Full opinion text
Opinion CARMAN, Judge. In this consolidated action, Plaintiffs have filed two Rule 56.2 Motions for Judgment on the Agency Record: the first filed by Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”); the second filed jointly by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, National Steel Corporation, and United States Steel Corporation (collectively “Domestic Integrated Producers”). Plaintiffs challenge two final negative material injury determinations of the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”): 1) Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Australia, India, Japan, Sweden, and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-965, 971-972, 979, 981 (Final), USITC Pub. 3536 (Sept.2002) (“Coldr-Rolled /”); and 2) Certain Coldr-Rolled Steel Products from Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, and Venezuela, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-423-425, 731-TA-964, 966-970, 973-978, 980, 982-983 (Final), USITC Pub. 3551 (Nov.2002) {“Gold-Rolled II”). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U-S.C.. § 1581(c) (2000). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.2 Motions for Judgment on the Agency Record are denied. Defendants Intervenors’ consent Motion for Oral Argument is also denied. Standard of Review In reviewing the ITC’s final determinations, the Court will hold unlawful a determination that is “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(l)(B)(i). The ITC is entitled to appropriate deference in its interpretation of the material injury statute. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Under Chevron, the Court must determine “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Id. at 842,104 S.Ct. 2778. “If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Id. at 842-843,' 104 S.Ct. 2778. However, “if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778 (footnote , omitted). Therefore, the Court will uphold the ITC’s interpretation of the, statute “if it is reasonable in light of the language, policies and legislative history of the statute.” Enercon GmbH v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 151 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed.Cir.1998) (citing Corning Glass Works v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 799 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.Cir.1986)). The Court reviews the ITC’s factual findings whether various provisions of the material injury statute have been met to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(l)(B)(i). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” • Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938) (citations omitted). In determining if substantial evidence exists, the court must “review the record as a whole, including evidence that supports as well as evidence that ‘fairly detracts from the substantiality of the evidence.’ ” Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2003) (quoting Atl. Sugar, Ltd. v. United States, 744 F.2d 1556, 1562 (Fed.Cir.1984)). In reviewing the ITC’s factual findings, the Court should not “re-weigh the evidence but rather [] ascertain whether there exists ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F.Supp.2d 1303, 1305 (CIT 2002) (quoting Consol. Edison Co., 305 U.S. at 229, 59 S.Ct. 206). “As long as the agency’s methodology and procedures are reasonable means of effectuating the statutory purpose, and there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the agency’s conclusions, the court will not impose its own views as to the sufficiency of the agency’s investigation or question the agency’s methodology.” Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 636 F.Supp. 961, 966 (CIT 1986), aff'd, 810 F.2d 1137 (Fed.Cir.1987) (citations omitted). BACKGROUND I. Procedural History. On September 28, 2001, several domestic producers filed petitions with the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the ITC alleging that imports of cold-rolled steel products from the twenty countries identified above were being, or were likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value and that imports from Argentina, Brazil, France, and Korea had received countervailable subsidies. Notice of Initiation of Anti-dumping Duty Investigations: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela, 66 Fed.Reg. 54,198 (Oct. 26, 2001); Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations: Certain Coldr-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, Brazil, France, and the Republic of Korea, 66 Fed.Reg. 54,218 (Oct. 26, 2001). The petitions alleged that these imports were a cause of material injury to the cold-rolled steel industry in the United States. Cold-Rolled I at 1; Cold-Rolled II at 1. On November 19, 2001, the ITC published its preliminary affirmative determination that there was a reasonable indication that an industry in the Untied States was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports of cold-rolled steel. Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products From Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela^ 66 Fed.Reg. 57,985 (Nov. 19, 2001). On July 19, 2002, Commerce published its final affirmative determinations that cold-rolled steel imports from Australia, India, Japan, Sweden, and Thailand were being sold at less than fair value. Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Australia, 67 Fed.Reg. 47,509 (July 19, 2002), corrected by 67 Fed.Reg. 52,934 (Aug. 14, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan, 67 Fed.Reg. 47,520 (July 19, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Coldr-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 67 Fed.Reg. 47,521 (July 19, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Sweden, 67 Fed.Reg. 47,522 (July 19, 2002). Commerce published its final affirmative determinations in the antidumping investigations of the remaining countries on October 3, 2002. Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Coldr-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from New Zealand, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,100 (Oct. 3, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Coldr-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People’s Republic of China, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,107 (Oct. 3, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The Netherlands, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,112 (Oct. 3, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From France, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,114 (Oct. 3, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Germany, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,116 (Oct. 3, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Coldr-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Venezuela, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,119 (Oct. 3, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Rus sian Federation, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,121 (Oct. 3, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Coldr-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,124 (Oct. 3, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Turkey, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,126 (Oct. 3, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Coldr-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Belgium, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,130 (Oct. 3, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Spain, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,132 (Oct. 3, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Brazil, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,134 (Oct. 3, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From South Africa, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,136 (Oct. 3, 2002); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,138 (Oct. 3, 2002). Commerce also published its final determinations in the countervailing duty investigations of Argentina, Brazil, France, and Korea on October 3, 2002. Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,102 (Oct. 3, 2002); Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,106 (Oct. 3, 2002); Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From France, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,111 (Oct. 3, 2002); Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Brazil, 67 Fed.Reg. 62,128 (Oct. 3, 2002). Commerce’s determination regarding Argentina was negative; however, it made affirmative determinations regarding Brazil, France, and Korea. Id. The final ITC determinations challenged in this action were published on September 13, 2002, and November 12, 2002, wherein the ITC determined that the domestic cold-rolled steel industry was not suffering present material injury or being threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports. Coldr-Rolled I at 39, 45; Coldr-Rolled II at 13,18. II. Applicable Law. The ITC determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of the subject imports in the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(l), 1673d(b)(l). Material injury is defined as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.” Id. § 1677(7)(A). In making its material injury determination, the ITC must consider: (1) the volume of the subject imports; (2) the subject imports’ effect on prices for the domestic like product; and (3) the impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry in the context of production operations in the United States. Id. § 1677(7)(B)(i); see also, Angus Chem. Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484 (Fed.Cir.1998). The ITC may consider other economic factors that are relevant to the material injury determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(ii). Regarding volume, the ITC must consider whether the volume of subject imports is significant. Id. § 1677(7)(C)(i). The ITC must consider whether there has been significant price underselling and whether subject imports depress or suppress domestic prices to a significant degree in evaluating the subject imports’ effect on domestic prices. Id. § 1677(7)(C)(ii)(I-II). To determine the impact of the subject imports, the ITC must evaluate “all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the [domestic] industry.” Id. § 1677(7) (C) (iii). These factors include, but are not limited to: “decline in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investment, and [capacity utilization], factors affecting domestic prices, actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, ... negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, ... [and] the magnitude of the margin of dumping.” Id. § 1677(7)(C)(iii)(I — V). The ITC must evaluate these factors “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.” Id. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). The ITC “shall cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject merchandise from all countries with respect to which ... petitions were filed ... on the same day ... if such imports compete with each other and with domestic like products in the [domestic] market.” Id. § 1677(7)(G)(i)(I). Discussion In Coldr-Rolled I and Cold-Rolled II, the ITC determined that “an industry in the United States is not materially injured ... by reason of imports of certain cold-rolled steel products.” Coldr-Rolled I at 3; Coldr-Rolled II at 1. The ITC’s specific findings are presented before the parties’ contentions in each section below. Plaintiffs challenge five aspects of the ITC’s final negative material injury determinations: 1) the ITC’s interpretation and application of the causation requirement under the material injury statute; 2) the ITC’s finding that the volume of subject imports was not significant; 3) the ITC’s finding that subject imports did not have significant effects on prices for the domestic like product; 4) the ITC’s finding that subject imports did not have an adverse impact on the domestic industry; 5) the ITC’s decision to not cumulate subject imports from Australia. (Mem. of Nucor Corp. in Support of Mot. Under R. 56.2 for J. on the Agency R. (“Nucor’s Br.”) at 11-13); (Mem. in Support of Mot. for J. on the Agency R. under R. 56.2 Filed by Pis. Bethlehem Steel Corp., National Steel Corp., and U.S. Steel Corp. (“Domestic Integrated Producers’ Br.”) at 13-16.) I. The ITC’s Interpretation and Application of the Material Injury Statute’s Causation Requirement. ITC’s Determination In making its final negative material injury determination, the ITC considered the volume, price effects, and impact of the subject imports for the period of investigation (“POI”) from January 1999 through June 2002. Coldr-Rolled I at 25, 30-31. At the outset, the ITC identified several conditions of competition that had an effect on the cold-rolled steel industry in the United States during the POI. Id. at 21. Specifically, the ITC considered the “restructuring” of the domestic cold-rolled steel industry during the POI, domestic sales conditions for cold-rolled steel, and the Section 201 safeguard proceedings and resulting tariffs. Id. at 23-30. First, the ITC noted that during the POI, the domestic “cold-rolled steel industry restructured significantly.” Id. at 24. The ITC stated that “Gulf States Steel ceased operations; Bethlehem, National, and Wheeling operated under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code; the operating assets of Heartland Steel and LTV were purchased by new owners ...; a purchase of operating assets of Acme Steel, which had ceased operations, is pending in bankruptcy court; and Cold Metal Products recently announced its intention to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and to close its Indianapolis and Youngstown plants.” Id. Next, the ITC examined price and non-price factors that are important in purchasing decisions for cold-rolled steel. Id. at 26-27. The ITC found that importers reported an average 102-day lead time between order and delivery. Id. at 26. The ITC also found that approximately 55% of sales by domestic producers and 52% of sales by importers were on a contract basis. Id. The remaining sales were on a spot price basis. Id. The ITC noted that although contract prices are generally fixed for a certain period of time, spot prices can “have some impact on contract prices ... when new contracts are negotiated, expired contracts are renegotiated, or ... [when] sellers demand[ ] price increases or buyers demand[ ] price concessions under executory contracts when spot