Full opinion text
OPINION BARNETT, Judge: Plaintiff JMC Steel Group (“JMC”) and Plaintiff-Intervenors Allied Tube and Conduit (“Allied”), United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) and Wheatland Tube (“Wheatland”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move, pursuant to USCIT Rule 56.2, for judgment on the agency record, challenging the United States International Trade Commission’s (“ITC” or “Commission”) negative final injury determinations in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations concerning certain circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (“CWP”) from India, Oman, the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), and Vietnam (“subject imports”), published in Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, 77 Fed. Reg. 73,674 (ITC Dec. 11, 2012) {“Final Determination ”), and the accompanying Views of the Commission, USITC Pub. 4362, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-482-484 and 731-TA-1191-1194 (Final) (Dec. 2012) {“Views ”) For the reasons stated below, the court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motions and remands this case to the ITC. BACKGROUND On October 26, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a petition with the ITC, alleging material injury and threat of material injury by reason of dumped and subsidized CWP imports from India, Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam. See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, 76 Fed. Reg. 68,208 (ITC Nov. 3, 2011) (initiation of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations). In December 2012, the ITC published its final determination, which examined a period of investigation (“POi”) 0f January 2009 through June 2012. The Commission described CWP as: [standard pipe .... intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses.... Other applications for CWP include light load-bearing or mechanical applications, such as conduit shells, and structural applications in general construction. Views at 9 (footnotes omitted). The Commission determined that subject imports and the domestic like product are “generally fungible,” share the same channels of distribution, have a “reasonable overlap” of competition, and that price is a significant factor in CWP purchasing decisions. Id. at 15-16, 20. It found a significant increase in the volume of subject imports during the POI, in absolute terms and relative to domestic consumption and production, but- concluded that the increase did not have significant adverse effects on the domestic industry. Id. at 29. Although the ITC observed that subject imports “pervasively undersold” the domestic like product by significant margins during the POI, it nevertheless found “no evidence” that subject imports significantly depressed or suppressed prices of the domestic like product. Id. at 30-31. The ITC also found that the domestic industry’s performance improved in “almost every measure [during the POI] despite the weak recovery in CWP demand” following the 2008 economic crisis and that there was no correlation between subject import volume, market share, and underselling, and domestic industry performance. Id. at 43. In a 4-2 vote, the Commission determined that cumulated imports of dumped and subsidized subject imports from India, Oman, and the UAE and dumped subject imports from Vietnam neither caused nor threatened to cause material injury to the domestic industry. Final Determination, 77 Fed. Reg. at 73,675; accord Views at 50. Plaintiffs now challenge the Final Determination on several grounds. (See generally Br. JMC in Supp. Mot. J.A.R. (“JMC Mot.”); Mem. in Supp. Mot. J.A.R. of Allied (“Allied Mot.”); Mem. in Supp. Mot. PL U.S. Steel J.A.R. (“U.S. Steel Mot.”); Br. Wheatland in Supp. Mot. J.A.R. (“Wheatland Mot.”).) Plaintiffs variously contest, as unsupported by substantial evidence or not in accordance with law, the ITC’s findings that (1) there was no correlation between the increase in subject import volume and negative price effects; (2) there was no correlation between the increase in subject import volume and declines in the domestic industry’s performance; (3) the closure of two domestic CWP mills did not occur due to subject imports and led to increased capacity at other mills; (4) subject producer capacity did not threaten the domestic industry with material injury; and (5) the domestic industry did not anticipate negative effects from subject imports in the imminent future. They also contest the lawfulness of the ITC’s (1) alleged conclusion that negative volume effects alone could not warrant an affirmative injury determination; (2) alleged failure to take into account the business cycle in its analysis; (3) use of pre-POI data in its analysis; (4) refusal to. employ the Commercial Policy Analysis System methodology (“COMPAS model”); and (5) reliance on interim 2011 and 2012 data. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). STANDARD OF REVIEW The court will uphold an agency determination that is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law. ’ 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). Substantial evidence is “ ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ ” Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2003) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). It “ ‘requires more than a mere scintilla,’ ” but “ ‘less than the weight of the evidence.’ ” Nucor Corp. v. United States, 34 CIT -, -, 675 F.Supp.2d 1340, 1345 (2010) (quoting Altx, Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1108, 1116 (Fed.Cir.2004)). In determining whether substantial evidence supports the ITC’s determination, the court must consider “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)). That a plaintiff can point to evidence that detracts from the agency’s conclusion or that there is apossibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not preclude the agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 933, 936 (Fed.Cir.1984) (citing Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 619-20, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); Armstrong Bros. Tool Co. v. United States, 67 CCPA 94, 626 F.2d 168, 170 n. 3 (1980)). The court “may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of the agency.” Usinor v. United States, 28 CIT 1107, 1111, 342 F.Supp.2d 1267, 1272 (2004) (citation omitted). Separately, the two-step framework provided in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-45, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), governs judicial review of the Commission’s interpretation of the antidumping and countervailing duty statutes. See Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed.Cir.2005). First, the court must determine “ ‘whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question |it issue.’ ” Heino v. Shinseki, 683 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2012) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778). If Congress’s intent is clear, “ ‘that is the end of the matter.’ ” Id. (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778). However, “[i]f the statute is silent or ambiguous,” the court must determine “whether the agency’s action is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Dominion Res., Inc. v. United States, 681 F.3d 1313, 1317 (Fed.Cir.2012) (citing Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778). Discussion Two separate, but parallel, provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, provide for the ITC to determine whether a domestic industry is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of unfairly subsidized or dumped imports. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b). The Commission will issue an affirmative determination if it finds “present material injury or a threat thereof’ and makes a “finding of causation.” Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT 1208, 1210, 431 F.Supp.2d 1302, 1306 (2006) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In making a material injury determination, the Commission evaluates “(1) the volume of subject imports; (2) the price effects of subject imports on domestic like products; and (3) the impact of subject imports on the domestic producers of domestic like products.” Id. (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(i)(I)-(III)); accord GEO Specialty Chems., Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 09-13, 2009 WL 424468, at *2 (CIT Feb. 19, 2009). The Commission may also consider “ ‘such other economic factors as are relevant in the determination.’ ” Hynix Semiconductor, 30 CIT at 1210, 431 F.Supp.2d at 1306 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(ii)). I. Volume In performing its volume analysis, the ITC must “ ‘consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is significant.’ ” Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co. v. United States, 35 CIT -, -, 774 F.Supp.2d 1317, 1322 (2011) (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i)). In its Views, the ITC found that the volume of cumulated subject imports grew significantly during the POI, both in absolute terms and relative to apparent domestic consumption and production. Views at 27. However, the ITC found that the increased imports did not cause significant adverse effects to the domestic industry for several reasons. Id. at 28. In part, the Commission found that the 20.0 percent increase in apparent domestic consumption of CWP between 2009 and 2011 permitted the domestic industry to increase domestic shipments by 10.2 percent during the same period, despite the simultaneous increase in subject imports. Id. (citing Staff Report at Table IV-9). Most of the arguments that Plaintiffs characterize in their briefs as concerning volume are, in fact, rooted in disagreements over subject imports’ impact on the domestic industry. The court therefore will address those issues in the impact section, infra. Apart from one legal argument by JMC, there is no dispute over the Commission’s volume findings. A. The ITC Did Not Assume that Negative Volume Effects Alone Cannot Warrant an Affirmative Injury Determination 1. Contentions JMC argues that the Commission unlawfully based its negative material injury determination on the incorrect premise that volume effects alone cannot lead to an affirmative injury determination. It asks the court to remand and order the Commission to explain whether it interprets the statutory scheme to permit an affirmative injury determination based solely on negative volume effects. (JMC Mot. 13 & nn. 6-7.) 2. Analysis In its Views, the Commission found a significant increase in subject import volume and market share, and concluded that the increases did not have significant adverse impacts on the domestic industry because (1) the domestic industry increased its U.S. shipments by 10.2 percent during the POI; (2) the domestic industry’s market share from 2009 through 2011 exceeded that of any year between 2000 and 2008; and (3) the increase in subject import volume and market share did not coincide with significant adverse price effects or other adverse impacts on the domestic industry. Views at 28-29. Nowhere in its Views did the Commission indicate that volume effects could not independently warrant an affirmative injury determination, and JMC does not identify any place in the record where the ITC made such an assumption. Moreover, the fact that the ITC found a significant increase in subject import volume and market share does not compel an affirmative injury determination. The language of the statute is clear that “[t]he presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to evaluate ... shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination by the Commission of material injury.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(E)(ii). JMC’s request for a remand for the Commission to state whether a particular factual scenario could, by itself, support an injury determination must be rejected. The court will only decide the case before it, without requiring the agency to render any hypothetical or advisory opinions. JMC has failed to identify any legal error in the Commission’s consideration of volume. Consequently, the court denies JMC’s request to remand the ITC’s determination for any further consideration of the legal standard applicable to the agency’s volume analysis. II. Price Effects To determine the effects of subject imports on U.S. prices of the domestic like product, the Commission inquires: (1) whether there has been “significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products” and (2) whether “the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii)(D-(II); accord Shandong TTCA Biochemistry, 35 CIT at -, 774 F.Supp.2d at 1326. In the present case, the ITC employed a correlation analysis to discern the price effects of subject imports. After discussing the fungibility of subject imports and the domestic like product,-and the importance of price in CWP purchasing decisions, the Commission examined whether the underselling margins of subject imports led to negative price effects on the domestic like product. Views at 30-31. The ITC first turned to average quarterly net U.S. f.o.b. price data, from eleven U.S. producers and twenty-eight importers. Id. at 30 (citing Staff Report at V-4). After determining the quarterly price averages, the ITC found an average underselling margin for each quarter for each