Administration and Congress disagreed with the Commission’s reasoning or the outcome in that case”); Tr. at 10 (same). See generally Certain Steel Wire Nails from the Republic of Korea, Inv. No. 731-TA-26 (Final), USITC Pub. 1088 (Aug.1980) at 11 (finding import concentration at a level of 43 percent) (cited in SAA at 860; S. Rep. 103-412, at 54; H.R. Rep. 103-826(1), at 66). Therefore, Venezuelan Cement concludes, the term “substantial” may contemplate a portion less than the majority of a whole. See PL’s Brief at 33 (“None of the dictionary definitions of the word ‘substantial’ requires, or even implies, that something must constitute a majority in order to be substantial”) (citing Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1994) definition “of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.”); Pl.’s Reply Brief at 9 (same); Tr. at 8 (same). See also Tr. at 98 (counsel for Venezuelan Cement states that “where the language of a statute, or, in this case, legislative history, has a plain and ordinary meaning, there is a reason for it to be bolstered in some way by something somewhere else in the statute. That ordinary meaning would prevail in the ordinary instance”). However, it is worth considering the context in which Congress used the term “substantial.” See Pl.’s Brief at 33-34, 34 n. 18 (citing a litany of cases of varying relevance involving the term “substantial”). In this “sunset” review, the Commission determined that the subject imports in a regional industry were not sufficiently concentrated to merit a material injury analysis of a regional industry. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(C) (2000). See also Def.’s Response Brief at 30-31. As the Government notes, the definition of the term “substantial” that Venezuelan Cement advocates is not supported by “the statute or legislative history ... in the context of import concentration.” Def.’s Response Brief at 34. Accord Tr. at 44. Rather, it is clear that “there is no ‘benchmark’ proportion of imports that enter the region relative to imports that enter the United States, either 80 percent or any other percentage, which is applicable in every case, and below which the Commission cannot determine that imports are concentrated.” SAA at 860 (citation omitted). In fact, “[w]hile the Commission found shipments of 43 percent to be a concentration of the imports at issue in Steel Wire Nails ..., it made it clear that this figure was not a benchmark to be followed in every case. Congress wanted to provide flexibility, not a US percent benchmark.” Texas Crushed Stone I, 17 CIT at 436-37, 822 F.Supp. at 780 (emphasis added). See also Texas Crushed Stone II, 35 F.3d at 1542 (citing different decisions, including Steel Wire Nails, in order to observe that the Commission’s “record in this area [of the import concentration standard] is one of an individualized case-by-case method of analysis”). See generally Tr. at 44. Thus, there is an incongruity between the congressional intent derived from the proper application of the relevant tools of statutory construction when properly applied, and Venezuelan Cement’s claim that a level of 43 percent (or any other percentage less than the majority) mandates a finding of import concentration. It is well settled that “[import] concentration should be assessed on a case-by-case basis ... because cases before the Commission are likely to involve different factual circumstances.” SAA at 860 (citation omitted). Finally, Congress cited to Steel Wire Nails for the proposition that “[no] precise mathematical formula [is] reliable in determining the minimum percentage which constitutes sufficient concentration because cases before the Commission are likely to involve different factual circumstances.” SAA at 860 (citation omitted). However, such a citation —alone falls short of a wholesale Congressional approval for the concept that import concentration can exist at a level of less than 50 percent. See Def.’s Response Brief at 34-35; Tr. at 40-42, 45-46, 75-76. b. Minimum Benchmark Proportion of 60 Percent Counsel for Venezuelan Cement alluded in turn to the notion that the Commission reached its determination by operating under a “sixty percent test.” Tr. at 10-13. See also Tr. at 24, 25 (counsel for Venezuelan Cement refers to the Commission’s “sixty percent floor” or “sixty percent practice”). But see Tr. at 33 (counsel for the Commission stating that “[t]he Commission has looked at the facts of the case and has never had a sixty percent benchmark, as Plaintiff has alleged”), 34 (same); id. at 42, 45 (generally refuting suggestion that the Commission has relied on benchmark). While courts have generally found sufficient import concentration where imports entering a regional industry are at least eighty percent of total imports, proper treatment of imports less than eighty percent of total imports is less clear. See, e.g., Mitsubishi Materials Corp., 17 CIT at 306, 820 F.Supp. at 615 (“[T]he Commission has ... previously found that percentages substantially less than eighty percent to be sufficient concentrations to warrant a regional analysis.”). The Government admits that “[s]ince the Steel Wire Nails case in 1980, the Commission has not found concentration to be sufficient in any case where the percentage of imports during the period of investigation was lower than 60 percent.” Def.’s Response Brief at 33 n. 75 (citations omitted). See also Tr. at 10-11. Indeed, as the Commission acknowledged in this case, Congress has instructed it to avoid methods of analysis employing a “benchmark” proportion. See SAA at 860 (“[N]o ‘precise mathematical formula [is] rehable in determining the minimum percentage which constitutes sufficient concentration because cases before the Commission are likely to involve different factual circumstances.’ ”) (citations omitted); Commission Views at 23-24, 26-30 (addressing and applying the two-part import concentration standard of the regional industry analysis) (citations omitted). See also Def.-Intervenor’s Brief at 20 (“At no time can the Commission rely on a per se benchmark.... The Commission must assess ... ‘concentration’ based on the facts on record”). In its prospective analysis, the Commission noted that “the proportion of total subject imports from Venezuela that entered the Florida region ... declined during the period of review to levels the Commission previously ... found insufficient to satisfy the concentration test.” Commission Views at 26. It is not immediately clear that such language indicates a benchmark proportion, much less one at the sixty percent level. Beyond the Government’s general observation that the Commission has never found levels below sixty percent to be sufficient concentration, Venezuelan Cement points to no other evidence that the Commission relied on a “minimum benchmark” level of sixty percent in its regional industry analysis. Tr. at 10-11 (counsel for Venezuelan Cement referring to Def.’s Brief at 33, n. 75) See generally Commission Views at 23-24, 26-30 (engaging in a prospective review of trends based on import concentration levels during the period of review). Venezuelan Cement’s claim is thus without merit. c. Commission’s Finding that Record Does Not Satisfy Import Concentration Standard In the present case, the Commission majority found that “the percentage of total subject imports from Venezuela entering the Florida region fell substantially and steadily over the period of review, from 64 percent in 1997 to 53 percent in 1998 and 45 percent in 1999.” Commission Views at 26. See also Def.’s Response Brief at 37, 38 (“Not only was the proportion of Venezuelan imports into the region low relative to other similar cases, but it declined substantially during the period of review in direct contrast to the substantial increases in the original investigation.”). In addition, the Commission observed that, while similar volumes of subject imports from Venezuela entered the Florida region during the period of review and during the period reviewed in the original investigation, “the total volume of imports from Venezuela has substantially increased and entered various U.S. markets other than the Florida region, in increasing volumes.” Tr. at 52. See Commission Views at 28 (during the period of review, the apparent cement consumption in Florida increased by 17.5 percent), 28-29 (in 1999, only 10.3 percent of apparent cement consumption in Florida was composed of cement from Venezuela) (compared to 19.2 percent in 1991); id. at 26, 29 (while the volume of subject imports entering the Florida region steadily decreased from 64 percent to 45 percent during the period of review, the volume of subject imports into the entire U.S. market increased by 42.5 percent). Thus, the Commission determined that “concentration as a percentage of total imports has declined in the Florida region [during the period of review], not as a result of a decline in the volume of imports entering the Florida region, but because the level of total imports has increased.” Tr. at 52-53. Given these trends, and the prospective nature of “sunset” reviews, the Commission reasonably concluded that because subject import levels in the Florida region were not likely to account for a substantial proportion of total subject imports entering the United States, an import concentration would not exist in the reasonably foreseeable future. Commission Views at 27-30. The Commission’s consideration of the record evidence on an individualized basis, as directed by the SAA and legislative history of the URAA, is reasonable and is not an abuse of its discretion. The Commission’s finding that import concentration does not exist because subject imports in the Florida region do not “account for a substantial proportion of total subject imports entering the United States” is supported by substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. SAA at 860. B. Commission’s Finding that Subject Imports in Florida Region Are Unlikely to Increase if Suspended Investigations Are Terminated Venezuelan Cement next challenges the Commission’s finding that subject imports in the Florida region are unlikely to increase if the suspended investigations are terminated. Pl.’s Brief at 43-55; Pl.’s Reply Brief at 29-45. See Commission Views at 27-30. See generally 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(1) (2000) (in a “sunset” review, the Commission must determine whether termination of suspended investigations “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy... .”). In order to determine the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy, the Commission “must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo-the ... termination of a suspended investigation and the elimination of the restraining effects of that ... suspended investigation on volumes and prices of imports.” SAA at 883-84. “The determination called for in these types of reviews is inherently predictive and speculative.” SAA at 888. See, e.g., Consolo v. Fed. Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966) (holding that even if two inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence, the agency’s interpretation may be supported by substantial evidence); Mitsubishi Materials Corp., 17 CIT at 304, 820 F.Supp. at 613 (stating that the Court will “affirm the determination of the Commission when it is reasonable and supported by the record as a' whole, even where there is evidence which detracts from the substantiality of the evidence”) (citing Atlantic Sugar, Ltd. v. U.S., 744 F.2d 1556 (Fed.Cir.1984)). See generally Def.’s Response Brief at 40-42 (discussing the likelihood standard to the regional industry provision). With respect to the Commission’s finding, Venezuelan Cement contends: 1). the Commission should have considered import concentration levels outside the period of review (i.e., before and after the investigations were suspended); and 2). the Commission should not have concluded that the suspension agreements had “no appreciable effect on relative subject import levels within and outside of the Florida region.” Commission Views at 28. 1. Consideration of Record Evidence Outside the Period of Review Venezuelan Cement claims that the Commission is legally obligated to consider “the level of import concentration prior to an agreement as circumstantial evidence of what is likely to happen if the agreement is terminated.” Pl.’s Brief at 47-48; Pl.’s Reply Brief at 32. Further, Venezuelan Cement suggests that the Commission erred by “improperly giving conclusive evi-dentiary weight to the pattern of distribution of imports from Venezuela during 1997-1999 and disregarding record evidence of changes in the distribution of such imports that occurred during the years immediately following acceptance of the agreements.” Pl.’s Reply Brief at 30. See also id. at 32, 35, 38. It appears that Venezuelan Cement’s arguments reflects a general concern that the Commission’s determination is not reasonably based on the record when viewed in its entirety. See Pl.’s Brief at 44-46; Pl.’s Reply Brief at 30-33. To the contrary, the Commission acted properly. a.. Consideration of Evidence Prior to the Acceptance of the Suspension Agreements In particular, Venezuelan Cement claims that the Commission failed to consider the motivations of the Venezuelan importers in reaction to the impending “sunset” review. Pl.’s Brief at 46-47. Venezuelan Cement avers that the decline in Florida’s share in 1997 to 1999 was a predictable result of the new statutory requirement that the Commission conduct a sunset review. Knowing the review would likely be based on a Florida regional industry, Venezuelan exporters had to be aware that one of their best chances for prevailing in the Sunset Review was to defeat the import concentration requirement. Tr. at 21. See also Tr. at 22 (“The fact that Florida’s share declined is most easily explained by the Venezuelan producers’ efforts to position themselves favorably for the Sunset Review.”). The Commission may certainly consider the “likely behavior of ... foreign exporters and the importers in the event the [suspension agreement is terminated].” See, e.g., Am. Permac, Inc. v. United States, 831 F.2d 269, 274 (Fed.Cir.1987) (citation omitted) (in order to determine whether to revoke or deny an antidumping order, Commission “forecasts the likely behavior of the foreign exporters and the importers in the event the order is revoked or modified. Since the principal focus of this phase of the investigation is on the future behavior of the foreign exports and the importers, their intentions are very important”). However, whether the Commission’s failure to do so upsets the reasonableness of its determination is another issue. See, e.g., Tr. at 22. In particular, Venezuelan Cement relies on Matsushita, in which the Commission’s decision not to revoke or modify an anti-dumping order was reversed because the determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Matsushita Elec. Indus., 750 F.2d at 928. In particular, the Federal Circuit found that, due to the prospective nature of the agency’s review, [i]n no case will the Commission ever be able to rely on concrete evidence establishing that, in the future, certain events mil occur upon revocation of an anti-dumping order. Rather, the Commission must assess, based on currently available evidence and on logical assumptions and extrapolations flowing from that evidence, the likely effect of revocation of the antidumping order on the behavior of the importers. Matsushita Elec. Indus., 