prices differ significantly from contract prices.” Id. The ITC noted that the domestic industry claimed that “the majority of contracts remained in place in 2002 at low prices that were negotiated in the fourth quarter of 2001.” Id. at 27. Third, the ITC identified the Section 201 proceedings as a condition of competition that had “a major impact” on the cold-rolled steel industry during this POI. Id. at 30. The ITC found that the ITC’s Section 201 investigation and the subsequent tariffs announced by the President “fundamentally altered the U.S. market for many steel products, including cold-rolled steel.” Id. at 28. After examining the volume of subject imports, the subject imports’ effect on domestic prices, and the impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the ITC concluded: following the imposition of Section 201 relief, subject import volumes declined to minimal levels, and therefore we do not find the current volume of subject imports to be significant. Nor do we find that subject imports currently in the market are having significant adverse price effects, given their minimal presence in the U.S. market. Accordingly, we do not find that the present condition of the domestic industry is attributable in any material respect to the current subject imports, and we therefore do not find that any material injury currently being experienced by the domestic industry is by reason of the subject imports. Id. at 39. Parties’ Contentions A. Nucor’s Contentions. Nucor contends that as a matter of law, the ITC “applied an incorrect injury test in reaching a negative determination.” (Reply Br. of Nucor Corp. in Supp. of Mot. Under R. 56.2 For J. on the Agency R. (“Nucor’s Reply Br.”) at 4.) Nucor contends that the ITC’s analysis is flawed for three reasons: 1) the ITC “narrowly focused” on current imports; 2) the ITC failed to consider whether injury was being caused by imports that entered earlier in the POI; and 3) the ITC unreasonably relied on the effects of the Section 201 proceedings. (Id. at 4-5; Nucor’s Br. at 48.) First, Nucor contends that the ITC has never based any prior material injury determination “so overtly” on current imports. (Nucor’s Reply Br. at 5.) Nucor highlights the ITC’s language in Cold-Rolled I that focuses on “current subject imports.” (Id. (citing Cold-Rolled I at 39).) Nucor contends that the statute requires the ITC to make an affirmative injury determination if subject imports are causing present material injury. (Id. at 5-6.) However, Nucor stresses that the statute does not mention current imports or require that the present injury be caused by current imports. (Id. at 7.) Nucor contends that the ITC’s determination placed “exclusive focus” on the last three months of the investigation, “elevating [the] last quarter ... [to] prominence.” (Id. at 8.) Nucor contends that the ITC’s determination “brushed aside, without explanation, data regarding 39 months of a 42-month investigation.” (Nucor’s Br. at 14.) Nu-cor asserts that, contrary to the ITC’s statement that its analysis included the entire POI, most of the ITC’s discussion focused solely on current imports in the second quarter of 2002. (Id. (citing Cold-Rolled I at 31 n. 182, 32).) Nucor argues that the ITC is required to base its decision on a “review of the entirety of the record.” (Id. (quoting Chr. Bjelland Seafoods A/S v. Untied States, 19 C.I.T 35, 43, 1995 WL 25327 (1995) (“Seafoods //”)).) Nucor contends that the “entire procedural history” of Chr. Bjelland Seafoods A/C v. United States, 16 Ct. Int’l Trade 945 (1992) (“Seafoods I”) and Seafoods II should instruct the Court in examining this case. (Nucor’s Reply Br. at 8-9.) Relying on the holding in Seafoods II, Nucor argues that current imports “cannot provide the sole basis for [an ITC] determination.” (Id. at 9 (citing Seafoods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 38-47).) Nucor contends that the ITC must determine whether the doméstic industry is presently materially injured and must consider if that injury is caused by subject imports, current or otherwise. (Id. at 9-10.) Second, Nucor asserts the ITC failed to adequately consider whether material injury was being caused by subject imports that were entered earlier in the POI. (Id. at 10.) Nucor emphasizes several of the ITC’s findings that it claims demonstrate that subject imports entered earlier in the POI were causing present material injury: (1) three producers declared bankruptcy during the POI; (2) the domestic industry suffered operating losses of $688 million in the first half of 2002; (3) low-priced contracts negotiated in 2001 continued to be honored in the first half of 2002; and (4) the domestic market showed declines in employment and capacity. ■ (Id. at 11-13 (citing Coldr-Rolled I at 26, 38-39).) Nu-cor contends that the ITC failed to explain why all of these declining economic conditions “failed to constitute current material injury.” (Id. at 13.) Nucor asserts that if the correct causation test had been applied, the ITC would have found that the domestic industry continued to suffer present material injury caused by imports that were entered earlier in the POI. (Id.) Third, Nucor contends that the ITC cannot base its negative material injury determination on the effects of the Section 201 remedy. (Nucor’s Br. at 48.) Nucor asserts that the ITC’s reliance on the effects of the Section 201 tariffs is “misplaced as a matter of law.” (Id.) According to Nucor, the ITC essentially found that the Section 201 tariffs imposed by the President “were preventing the subject imports from injuring the domestic industry.” (Id.) Yet, Nu-cor contends that eleven of the twenty countries under investigation had dumping margins greater than 30%. (Id. (citing Cold-Rolled I at 1-8, Cold-Rolled II at I-5).) Nucor contends that the ITC’s negative material injury determination runs counter to the intention of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws “to equalize ... competitive conditions between foreign exporters ... and the domestic industry.” (Id. (quoting Seafoods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 43).) Nucor contends that the Section 201 tariffs do not “offset the full margin of dumping.” (Id.) Nucor concludes that the ITC’s reliance on the 30% Section 201 tariffs essentially “depriv[ed] the U.S. industry of the protection to which it is entitled under law.” (Id. at 49.) B. Domestic Integrated Producers’ Contentions. Domestic Integrated Producers contend that the ITC’s negative determination was based Upon the imposition of a causation requirement that is not in accordance with law. (Domestic Integrated Producers’ Br. at 16.) Domestic Integrated Producers assert that in order to make an affirmative determination under the statute, the ITC must find that the domestic industry is suffering “present material injury.” (Id. at 17.) However, Domestic Integrated Producers contend that in this case the ITC 'misinterpreted the statute to require that the present material injury be caused by current or present imports. (Id. at 18 (citing Seafoods I, 16 Ct. Int’l Trade at 953-954).) Domestic Integrated Producers contend that this requirement — “that current imports be causing injury” — is not in accordance with law. (Id.) Domestic Integrated Producers quote three