of four selected products. Id. (citing Staff Report at Table V-6). Examining these quarterly underselling margins, the ITC found that subject imports “pervasively” undersold the domestic like product by significant margins throughout the POI — e.g., in 165 of 191 quarterly comparisons, or 86 percent of the time, at margins ranging from 1.0 to 50.4 percent. Id. (citing Staff Report at Table V-6). The ITC concluded, however, that subject imports did not significantly depress prices of the domestic like product, “because U.S. producer prices for sales of three of the four pricing products were higher in the second quarter of 2012 than in the first quarter of 2009.” Id. (citing Staff Report at Table V-5). It also observed no evidence of significant price suppression, “because domestic producers were able to pass higher costs on to purchasers,” as demonstrated by improvements in the domestic industry’s ratio of cost of goods sold (“COGS”) to net sales and the increase in the margin between the domestic industry’s raw material costs per unit and net sales value per unit (the “metal margin”). Id. at 31-32 (citing Staff Report at Table VI-1). The Commission did not find compelling Allied and Wheat-land’s claims that they could not fully realize several announced price increases in late 2010 and 2011, reflecting increasing raw material costs, and even experienced some price declines. Id. at 31 (citing Allied’s Prehr’g Br. 15-16). The ITC further noted an absence of confirmed allegations of lost sales and lost revenue. Id. at 32-33 (citing Staff Report at V-20-21, Table V-7). From these findings, the ITC concluded that while subject imports significantly undersold the domestic like product, they did not depress or suppress the prices of domestic like product during the period of investigation. Id. at 33. A. The ITC Reasonably Used a Price Correlation Analysis 1.Contentions JMC, Allied, and Wheatland argue that the ITC should have considered the COM-PAS methodology' in its assessment of the domestic industry’s performance because it better accounts for the impact of subject imports in the context of the business cycle than the price correlation analysis that the agency employed. (JMC Mot. 29-30, 32-, 33; Allied Mot. 15-17; Wheatland Mot. 8.) They describe the correlation analysis as “inadequate,” because it “igiior[es] the interaction of the supply and demand functions of domestic, subject and nonsubject imports ... and their determinants,” rendering its results meaningless. (JMC Mot. 32 n. 24 (citation and quotation marks omitted); see Allied Mot. 10-11, 14-17; Wheatland Mot. 8.) 2.The Legal Standard for Challenges to the ITC’s Choice of Methodology When evaluating challenges to the ITC’s choice of methodology, the court will affirm the chosen methodology as long as it is reasonable. Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co., 35 CIT at -, 774 F.Supp.2d at 1327 (citing U.S. Steel Grp. v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352, 1361-62 (Fed.Cir.1996)); accord Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., 30 CIT at 1210, 1215, 431 F.Supp.2d at 1306, 1310-11. When presented with a challenge to the Commission’s methodology, the court examines “not what methodology [Plaintiff] would prefer, but ... whether the methodology actually used by the Commission was reasonable.” Shandong TTCA Biochemistry Co., 35 CIT at -, 774 F.Supp.2d at 1329 (citation omitted). 3.Analysis JMC, Allied, and Wheatland have not demonstrated that the correlation analysis used to assess the effects of subject imports on the domestic industry’s performance was unreasonable. A correlation analysis entails tracking subject import trends in relation to trends in the domestic industry’s performance, see Altx, Inc. v. United States, 26 CIT 709, 729, 2002 WL 1560884 (2002), and the court has approved its use to assess the price effects of subject imports. See, e.g., Comm. for Fair Coke Trade v. United States, 28 CIT 1140, 1168, 2004 WL 1615600 (2004) (affirming use of correlation analysis to determine whether subject import volumes caused injury to domestic industry); Altx, Inc., 26 CIT at 726-29 (affirming use of correlation analysis to evaluate relationship between increased subject import volume and injury to domestic industry). As explained above, it is not enough for Plaintiffs simply to proffer an alternate methodology, even if that alternate methodology is reasonable and not inconsistent with the statute. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the ITC could not properly rely on its selected methodology, something they have failed to do. In the absence of any error in the Commission’s analysis, the court will not disturb the ITC’s use of a price correlation analysis in its determination. See also Altx, Inc., 370 F.3d at 1121 (holding that ITC is not required to use COMPAS model). B. Substantial Evidence Supports the ITC’s Finding of No Correlation Between Subject Imports and Domestic Prices 1. Contentions JMC asserts that record evidence indicates a correlation between subject import volume and price depression and suppression. (JMC Mot. 24.) It notes that in 2011, the volume of subject imports increased to 206,024 short tons — its highest level during the POI — and subject import market share rose to 13.9 percent. (JMC Mot. 24.) At the same time, U.S. prices fell for all four pricing products, from the second quarter to the third quarter of 2011, despite increasing demand. (JMC Mot. 24.) According to JMC, these events show that subject imports depressed domestic prices. (JMC Mot. 24.) JMC, Wheatland, and Allied also argue that the ITC’s correlation analysis failed to account for the fungibility and high price sensitivity of CWP in its price effects analysis. (Wheatland Mot. 9, 12; Allied Mot. 6-7; see JMC Mot.' 25-26; Allied Mot. 9.) “If the supply of a commodity [such as CWP] increases, this will tend to cause prices to be lower than they otherwise would; and similarly, if new suppliers enter a market at a lower price, they will tend to cause the market price to decline.” (Allied Mot. 6-7; accord JMC Mot. 23; Allied Mot. 9.) Additionally, JMC and Wheatland contend that the fluctuation of the domestic industry’s operating margin and the domestic industry’s cost-price squeeze in 2010-2011 demonstrated the presence of price suppression. (Wheatland Mot. 13; JMC Mot. 24-25.) For example, the domestic industry’s operating margin fell from 16.2 percent in 2009 to 2.3 percent in 2011. By comparison, in 2007, when the domestic market absorbed 700,000 tons of unfairly traded imports from China, the domestic industry’s operating margin reached a nadir of only 3.3 percent. According to JMC and Wheatland, the domestic industry’s performance could not have collapsed to such a level in 2011 without suffering negative price effects caused' by subject imports. (Wheatland Mot. 13; JMC Mot. 25.) Similarly, JMC avers that the inelasticity of domestic CWP demand and the growth of U.S. consumption from 2010 to 2011 should have enabled the domestic industry to increase prices sufficiently to stabilize, or at least reduce, its COGS-to-net sales ratio. (JMC Mot. 24.) However, the ratio increased from 2010 to 2011, demonstrating the presence of negative price effects from subject imports. (JMC Mot. 24.) 