750 F.2d at 933 (emphasis added). See also Tr. at 21-22 (counsel for Venezuelan Cement noting that according to Matsushita, “it is often necessary in a review proceeding to rely on circumstantial evidence of the foreign producers’ incentives or motivations, which the Court said are always relevant and, indeed, may be more reliable than self-serving declarations”). In the present case, it appears that the Commission has no clear explanation why volumes of subject imports in the Florida region remained static, while the Florida and U.S. markets grew. Venezuelan Cement offers what may be a plausible reason: the Venezuelan exporters reacted to the impending sunset review by choosing not to increase the volumes of subject imports into the Florida market. See, e.g., Tr. at 21-22. However, the record contains little evidence supporting Venezuelan Cement’s theory. See, e.g., Tr. at 60 (counsel for the Commission stating that “Plaintiffs could not only provide us anything more than their conjecture. They also could not provide us any evidence, even in their allegations, ... if imports left any of these other markets, why they would come back to Florida, or why they would come to Florida.”); 65 (counsel for the Commission stating “there’s nothing to show, no evidence. There has been nothing offered by Plaintiffs of any kind of evidence that ... extra volume, despite the fact that demand was-was up, but that extra volume from Venezuela would have entered the Florida market.”). Given this relative dearth of evidence, there is no reason why the Commission is obligated to consider Venezuelan Cement’s conjecture without the benefit of evidence. See Matsushita, 750 F.2d at 933 (the Commission must based its assessment on “currently available evidence and on logical assumptions and extrapolations flowing from that evidence”). Simply put, based on the record before it, the Commission reasonably determined that subject imports from Florida would not be likely to increase in the foreseeable future once the suspended investigations are terminated. See, e.g., Tr. at 58-59. See generally Tr. at 61-68.. b. Consideration of Events Immediately After the Acceptance of the Suspension Agreements Consistent with the Commission’s discretion to determine import concentration on an “individualized case-by-case method of analysis,” there is nothing in the statute or legislative history to support Venezuelan Cement’s contention that the Commission is obligated to consider the change in import volume and import concentration that occurred immediately after the acceptance of the suspension agreements. Texas Crushed Stone II, 35 F.3d at 1542. See Pl.’s Reply Brief at 30, 32, 35, 38, 40. Because the statute does not prescribe a particular method of analysis, “Congress [must have] intended for the Commission to exercise its discretion in this fact specific area of analysis.” Texas Crushed Stone I, 17 CIT at 434, 436, 822 F.Supp. at 778, 780. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. See generally 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(C) (2000). However, the Commission is required to consider “whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the ... suspension agreement.” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1)(B) (2000). According to the SAA, “the Commission should not determine that there is no likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury simply because the industry has recovered after the imposition of an order or acceptance of a suspension agreement, because one would expect some beneficial effect on the industry.” SAA at 884. See also id. (commenting that “an improvement in the state of the industry related to ... [a] suspension agreement may suggest that the state of the industry is likely to deteriorate if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation terminated”). The Commission did observe that “imports of gray Portland cement from Venezuela into the Florida region during the period of review [were] at a level only slightly above that in 1991, immediately prior to the acceptance of the suspension agreements.” Commission Views at 28. However, its final determination is based on a variety of factors, such as the consistent decline in subject import levels into the Florida region during the period of review. See generally id. 26-30. Congress has made it clear that “[a]s in the case of injury and threat determinations, the Commission must consider all factors, but no one factor is necessarily dispositive.” SAA at 886. See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5) (2000) (providing that “[t]he presence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider under this subsection shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination of whether material injury is likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if ... the suspended investigation is terminated”). See also Floral Trade Council v. United States, 20 CIT 595, 601 (1996) (citation omitted) (“As trier of fact, the Commission must assess the quality of the evidence and give such weight to the evidence that it believes is justified.”); Matsushita Elec. Indus., 750 F.2d at 933 (“The Commission’s decision does not depend on the ‘weight’ of the evidence .... the question is whether there was evidence which could reasonably lead to the Commission’s conclusion, that is, does the administrative record contain substantial evidence to support it and was it a rational decision?”). 