specific passages from the ITC’s determination in Coldr-Rolled I that they claim demonstrate the ITC’s use of an improper causation requirement: (1) [W]hile we recognize the higher subject import volumes earlier in the period, we find that the present volume of subject imports is not significant. (2) [Sjubject imports currently entering the market are not suppressing current domestic prices to a significant degree. Thus, we find that subject imports are not adversely affecting domestic prices to a significant degree based on the current volume of subject imports and the increase in domestic prices in 2002. (3) [W]e do not find the current volume of subject imports to be significant. Nor do we find that subject imports currently in the market are having significant adverse price effects.... Accordingly, we do not find that the present condition of the domestic industry is attributable in any material respect to the cwrent subject imports, and we therefore do not find that any material injury currently being experienced by the domestic industry is by reason of the subject imports. (Id. (quoting Coldr-Rolled I at 33, 36, 39) (emphasis added).) In its reply brief, Plaintiff, United States Steel Corporation, asserts that the material injury statute does not focus on current imports. (Reply Br. in Supp. of Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. Upon the Agency R. of PI. U.S. Steel Corp. (“U.S. Steel’s Reply Br.”) at 2.) U.S. Steel contends that the statute clearly directs the ITC to determine if the domestic industry “is materially injured ... by reason of imports.” (Id. at 2-3 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)).) However, U.S. Steel argues that by focusing on current imports, the ITC improperly added a limitation to the statute. (Id. at 3.) Domestic Integrated Producers contend that if the ITC had applied the correct causation standard, the ITC would have been compelled by its own findings to make an affirmative injury determination based on the injury caused by imports that were entered earlier in the POI. (Domestic Integrated Producers’ Br. at 21.) Domestic Integrated Producers echo Nucor’s argument that the law requires the ITC to make an affirmative material injury determination if imports entered earlier in the POI are causing present material injury. (Id. at 18-19 (citing Seafoods I, 16 Ct. Int’l Trade at 953-954, Seafoods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 48).) Domestic Integrated Producers contend that the Court’s holding in Seafoods II should instruct this Court’s analysis. (Id. at 19.) Domestic Integrated Producers assert that in Seafoods II, the Court upheld an ITC affirmative material injury determination which found that, although current imports were minimal, earlier imports of salmon were causing present material injury to the domestic industry by impairing the domestic industry’s ability to raise capital at the end of the period of investigation. (Id. at 19 (citing Seafoods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 48).) Similarly, Domestic Integrated Producers argue that in this case earlier imports of cold-rolled steel caused present material injury to the domestic industry. (Id. at 21.) Domestic Integrated Producers contend that in prior investigations and in another forum, the ITC has argued that imports entered earlier in the POI can cause present injury. (Id. at 19-20 (citing Hot Rolled Steel Products From Argentina and South Africa, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-404 and 731-TA-898, 905 (Final), USITC Pub. 3446 (Aug.2001); Written Rebuttal of the United States, United States — Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, WT/DS248-249, 251-254, 258-259 (Nov. 26, 2002) at 39 ¶ 120).) U.S. Steel adds that any analysis that does not fully consider whether earlier imports are causing present material injury is “incomplete as a matter of law,” and the ITC’s determination in this case should be remanded for this reason. (U.S. Steel’s Reply Br. at 5, 9-10.) Domestic Integrated Producers point to evidence on the record that they claim supports a finding that earlier imports caused present material injury in this case. (Domestic Integrated Producers’ Br. at 20.) Domestic Integrated Producers note that the ITC found that several domestic steel companies filed for bankruptcy during the POI and assert that the government has made arguments in other proceedings that bankruptcies are evidence of present injury caused by earlier imports. (Id. at 21-22 (citing Cold-Rolled I at 24).) Further, Domestic Integrated Producers contend that the “enormous operating losses” sustained by the domestic industry throughout the POI, which were partly attributable to the low contract prices negotiated in 2001, are also evidence that the subject imports entered earlier in the POI caused present material injury. (Id. at 22-24.) Finally, Domestic Integrated Producers claim that the ITC erroneously based its negative material injury determination on speculation that the Section 201 tariffs will alleviate future injury. (Id. at 25.) Domestic Integrated Producers contend that “if a finding of present material injury is otherwise warranted,” the ITC cannot make a negative determination “simply because circumstances have changed in. a manner that may alleviate injury in the future.” (Id.) Domestic Integrated Producers assert that the ITC’s analysis of the effect of the Section 201 tariffs on the domestic industry is “little more than guesswork.” (Id.) Domestic Integrated Producers contend that the ITC used the Section 201 tariffs to “alter the legal standard to be used in determining whether the requisite injury has been proven.” (Id.) Domestic Integrated Producers highlight several differences between AD/CVD relief and Section 201 relief including: 1) several countries subject to these AD/CVD investigations were exempt from the Section 201 tariffs; 2) numerous products covered by these AD/CVD investigations are not covered by the Section 201 tariffs; and 3) Section 201 tariffs expire in three years whereas Title VII duties can last indefinitely. (Id. at 26.) Domestic Integrated Producers contend that these differences should have precluded the ITC from using the Section 201 relief in its analysis. Id. Domestic Integrated Producers conclude that the ITC’s final determination is not in accordance with law because the ITC applied an incorrect causation standard, failed to consider earlier imports, and improperly considered the Section 201 relief. (Id. at 28-29.) C. Defendant’s Contentions. First, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ assertions regarding the ITC’s focus on current imports “ignores that statute’s remedial purpose, the prospective application of duties and the [ITC’s] concomitant discretion to rely on current data.” (Mem. of Def. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n in Opp’n to Pis.’ Mot. for J. on the Agency R. (“Def.’s Br.”) at 42.) Defendant contends that the Court has reasoned that the anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws “ ‘are intended merely to prevent future harm to the domestic industry by reason of unfair imports that are presently causing material injury.’ ” (Def.’s Br. at 43 (quoting Chaparral Steel Co. v. United States, 901 F.2d 1097, 1103 (Fed.Cir.1990) (in turn citing S. Rep. No. 96-249, at 87 (1979), reprinted in 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. 