2. Analysis The ITC supported, with substantial evidence, its finding that there was no correlation between the increase in volume of subject imports and any negative price effects on the domestic like product. The ITC used its standard correlation analysis to examine the record for evidence of price depression, price suppression, and any link between subject imports and domestic prices. See, e.g., Am. Bearing Mfrs. Ass’n v. United States, 28 CIT 1698, 1709-17, 350 F.Supp.2d 1100, 1112-19 (2004) (affirming ITC’s use of correlation analysis to examine price effects). In its price depression analysis, the ITC first turned to four pricing products and found that domestic producer prices for three of them increased' during the POI. Views at 30 (citing Staff Report at Table V-5). Although the Commission recognized that domestic prices for Products 3 and 4 declined between the first quarter of 2009 and the last quarter of 2011, it reasoned that the declines did not denote significant price depression because (1) the prices for Product 3 dropped only 5.2 percent, and those for Product 4 by only 1.5 percent, id. at 30 n. 141 (citing Staff Report at Tables V-l-4), and (2) domestic price movements exhibited no relationship to subject import volume trends, id. at 30-31 (citing Staff Report at Tables IV-10, C-1). For example, the average unit value of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments rose 20.0 percent from 2009 through 2011, from $898 per short ton in 2009, to $978 per short ton in 2010, and $1,078 per short ton in 2011, even as subject import volume and market share increased. Id. (citing Staff Report at Table C-l). Conversely, the ITC found that, the average unit value of the domestic industry’s domestic shipments fell from the first half of 2011 to the first half of 2012, from $1,099 per short ton to $1,054 per short ton, although subject import volume and market share also fell “substantially” during the same period. Id. at 31 (citing Staff Report at Tables IV-10, C-l). The fact that Plaintiffs can point to a correlation in domestic price movements in two select quarters of the POI does not call into question the ITC’s analysis of the record covering the POI as a whole. The Commission likewise found that higher volumes of subject imports did not suppress prices of the domestic like product, because domestic producers were able to pass higher costs on to their purchasers during the POI, as evidenced by the change in the domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales and the so-called metal margin. Id. at 31-32. The Commission found that the domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales improved from 105.1 percent in 2009 to 89.1 percent in 2011, a period during which subject import volume and market share increased. Id. at 31 (citing Staff Report at Table VI-1). Similarly, the ITC noted that from interim 2011 to interim 2012, the COGS ratio worsened from 83.5 percent to 88.7 percent, despite significantly lower subject import volume and market share. Id. Likewise, over the course of the POI, the domestic industry’s metal margin (the difference between the CWP price and the cost of the metal input) increased from $205 in 2009, to $301 in 2010, $306 in 2011, and $308 in 2012. Id. at 32 & n. 154 (citing CR Staff Report at Table VI-1, Figure V-3). Similarly, during a period of increased subject imports and subject import market share, the domestic industry’s ratio of raw material costs to net sales improved, from 78.5 percent in 2009 to 71.2 percent in 2011. Id. at 32 (citing Staff Report at Table VI-1). On the basis of this evidence, the ITC concluded that the domestic industry’s ability to raise CWP prices to compensate for increased hot-rolled steel and zinc costs, which comprised approximately three-quarters of production costs, undermined the case for subject imports’ causing significant price suppression. The court rejects JMC, Wheatland, and Allied’s argument for a per se rule that a growing volume of subject imports which undersell the domestic like product, in the context of a highly competitive market for a fungible good, necessarily must produce negative price effects. The court has repeatedly held that “underselling combined with increasing import volumes does not ‘necessarily indicate!] injury due to pricing in cases involving fungible products.’ ” Coal. for Pres. of Am. Brake Drum & Rotor Aftermkt. Mfrs. v. United States, 22 CIT 520, 527-28, 15 F.Supp.2d 918, 925 (1998) (brackets in original) (quoting USX Corp. v. United States, 12 CIT 844, 849, 698 F.Supp. 234, 239 (1988)). Substantial evidence supports the ITC’s finding that there is ,no correlation between subject import underselling and domestic industry prices, and Plaintiffs offer no legal basis for requiring the ITC to adopt or apply a per se rule in this case. C. The ITC’s Analysis of Domestic Producers’ Lost Revenue and Sales Allegations Lacks Substantial Evidence and is Not in Accordance With Law 1. Contentions JMC and Allied argue that the Commission did not act in accordance with law when it referred to the absence of confirmed lost sales and revenues to bolster its finding of no negative price effects. Specifically, they allege that the Commission failed to acknowledge that the domestic industry’s loss of market share demonstrated the existence of lost sales. (JMC Mot. 20-22; Allied Mot. 12-13.) They assert that “in an investigation of a highly interchangeable product, [such as CWP,] evidence of increasing import volumes and consistent underselling,” as the Commission found here, “are evidence of lost sales and revenues due to imports and, more particularly, lost sales due to pricing.” (JMC Mot. 21 (citation and quotation marks omitted); accord Allied Mot. 12-13.) Moreover, Allied contends that the record contained no confirmed lost sales because “most domestic producer sales are made to distributors, which are generally unable to trace lost sales to imports from a particular source.” (Allied Mot. 12 (citation and quotation marks omitted).) 