2. Commission’s Finding that Suspension Agreements Have No Appreciable Effect On Import Concentration in the Florida Region Venezuelan Cement also contests the Commission’s overall conclusion that “the existence or absence of these suspension agreements has no appreciable effect on relative subject import levels within and outside of the Florida region.” Commission Views at 28. See Pl.’s Brief at 44 (“Because it found that the decrease in Florida’s share of imports from Venezuela was not the result of the suspended investigations, the Commission concluded that termination of the investigations would not result in increasing the percentage of such imports shipped into Florida.”). See also Pl.’s Brief at 48-55; Pl.’s Reply Brief at 41-45. In its prospective analysis, the Commission found that “the record does not indicate that marketing and distribution patterns have been affected by the acceptance of the suspension agreements”. Commission Views at 27. In particular, the Commission noted that because subject imports from the Florida region during the period of review did not “provide any incentive to ship subject imports to customers outside of the Florida region as opposed to those within that region,” the suspension agreements “had no appreciable effect on relative subject import levels within and outside of the Florida region.” Commission Views at 28. According to Venezuelan Cement, “[t]he fact that the suspension agreements did not include any formal constraints or incentives that would have caused imports from Venezuela to shift away from Florida during [the period of review] did not logically lead to the Commission’s conclusion that the agreements had ‘no appreciable effect’ whatsoever.” Pl.’s Reply Brief at 42. Instead, “the agreements could have affected the regional distribution of imports from Venezuela in some other way.” Id. See, e.g., Pl.’s Brief at 49 (claiming that “[t]he suspension agreements ... had a clear impact on increasing the prices of imports from Venezuela”); Tr. at 19-20 (same). For example, Venezuelan Cement claims that an “immediate effect of the agreements was to shift imports from Venezuela away from Florida to other parts of the United States.” Id. Therefore, Venezuelan Cement concludes, the suspension agreements resulted in a “dramatic alteration in shipping patterns [by causing] Venezuelan exporters to cease targeting Florida and to disperse their sales more broadly around the southeastern and mid-Atlantic states.” Id. at 50. See also Pl.’s Reply Brief at 42 (“[T]he lack of a formal constraint or incentive should have led the Commission to ask what motivated the Venezuelan exporters to make such a dramatic shift in the U.S. destinations of their imports, a question the Commission did not ask.”). Venezuelan Cement thus argues that the Commission’s determination is erroneous by pointing to other possible outcomes based on the record evidence. Compare, e.g., Def.’s Response Brief at 47-48 (the Commission found that the substantial and steady decline of subject imports from Venezuela into the Florida region during the period of review was “not a result of a decline in the volume of imports entering the Florida region, but rather because the level of total imports has increased”) with Pl.’s Brief at 51 (Venezuelan Cement explains the decrease in Florida’s share of imports from Venezuela as “a predictable consequence of the Commission’s impending sunset review”), 51-54 (offering the alternative interpretation that such a decline was a matter of course because the Venezuelan exporters reacted to the impending “sunset” review by “seeking] to shift their exports away from Florida in the years immediately preceding the sunset review in order to position themselves favorably for the review.”). However, a reasonable agency determination supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law cannot be overturned on such grounds. 19 IJ.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i) (2000). See Def.’s Response Brief at 51. As the SAA explains: [t]he possibility of other likely outcomes does not mean that a determination that revocation or termination is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or countervailable subsidies, or injury, is erroneous, as long as the determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence is reasonably in light of the facts of the case. SAA at 888. See, e.g., Consolo v. Fed. Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966) (holding that even if two inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence, the agency’s interpretation may be supported by substantial evidence). In addition, Venezuelan Cement objects to the Commission’s observation that “the suspension agreements did not include any formal constraints or incentives that would have caused imports from Venezuela to shift away from Florida” during the period of review because such circumstances