381, 473)).) Defendant asserts that older information “ ‘provide[s] a historical frame of reference against which a ‘present’ (i.e., as recent to vote day as possible ...) material injury determination is to be made.’ ” (Id. (quoting Seafoods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 44 n. 22).) Defendant asserts that the ITC’s focus on current imports is consistent with the antidumping and countervailing duty statutes’ focus on present material injury. (Id.) Second, Defendant contends that contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, the statute does not require the ITC to. reach an affirmative injury determination based on the lingering effects of earlier imports. (Id. at 87.) Defendant contends that “the statute provides a focus on current imports and their current impact in determining whether the [domestic] industry is currently materially injured.” (Id. at 88.) Defendant quotes Seafoods II, stating that “ ‘any adverse lingering effects of past material injury ... are insufficient to support an affirmative injury determination’ ” unless those lingering effects are “ ‘themselves a source of present material injury to the domestic industry.’ ” (Id. (quoting Sea-foods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 48).) Defendant contends that present material injury from the lingering effects of earlier imports was not demonstrated in the record. (Id. at 87-88.) Defendant asserts that the Court’s recognition in Seafoods II, that the effects of earlier imports may support an affirmative injury determination, did not create a presumption that lingering effects cause present material injury. (Id. at 88.) Defendant concludes that the ITC’s determination that subject imports were not causing present material injury is supported by substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. (Id. at 88-89.) D. Defendant-Intervenors’ Contentions. Defendant-Intervenors contend that Plaintiffs’ argument asks this Court and the ITC to “ignore the remedial purpose of the [antidumping and countervailing duty] statute and impose punitive ... duties to punish past allegedly injurious activity that no longer continues.” (Mem. in Support of the Determination of the U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n and in Opp’n to Nucor, et al’s [sic] Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. on the Agency R. (“Def.-Intvs.’ Br.”) at 15.) First, Defen-danb-Intervenors contend that the ITC properly focused on the most recent period in its final determinations and correctly found that there was no present “causal nexus between subject imports and injury.” (Id. at 14-15.) Second, Defendant-Intervenors contend that contrary to Plaintiffs’ claims, the ITC is not legally precluded from considering the impact of the Section 201 proceedings on the domestic market. (Id. at 18.) First, Defendant-Intervenors assert that the ITC did not misapply the legal causation standard in considering the injury caused by subject imports. (Id. at 18-19.) Defendant-Intervenors contend that the parties do not dispute that the statute “requires a causal nexus between the subject imports and the injury.” (Id. at 19 (citing Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 720, 722 (Fed.Cir.1997)).) Defendant-Intervenors claim that Plaintiffs attempt to persuade this Court that the ITC made “a mere temporal finding — that little or no imports at the end of the [POI] automatically suggested no causation of injury.” (Id.) Defendant-Inter-venors contend that this is not the case. (Id.) Defendant-Intervenors contend that, in fact, the ITC properly determined that, given the fundamental change in the conditions of competition due to the Section 201 proceedings, “the past subject imports were not causing present material injury to the domestic industry.” (Id.) Defen-danNIntervenors argue that the Section 201 proceedings severed any causal link between the subject imports and any injury to the domestic industry. (Id. at 19.) Defendant-Intervenors contend that the ITC should give primary weight to current data to give full effect to the remedial purpose of the antidumping statute. (Id. at 21.) Defendant-Intervenors emphasize that antidumping and countervailing duties are intended to “prevent future harm.” (Id. (citing Chaparral Steel, 901 F.2d at 1103).) Given the improvements in the industry and the withdrawal of imports in 2002, Defendant-Intervenors contend that any antidumping or countervailing duties assessed based on earlier imports would have been punitive and not prospective as the statute intends. (Id. at 23.) Defendanj^Intervenors assert that it would have been improper for the ITC to disregard the “obvious effect” that the Section 201 proceedings had on the domestic market during the POI. (Id. at 21.) DefendanU-Intervenors assert that this Court has instructed the ITC to pay attention to changed circumstances and current market conditions. (Id. at 21-22 (citing Seafoods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 43-44 n. 22).) Defendant-Intervenors contend that Plaintiffs raise no argument against the ITC’s finding that the Section 201 proceedings had a dramatic effect on the domestic market in 2002; rather, Defendant-Inter-venors assert that Plaintiffs ask this Court to reverse the ITC’s material injury determination based on alleged injury caused by low-priced contracts negotiated prior to the imposition of the Section 201 relief. (Id. at 20.) Defendant-Intervenors contend that Plaintiffs fail to show a “causal link between such alleged injury and current subject imports.” (Id.) Defendant Intervenors contend that Plaintiffs’ allegation that the ITC failed to consider the effects of earlier imports is “merely another way of saying that 'the [ITC] gave too much weight to the [Section 201 proceedings].” (Id. at 21.) Defendant-Interve-nors contend that “the mere existence of any lingering injury does not establish causation by [the] subject imports.” (Id. at 24.) Defendanb-Intervenors contend that the Court in Seafoods II recognized that earlier imports could create “an enduring condition of competition in the marketplace that continues to presently cause injury to U.S. producers.” (Id. at 25 (citing Seafoods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 48).) However, Defendanb-Intervenors question whether the pricing of annual contracts could be considered an enduring condition of competition. (Id.) Defendant-Interve-nors note that contract prices will not remain depressed when they are renegotiated in the next year to reflect the change in the domestic market. (Id.) Defendant-In-tervenors contend that Plaintiffs seek a reweighing of the evidence urging this Court to give more weight to the low-priced contracts than to the evidence of the dramatic changes in the market following the imposition of Section 201 relief. (Id. at 25-26.) Defendant-Intervenors conclude that the ITC correctly applied the causation standard of the material injury statute when it determined that the domestic industry was not suffering any present material injury. (Id.) Analysis A. The ITC Properly Interpreted and Applied the Causation Requirement Under the Material Injury Statute. The Court holds that the ITC correctly interpreted and applied the causation requirement in finding no present material injury to the domestic industry. Under the material injury statue, Congress instructs the ITC to determine “whether an industry in the United States is materially injured ... by reason of imports.” 