2. Analysis Neither the statute nor case law obliges the ITC to examine lost sales and revenues in a specific manner. Celanese Chems., Ltd. v. United States, 31 CIT 279, 301, 2007 WL 735024 (2007) (“[T]here is no statutory provision requiring the Commission to analyze lost sales in a particular manner. The Commission may make such an evaluation on whatever rational basis it chooses.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). During the investigation, six of twelve responding producers reported losing sales to subject imports, and four reported reducing prices or rolling back price increases since 2009 due to subject imports. However, the responding producers did not provide the Commission with the detailed information and purchaser contacts, that the ITC considered necessary to investigate and confirm any lost sales and revenue allegations. Instead, the. industry claimed that “most domestic producer sales are made to distributors, which are generally unable to trace lost sales to imports from a particular source.” Views at 33 n. 157 (citing Staff Report at V-20-21; Hr’g Tr. 28, 94-96, Oct. 27, 2012). Thus, only one non-petitioning domestic producer reported three lost sales allegations, and the ITC could confirm only one of those allegations, which concerned an insignificant volume of CWP. Id. at 32-33 (citing Staff Report at V-21, Table V-7). The ITC could not confirm any lost revenue allegations. Id. at 33 (citing Staff Report at V-20). Although the court has held that in markets with fungible goods, such as CWP, “volume rather than anecdotal evidence may be the best indicator of lost sales,” Granges Metallverken AB v. United States, 13 CIT 471, 481, 716 F.Supp. 17, 26 (1989) (citations omitted), it has never required the Commission to examine volume in lieu of anecdotal evidence for such purposes, as JMC and Allied request. See Copperweld Corp. v. United States, 12 CIT 148, 169-70, 682 F.Supp. 552, 572 (1988) (noting lack of any statutory provision -requiring ITC to perform any particular type of analysis of lost sales or revenue allegations) (citing Maine Potato Council v. United States, 9 CIT 293, 302, 613 F.Supp. 1237, 1245 (1985)). Thus, the ITC did not err in its reliance on anecdotal evidence of lost sales or revenues. Once the Commission decided to rely on anecdotal evidence, however, it was still required to address significant arguments of the parties which impacted the reliability of its reasoning and conclusions. See, e.g., U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 36 CIT -, -, 856 F.Supp.2d 1318, 1321 (2012) (citation omitted). Here, Plaintiffs stated that they could not provide the lost sales and revenue information in the form and manner requested by the Commission due to the structure of the domestic CWP market. The Commission, however, rejected the argument and simply found that Plaintiffs failed to provide the requested information. Views at 33 n. 157. The Commission went on to find that the absence of confirmed lost sales and revenue allegations provided further support for its finding that subject imports neither depressed nor suppressed domestic like product prices. Id. at 32-33. Two separate provisions of the statute govern the Commission’s handling of situations such as this. First, 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(c) provides that if an. interested party notifies the Commission that it is unable to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, the Commission is to consider the ability of the party to submit the information and may modify its requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on the party when certain additional requirements are met. In certain cases, the Commission also is required to provide such parties any assistance that is practicable. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(c). The record is ambiguous as to whether domestic interested parties took the necessary steps to properly invoke these provisions and, if so, the extent to which the Commission considered modifying its information requests or otherwise assisting these parties in addressing the questions regarding lost sales and revenue. Moreover, by treating the lack of confirmed lost sales and revenue as support for its determination, the Commission made an inference adverse to the domestic industry without taking any of the steps required by 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. Subsection (a) of that provision permits the Commission to use the facts otherwise available to reach a determination when necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party has withheld or otherwise failed to provide such information. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The Commission, however, must first find that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information before the Commission may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b). The Commission does not appear to have made any determination that domestic interested parties have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability in failing to provide lost sales or revenue information in the form and manner requested by the Commission. Accordingly, the court remands this determination to the ITC to reconsider its findings with regard to lost sales and revenue. Upon remand, the Commission may collect additional evidence relevant to this issue and reconsider any aspect of the Final Determination which relied upon or took into consideration the Commission’s prior findings regarding lost sales and revenue. III. Impact In evaluating the impact of subject imports on the domestic industry, the Commission evaluates “all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry,” including, but not limited to: (I) actual and potential decline in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II) factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects op the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, and (V) in a proceeding under part II of this subtitle [concerning the imposition of an-tidumping duties], the magnitude of the margin of dumping. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). The ITC must analyze these factors “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.” Id. The ITC initially explained that it had to “analyze domestic industry performance in the context of the severe economic downturn in 2009,” which included a 37.5 percent collapse in domestic consumption of CWP, and the following weak economic recovery, particularly in the area of nonresidential construction. Views at 33 (citing Staff Report at 11-14, Figure II — 2, Table II-3; Hr’g Tr. 33, 49, 231-32). In this context, the Commission found that the domestic industry’s performance “improved markedly” during the POI in “every measure but market share, capacity, and employment.” Id. at 34. The ITC highlighted domestic industry improvements in production, capacity utilization, domestic shipments, inventories, hours worked, wages, net sales values, and operating income. Id. at 34-36. These trends led the Commission to conclude that the domestic industry’s recovery would not have been significantly stronger but for the increase in volume and market share of subject imports, “particularly in light of the continued weak demand conditions and substantial nonsubject import competition that also influenced domestic industry performance.” Id. at 34 (footnote omitted) (citing Staff Report at Tables IV-3, IV-10, App. D). The ITC also observed no correlation between the domestic industry’s performance and subject import market share because, during the POI, “the domestic industry’s operating income margin generally improved when subject import market share increased at the industry’s expense and weakened when subject import market share either declined ... or increased at the expense of nonsubject imports.” Id. at 38-39. The Commission similarly saw no correlation between subject import underselling and the domestic industry’s performance. Id. at 39. The Commission examined five domestic plant closures during the POI and found that they did not evidence a causal link between subject imports and injury to the domestic industry. Id. at 41. It discussed three plants, owned by Allied, Wheatland, and Leavitt, which closed in 2009 because of the economic downturn. Id. at 41-42 (citing Staff Report at III — 4, Tables III — 2, IV-10; Allied’s Resps. to Comm’r Questions at A-12). The ITC also observed that the domestic industry invested in “numerous” capacity expansions and enhancements during the POI.- Id. at 42 (citing Staff Report at Table III — 2). Taking these findings in the aggregate, the Commission concluded that subject imports had no significant adverse impact on, and did not materially injure, the domestic industry. Id. at 43-44. A. The ITC Did Not Explain How It Accounted for the Effects of the Business Cycle on Industry Performance 1. Contentions Plaintiffs contend that the Commission did not evaluate material injury “ “within the context of the business cycle,’ ” as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii), and permitted the broader economic recovery to “mask” the injurious effects of subject imports on the domestic industry. (Wheatland Mot. 5-7, 11 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii)); accord JMC Mot. 27-29; see U.S. Steel Mot. 8-10; Allied Mot. 10-11, 14-15.) They contend that because the POI began in 2009, in the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, improvements in the domestic industry’s performance during the POI reflected the resurgence of demand accompanying the economic recovery, rather than the domestic industry’s overall health. (U.S. Steel Mot. 8-9; accord JMC Mot. 26-29; Wheatland Mot. 6-7; Allied Mot. 6-7; see Allied Mot. 10.) Thus, if the ITC had taken the business cycle into account, it would have found that “the increase in domestic industry shipments d[id] not indicate the absence of volume-related injury by reason of subject imports” and that “pervasive and significant underselling ... cause[d] price suppression embodied in the domestic industry’s poor operating results.” (Wheatland Mot. 7; see JMC Mot. 28-29.) Because the ITC allegedly failed to disaggregate the beneficial effects of the economic recovery on the domestic industry from the injury inflicted upon it by the surge of subject imports, Plaintiffs ask the court to remand the Final Determination for further analysis. 2. Analysis When assessing the effects of subject imports on a domestic industry, the ITC must “evaluate all relevant factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States ... within the context of the business cycle.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); accord Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 28 CIT 62, 82, 310 F.Supp.2d 1327, 1344 (2004). Such factors may include, but are not limited to, domestic consumption and demand conditions, the commodity-like nature of domestic and subject imports, and the capital-intensive nature of the industry. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., 30 CIT at 1219-20, 431 F.Supp.2d at 1314. This statutory requirement ensures that positive trends in the business cycle do not mask unfair trading practices. Id. at 1226-27, 431 F.Supp.2d at 1320; Timken, 28 CIT at 82, 310 F.Supp.2d at 1344; Chr. Bjelland Seafoods A/C v. United States, 16 CIT 945, 956 (1992). Although the principle underlying the business cycle requirement seems clear, the statute does not specify how the ITC must frame its determination around it. In prior cases, the court has remanded ITC determinations that did not account for, or provided only conclusory statements addressing, the industry business cycle. See, e.g., Hynix Semiconductor, 30 CIT at 1227, 431 F.Supp.2d at 1320; USX Corp. v. United States, 11 CIT 82, 86, 655 F.Supp. 487, 490 (1987) (holding that mere fact that the industry was lifted out of recession cannot automatically trigger conclusion that foreign imports were not affecting domestic market). By comparison, in United States Steel Corp. v. United States, the court found that the ITC substantially incorporated the context of the business cycle into its analysis when it discussed the influence of demand trends and fluctuations in the national economy on the domestic industry’s performance. 36 CIT at -, 856 F.Supp.2d at 1329. In the present case, the Commission’s material injury analysis evaluated the conditions of competition in the industry and found that the economic recession of 2009 significantly depressed domestic consumption of and demand for CWP to a level 37.5 percent below that of 2008. Views at 16-17, 33 (citing Staff Report at Figures II — 1—2, Table C-l). It also found that the subsequent languid recovery in CWP demand levels and the nonresidential construction market contributed to the domestic industry’s weak performance after 2009 and throughout the POI. Id. at 33 (citing Staff Report at 11-14, Figures II — 1— 2, Table II-3; Hr’g Tr. 33, 41, 49, 231-32). In its volume discussion, the ITC included staff reports from previous investigations of CWP imports from non-subject countries after the parties requested that the Commission account for a possible distortion in the POI data as a result of the economic recession of 2009. Id. at 29 n. 134 (citing Allied’s Posthr’g Br. 8; Universal’s Resps. to Comm’r Questions 1-4). Using data from these earlier investigations, the ITC found that, despite the low levels of domestic industry market share between 2010 and 2011 as compared to 2009, these levels were still higher than domestic industry market share levels between 