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(l), 1673d(b)(l). Here, the ITC determined that “we do not find the current volume of subject imports to be significant. Nor do we find that subject imports currently in the market are having significant adverse price effects , we do not find that the present condition of the domestic industry is attributable in any material respect to the current subject imports, and we therefore do not find that any material injury currently being experienced by the domestic industry is by reason of the subject imports.” Cold-Rolled I at 39 (emphasis added). The specific issue to be decided by this Court is whether the ITC’s focus on current subject imports is a proper interpretation and application of the statute’s causation requirement that material injury be “by reason of imports.” See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(l), 1673d(b)(l). This Court accords substantial weight to the agency’s interpretation of the statute that it administers. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778. Under Chevron, this Court is directed to determine “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Id. at 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778. “If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Id. at 842-843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. However, “if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778 (footnote omitted). In this case, the statute is “silent ... with respect to the specific issue,” id., of whether the ITC may permissibly focus on current imports in determining material injury. The statute states that injury must be “by reason of imports,” and makes no mention of whether the ITC’s determination must rest on current imports, earlier imports, or both. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(l), 1673d(b)(l). It is well-settled that the material injury statute requires that the domestic industry be suffering present material injury. Chaparral Steel, 901 F.2d at 1104 (citations omitted). However, Plaintiffs contend that the ITC cannot rest its present material injury determination on the volume, price effects, and impact of the current subject imports. In light of the purpose of the AD/CVD laws and the discretion given to the ITC to focus on the most recent data, this Court holds that the ITC’s construction of the statute to focus on current imports is reasonable. Antidumping and countervailing duties are meant “to afford prospective relief to the domestic industry which would otherwise experience further injury due to the continued importation of unfairly traded merchandise.” Seafoods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 44 n. 22. Antidumping and countervailing duty laws “are not penal, retaliatory, or compensatory”; rather, they “are intended to equalize particular aspects of future competitive conditions between foreign exporters to the United States and the domestic industry.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Imbert Imports, Inc. v. United States, 67 Cust.Ct. 569, 331 F.Supp. 1400, 1406 n. 10 (1971) (citation omitted), affd, 60 C.C.P.A. 123, 475 F.2d 1189 (Cust. & Pat.App.1973)). In reviewing other determinations, this Court has maintained that “the [ITC] permissibly focuses on the more recent ... period in evaluatihg the causal effects of the subject imports.” Taiwan Semiconductor Indus. Ass’n v. United States, 93 F.Supp.2d 1283, 1294 n. 13 (CIT 2000) (citing Seafoods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 48) (emphasis added), aff'd, 266 F.3d 1339 (Fed.Cir.2001). Further, this Court has held that the ITC “may of course permissibly focus its analysis on a specific time frame within the POI.” ALTX, Inc. v. United States, 167 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1363 (CIT 2001) (citations omitted); see also, Angus Chem. Co. v. United States, 944 F.Supp. 943, 947-948 (CIT 1996) (stating that the ITC’s “decision to focus on [current] data and make only limited comparisons [of earlier] data fell well within its discretion” (citation omitted)), aff'd, 140 F.3d 1478 (Fed.Cir.1998); Chaparral Steel, 901 F.2d at 1103 (upholding the ITC’s focus on current unfair imports, versus those earlier in the period of investigation, in its cumulation analysis because such construction was “in accord with the remedial purpose of duties which are intended merely to prevent future harm to the domestic industry by reason of unfair imports that are presently causing material injury” (citation omitted)). In Seafoods II, the Court held that the ITC must examine data, within a time frame as close as possible to vote day in making its present material injury determination. Seafoods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 44 n. 22. “[Wjithin the time frame established by the ITC for its investigation, relatively older information serves to provide a historical frame of reference against which a ‘present’ (i.e.[,] as recent to vote day as possible, given the limitations of the collected data) material injury determination is to be made, and without which any assessment of the extent of changed circumstances would be impossible.” Id. (citations omitted). Here, the ITC’s negative material injury determination clearly rested on its findings regarding current subject imports. See Cold-Rolled I at 39. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contentions, however, the ITC did not “impose a requirement that current imports be causing injury.” (Domestic Integrated Producers’ Br. at 16-17.) Rather, in keeping with the remedial purpose of the trade laws, the ITC used current subject import data that was “as nearly contemporaneous to vote day as possible” to evaluate the causal relationship between the subject imports and any material injury. . See Seafoods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 44 n. 22. As Defendant and Defendant Intervenors contend, the ITC’s negative determination was based upon an examination of the entire period of investigation with a focus on the current 2002 imports. As discussed below in the separate factor analyses, the ITC considered data from 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 to determine the significance of volume, price effects, and impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry. See Coldr-Rolled I at 32-39. As the Court directed in Seafoods II, the ITC used the earlier data from 1999-2001 as “a historical frame of reference” ■ to make its injury determination. See Seafoods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 44 n. 22. Thus, the Court holds that the ITC reasonably focused on current subject imports in its application of the material injury statute’s “by reason of imports” causation requirement. 1. The ITC Adequately Considered the Effects of Subject Imports Entered Earlier in the POI and Reasonably Concluded that They Were Not Causing Present Material Injury to the Domestic Industry. This Court reviews the ITC’s factual determinations of whether the various provisions of the statute have been met in this case to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(l)(B)(i); see also, Enercon GmbH, 151 F.3d at 1381 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs contend that the ITC’s negative material injury determination is deficient because it failed to explicitly consider whether subject imports that were entered earlier in the POI caused present material injury to the domestic industry. (Domestic Integrated Producers’ Br. at 20-21; Nucor’s Reply Br. at 5.) Plaintiffs contend that if the ITC had adequately considered earlier imports as a cause of present material injury, the ITC “would have been compelled by its own findings of fact” to make an affirmative present material injury determination. (Domestic Integrated Producers’ Br. at 21; see also, Nucor’s Reply Br. at 10-14.) This Court finds that the ITC adequately considered the effects that the earlier imports continued to have on the domestic industry at the end of the POI and reasonably concluded that the effects of earlier imports were insufficient to find present material injury. Although the ITC did not explicitly state that earlier imports were not causing present material injury, “the agency’s path may be reasonably discerned,” Ceramica Regiomontana, 810 F.2d at 1139, through the ITC’s continued discussion of the effects that subject imports entered earlier in the POI had on the domestic industry and its ultimate conclusion that the domestic industry was not suffering present material injury. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contentions, the Court finds that the ITC’s “quest for up-to-date information” was not “at the expense of overlooking the ‘possibility that negative effects of a present material injury are latent.’ ” Saarstahl AG v. United States, 858 F.Supp. 196, 200 (CIT 1994) (quoting Seafoods I, 16 Ct. Int’l Trade at 956). Specifically, the ITC discussed the lower-priced contracts negotiated in 2001 and their effect on domestic prices: “although subject imports which entered the market earlier in the period examined continue to have an effect on the industry’s contract prices negotiated before the Section 201 relief was effective, subject imports currently entering the market are not suppressing current domestic prices to a significant degree.” Cold-Rolled I at 36. The ITC also noted that several domestic producers filed for bankruptcy during the POI, id. at 24, but found that “the industry’s condition began to improve as prices rose and shipments increased” in 2002, id. at 37. The ITC considered the operating losses that the domestic industry experienced at the end of the POI and found that those losses had declined from an industry high in 2001. Id. at 38. The Court finds that substantial evidence in the record supports the ITC’s finding that the effects of earlier imports were insufficient to find present material injury. As discussed in more detail in the separate sections below, the ITC weighed the evidence of the subject imports’ effect on the domestic market, including the effect of earlier imports, against the evidence of the sharp decline in subject import volume in 2002 and other indica of the domestic industry’s recovery in making its final determination. See id. at 32-39. Although Plaintiffs contend that an examination of the evidence could result in a different conclusion, “it is not the province of this court to review the record evidence to determine whether a different conclusion could be reached, but to determine whether [the agency’s] determination is supported by substantial evidence.” Hoogovens Staal BV v. United States, 138 F.Supp.2d 1352, 1360 (CIT 2001) (citing Inland Steel Indus., Inc. v. United States, 188 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed.Cir.1999) (in turn citing P.P.G. Indus., Inc. v. United States, 978 F.2d 1232, 1236 (Fed.Cir.1992))). This Court holds that substantial evidence supports the ITC’s finding that the effects of earlier imports were insufficient to support a present material injury determination. 2. The ITC’s Consideration of the Effect of the Section 201 Proceedings on the Domestic Industry is in Accordance with Law. The material injury statute directs the ITC to evaluate all relevant economic factors (i.e., volume, price effects, and impact) “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C). Although Plaintiffs contend that the ITC’s consideration of the effect of the Section 201 Proceedings is not in accordance with law, the Court has instructed the ITC to “address record evidence of significant circumstances and events that occur between the petition date and the vote day.” Usinor v. United States, No. 01-00010, 2002 WL 1998315, *10, 2002 Ct. Int’l Trade LEXIS 98, at *33 (CIT 2002). The Court has required the ITC to account for “changed circumstances ... which impact a present material injury inquiry.” Seafoods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 44 n. 22. The Court has reasoned that “[a]ccounting for changed circumstances in an assessment of whether a domestic industry is experiencing ‘present’ material injury accords with the purely remedial purpose of our trade laws.” Id. (citations omitted). Here, the ITC found that “the Section 201 investigation and the President’s remedy fundamentally altered the U.S. market for many steel products, including cold-rolled steel.” Cold-Rolled I at 28. The ITC considered the evidence of a significant event that occurred “between the date of the petition and vote day,” Seafoods II, 19 Ct. Int’l Trade at 44 n. 22, namely, the Section 201 proceedings. See Cold-Rolled I at 27-30. The ITC examined certain data to determine the impact of the Section 201 proceedings on the domestic industry. See id. at 21, 28-30. As detailed in Part II.Analysis.A.1 below, the ITC’s examination of data from before and after the Section 201 proceedings demonstrated that the Section 201 proceedings were a significant condition of competition that affected the domestic cold-rolled steel industry. Although, as Plaintiffs contend, there are differences in the scope and nature of the Section 201 proceedings and AD/CVD investigations, the ITC considered these differences in making its final determinations. See, e.g., id. at 27 (listing the countries that were exempt from the Section 201 tariffs, but which were included in these AD/CVD investigations); id. at 28 (taking into account the cold-rolled steel products excluded from the Section 201 tariffs that were subject to these AD/CVD investigations). Compare id. at 27 (stating that the Section 201 tariffs were “30[%] ad valorum in the first year, 24[%] ad valo-rum in the second year, and 18[%] ad valorum in the third year”), with id. at 36 n. 222 and Cold-Rolled II at 12 n. 59 (considering the antidumping margins found by Commerce in these investigations). This Court holds that the ITC’s decision to take into account the Section 201 proceedings conforms with the remedial purposes of the trade laws and is otherwise in accordance with law. II. The Volume of Subject Imports. ITC’s Determination The ITC found that the volume of subject imports was not significant. Id. at 33. The ITC recognized that from 1999 to 2001, the absolute volume of subject imports decreased slightly, but, at the same time, subject imports