2000 and 2008. Id. (citing Staff Report at Table IV-10) (citations omitted). In its impact analysis, the ITC highlighted that “the domestic industry’s performance improved markedly” during the POI, “according to every measure but market share, capacity, and employment.” Id. at 34. It then stated that, “[although these improvements occurred relative to a base year in which the industry was battered by recession, we find it significant that nearly every measure of industry performance improved irrespective of trends in subject import volume, market share, and underselling.” Id. It then declared that it “cannot conclude that the domestic industry’s recovery would have been significantly stronger but for the increase in subject import volume and market share.” Id. (citing Staff Report at Tables III — 3, IV-10, App. D). While the Commission referenced the dismal economic conditions that affected the industry at the beginning of the POI, it did not clearly address whether the improvements in “nearly every measure of industry performance” may appear significant because of the broader economic recovery, thereby masking the injurious impact of subject imports on the domestic industry. Id. Without expressly discussing the effects of the economic recovery on the domestic industry and explicitly addressing those effects in contrast to the effects of subject imports, the court cannot assume that the Commission has evaluated all relevant factors having a bearing on the state of the industry “within the context of the , business cycle.” - 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). The court recognizes that certain other issues discussed in this opinion (e.g., the use of pre-POI data, see infra) could be considered part of the Commission’s proper consideration of the business cycle; however, in light of the emphasis placed on the distortive effect of the 2009 economic collapse, it was incumbent upon the Commission to be clear about how it evaluated all relevant factors, particularly in the aftermath of the economic collapse, in the context of the business cycle. The court therefore remands the Commission’s determination so that the Commission may explain how it has evaluated the relevant economic factors bearing on the state of the domestic industry within the context of the business cycle. The Commission may make additional determinations, including reconsidering issues otherwise addressed and affirmed in this opinion, as are necessary to account for such explanations. B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Commission’s Finding of No Correlation Between Increased Subject Import Volume and the Domestic Industry’s Financial Performance 1. Contentions JMC and Wheatland contend that the ITC lacked substantial evidence for its finding that there was no correlation between the significant increase in subject import volume and the domestic industry’s financial performance. (JMC Mot. 17-19; see Wheatland Mot. 10.) According to JMC and Wheatland, the fungibility of, and use of identical distribution channels by, subject imports and the domestic like product per se demonstrate a strong correlation between increases in subject import volume and the domestic industry’s performance. (JMC Mot. 14-19; see Wheatland Mot. 8-11.) To support this assertion, they note that in a 2012 sunset review, the ITC concluded that any increase in CWP subject import volume “ ‘would likely be in substantial part at the domestic industry’s expense’ ” because subject imports are “ ‘good substitutes for the domestic like product, the domestic industry supplies the majority of the U.S. market, and there appear to be no significant market segments in which the domestic industry participates exclusively.’ ” (JMC Mot. 16 (quoting Certain Circular Welded Pipe and Tube from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-253 and 731-TA-132, 252, 271, 273, 532-34, 536, USCIT Pub. 4333 (June 2012) (Third Review) at 45); Wheatland Mot. 8-10 (same).) In more concrete terms, JMC and Wheatland assert that the fact that subject imports were responsible for nearly all the domestic industry’s market share losses between 2009 and 2011, and that subject imports captured a greater proportion of the market growth than the domestic industry during the POI, demonstrate a sustained correlation between subject import volume and the domestic industry’s performance. (Wheatland Mot. 10-11; accord JMC Mot. 16-17.) 2. Analysis Substantial evidence supports the ITC’s finding that there was no correlation between subject imports’ increased volume and the domestic industry’s performance over the course of the POI. Although subject imports significantly increased their domestic market share at the expense of the domestic like product between 2009 and 2010, when subject imports gained 3.9 percent, and the domestic industry lost 5.6 percent, of the domestic market, the ITC found that the domestic industry’s performance improved “according to almost every other measure.” Views at 38 (citing Staff Report at Tables TV-10, C — 1). In particular, its operating income margin, swung from a loss equivalent to 15.1 percent of net sales in 2009 to a profit equivalent to 3.5 percent of net sales in 2010. Id. (citing Staff Report at Table VI-1). By contrast, the ITC observed that between 2010 and 2011, subject imports gained an additional 1.4 percent of domestic market share, but primarily at the expense of non-subject imports, which lost 1.2 percent of domestic market share. Id. (citing Staff Report at Table IV-10). Although the domestic industry’s market share remained stable from 2010 to 2011, declining only 0.1 percent, its operating income margin fell to 2.3 percent of net sales. Id. at 38-39 (citing Staff Report at Tables TV-10, VI-1). Then, in the first half of 2011, subject import market share hit a POI high of 14.7 percent, and the domestic industry’s market share fell to 63.8 percent. Id. At that same time, the domestic industry’s operating income reached a POI high of 6.2 percent of net sales, which the ITC considered as further support for a lack of correlation between subject import volume and domestic industry performance. Id. This record evidence led the Commission to conclude that “the domestic industry’s operating income margin generally improved when subject import market share increased at the industry’s expense and weakened when subject import market share either declined ... or increased at the expense of nonsubject imports.” Id. at 38-39. It therefore reasonably found no correlation between subject import volume and the domestic industry’s performance. See, e.g., Altx, Inc., 26 CIT at 726-29 (approving ITC’s finding of no correlation between subject import volume and domestic industry