gained market share. Id. at 32. However, the ITC noted that in the first half of 2002, the subject imports experienced a “sharp decline in both the volume and market penetration.” Id. In its discussion of conditions of competition, the ITC found that the Section 201 remedy “was the overwhelming factor in the decline in subject import volume in 2002, notwithstanding the pendency of these [AD/CVD] investigations.” Id. at 28. In finding that the Section 201 proceedings “fundamentally altered the U.S. market for many steel products, including cold-rolled steel,” the ITC focused on three sets of data: 1) subject import data following key events in the Section 201 proceedings; 2) import data for other flat-rolled steel products; and 3) questionnaire responses from domestic purchasers. Id. at 28-30. First, the ITC examined various import data following certain key events in the Section 201 proceedings. Id. at 28. After taking into account the 102-day lead time between import orders and delivery, the ITC noted that “fflollowing the [ITC’s] announcement of its Section 201 remedy recommendations on December 7, 2001, subject imports in March 2002 (approximately 102 days later) declined to 73,522 short tons, as compared to 161,542 short tons in March 2001 and 156,394 short tons in the preceding month of February 2002.” Id. (citing Monthly Commerce import statistics, compiled Aug. 22, 2002). Additionally, the ITC noted that after the President announced the Section 201 tariffs in March 2002, “subject imports in June 2002 (approximately 102 days later) declined to 8,409 short tons, as compared to 185,523 short tons in June 2001.” Id. The ITC remarked that by the time Commerce announced its preliminary antidumping duty margins for these investigations in May 2002, “subject imports had already dropped to minimal levels in the U.S. market (34,012 short tons in April 2002 and 12,095 short tons in May 2002).” Id. In a footnote, the ITC recognized another sharp decline in subject import volume between December 2001 and January 2002. Id. at 30 n. 175. This sharp decline followed both the filing of the AD/CVD petitions, in September 2001, and the ITC’s affirmative injury finding in the Section 201 investigation, in October 2001. Id. The ITC stated that although “both the pending investigations and the Section 201 investigation had an impact on subject import volumes ... subject imports declined even more dramatically to their lowest levels of the [POI]” following the ITC’s Section 201 remedy recommendation in December 2001 and the President’s announced remedy in March 2002. Id. The ITC noted that although it “[did] not discount the pendency of these [AD/CVD] investigations[,] ... the record shows that the Section 201 relief fundamentally altered the U.S. market for cold-rolled steel and was the most significant factor in the decline of subject imports during the most recent period examined.” Id. Second, the ITC compared import data for hot-rolled and coated steel with import data for the subject cold-rolled steel to support its conclusion that the Section 201 remedy “was the overwhelming factor in the sharp decline in subject imports.” Id. at 30. The ITC noted that imports of hot-rolled and coated steel were included in the Section 201 proceedings, but were not subject to AD/CVD investigations. Id. After examining the import data, the ITC found similar sharp declines in the volume of imports for all three steel products following the imposition of the Section 201 relief. Id. The ITC also found that domestic spot prices of cold-rolled, hot-rolled, and coated steel, all of which were subject to the Section 201 tariffs, “exhibited similar trends and similar dramatic increases” after the Section 201 relief was announced. Id. Third, the ITC cited the Purchasers’ Questionnaire Responses in which “79 of 94 purchasers ... said that the Section 201 tariffs had reduced subject import volumes, leading, inter alia, to higher prices, supply shortages, and some broken or renegotiated contracts.” Id. at 30 (citing Purchasers’ Questionnaire Responses (C.R.355, 369, 377, 380, 397, 399, 401, 408, 419, 961, 962, 966, 968)). The ITC concluded that the Section 201 relief “is having a major impact in the [domestic cold-rolled steel market] and was the overwhelming factor in the sharp decline in subject imports during the most recent period examined.” Id. The ITC noted that several developing countries subject to this material injury investigation were exempt from the Section 201 tariffs: Argentina, India, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela. Id. at 27 (citing Annex to Presidential Proclamation 7529, ¶ 11(d)©). The ITC highlighted the fact that the Presidential Proclamation stated that these exemptions would be revoked if the developing countries undermined the effectiveness of the safeguard measures by increasing exports to the United States. Id. After discussing Section 201’s influence on the domestic industry, the ITC addressed the effects that the initiation of these AD/CVD investigations had on the subject imports during the POI. Id. at 31. The ITC stated that it has been given discretion “to look to the time period that provides probative, reliable data ‘in as contemporaneous a time frame as possible.’ ” Id. (quoting Saarstahl, 858 F.Supp. at 200). The ITC noted that it must consider “whether any change in the volume, price effects, or impact of imports since the filing of the petition in an investigation is related to the pendency of the investigation,” and, if so, it may “reduce the weight accorded to data for the period after the filing of the petition” in making its determination of material injury. Id. (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(P). The ITC also noted that the presumption that a change in import data is related to the pendency of the investigation is rebuttable. Id. (citing the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“SAA”), H.R. Doc. No. 94-103, at 854 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4186). The ITC reiterated its earlier finding “that the Section 201 relief was a major factor in the sharp decline in subject imports, notwithstanding any effects attributable to the pendency of the [AD/CVD] petition.” Id. Having found that the change in import data in 2002 was a result of the Section 201 proceedings, the ITC rejected the petitioners’ arguments to accord less weight to the post-petition data under § 1677(7)(I). Id. at 31. Thus, the ITC considered data from the full POI: January 1999 to June 2002. Id. The ITC compared the most recent volume data with data from the earlier part of the POI. Id. at 33. The ITC cited the following volume data regarding the earlier part of the POI: cumulative subject imports totaled approximately 2.48 million short tons in 1999; 1.68 million short tons in 2000; and 2.40 million short tons in 2001. Id. at 32. The merchant market share of the subject imports was 13.6% in 1999, 9.2% in 2000, and 15.2% in 2001 “as apparent U.S. consumption declined.” Id. Examining the total market, the ITC found that subject imports’ market share was 6.2% in 1999, 4.2% in 2000, and 6.7% in 2001. Id. In comparing recent 2002 data, the ITC noted that in the first half of 2002, subject imports totaled 460,875 short tons, compared to 1.04 million short tons in the f