performance). The court rejects JMC and Wheatland’s argument that the fungibility of CWP and producers’ use of identical distribution channels require the Commission to find a correlation between poor domestic industry performance and increased subject import volume. This court has stated that “[v]olume is normally more significant where fungible goods are involved.” Companhia Paulista De Ferro-Ligas v. United States, 20 CIT 473, 477, 1996 WL 189515 (1996) (citing USX Corp., 11 CIT at 85, 655 F.Supp. at 490 (noting that in price-sensitive industries that produce fungible products, “the impact of seemingly small import volumes ... is magnified in the marketplace”) (citation and quotation marks omitted)); see Altx, Inc., 26 CIT at 718. However, the court also has recognized that the ITC “has the discretion— indeed an obligation' — to consider and weigh a number of other pertinent economic and factual criteria, and consider all the facts and circumstances, including the health of the domestic industry,” when determining whether subject import volume injured the domestic industry, SCM Corp. v. United States, 4 CIT 7, 13, 544 F.Supp. 194, 199 (1982); accord Am. Spring Wire Corp. v. United States, 8 CIT 20, 23, 590 F.Supp. 1273, 1277 (1984) (“‘No factor, standing alone, triggers a per se rule of material injury.’ ”) (citation omitted), aff'd 760 F.2d 249 (Fed.Cir.1985). The Commission fulfilled this obligation in its analysis when it examined the facts specific to the domestic CWP industry during the POI. The court also declines to adopt JMC and Wheatland’s proposition that subject imports per se injure the domestic industry if they capture most of the market share lost by the domestic industry or secure a greater portion of the domestic market’s growth than the domestic like product. Market share is one of many aspects of the domestic industry’s performance that the Commission must analyze to determine whether the domestic industry is being injured. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7) (C) (iii); Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 12 CIT 1196, 1209, 704 F.Supp. 1075, 1087-88 (1988). To limit the injury inquiry to market share patterns would contravene the ITC’s statutory mandate in performing its investigations. Prior ITC determinations with respect to CWP from other countries are of limited relevance. First, each determination is sui generis, “involving a unique combination and interaction of many variables, and therefore a prior administrative determination is not legally binding on other reviews before this court.” U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 33 CIT 984, 1003, 637 F.Supp.2d 1199, 1218 (2009) (citing Nucor Corp., 414 F.3d at 1340). More importantly, the ITC determination to which Plaintiffs cite, Certain Circular Welded Pipe and Tube from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, and Turkey, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-253 and 731-TA-132, 252, 271, 273, 532-34, 536, USCIT Pub. 4333 (June 2012) (Third Review), is not an injury investigation, but a sunset review, which employs a different standard to justify an affirmative determination. In an injury investigation, such as the determination at bar, “‘the Commission determines whether there is current material injury by reason of imports of subject merchandise,’ or alternatively ‘under the threat of material injury standard, the Commission decides whether injury is imminent, given the status quo.’ ” NSK Corp. v. United States, 32 CIT 966, 973, 577 F.Supp.2d 1322, 1332 (2008) (quoting Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R.Rep. No. 103-316 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4209 (“SAA”)). In a sunset review, however, “the ITC must engage in an analysis that is prospective, focusing on ‘the likely impact in the reasonable [sic] foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo — the revocation of an order of termination of a suspended investigation and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.’ ” Id. (quoting SAA at 4209) (citing Neenah Foundry Co. v. United States, 25 CIT 702, 709, 155 F.Supp.2d 766, 772 (2001)). In light of these different standards, the Commission’s finding of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry in the sunset review does not demonstrate that the factors discussed therein must be dispositive with respect to the agency’s determination of present material injury (or threat thereof) to the domestic industry in these investigations. C. The Commission Supported Its Findings on Domestic Industry Plant Closures with Substantial Evidence 1. Contentions Allied contends that the ITC misinterpreted record evidence concerning Welded Tube of Canada’s plant closure in South Carolina and Allied’s plant closure in Pennsylvania in 2012. With respect to Welded Tube’s plant, Allied argues that subject imports must have played a role in its closure, because Welded Tube’s president ascribed the closure to “[[Confidential Data Deleted]]” at a time when subject imports had lower prices than nonsubject imports during the POI. (Allied Mot. 18.) Turning to its own mill closure, Allied asserts that the Commission drew the wrong conclusions from JMC’s distribution of some of the shuttered plant’s equipment to other facilities. Instead of using the equipment to expand production elsewhere, as the ITC found, JMC merely “[[Confidential Data Deleted]]” (Allied Mot. 19.) JMC therefore did not use the parts to restore capacity, but “[[Confidential Data Deleted]].” (Allied Mot. 19.) 2. Analysis The ITC has “discretion to make reasonable interpretations of the evidence and to determine the overall significance of any particular factor in its analysis.” U.S. Steel Corp., 36 CIT at -, 856 F.Supp.2d at 1321 (citation and quotation marks omitted). The Commission concluded that it could not ascribe the closure of Welded Tube’s plant to subject imports because the firm’s president, Butch Man-del, attributed the closure to competition from increased low-priced imports, without differentiating between subject and non-subject goods, from 2010 onward. Views at 41 (quoting Mandel Aff.). The Commission reinforced this conclusion with record evidence that [[Confidential Data Deleted]] and [[Confidential Data Deleted]] during the POI. Id. at 41-42 (citing Staff Report at Tables IV-3, IV-10, C-l, App. D). Additionally, the ITC highlighted a contemporaneous trade press article about the plant closure, which reported that a weak CWP market and Welded Tube’s desire to consolidate its production in Canada led to the closure. Id. at 42 (citing Michael Cowden, Welded Tube of Canada to Close Mill, American Metal Market). Although subject imports undersold non-subject imports in the quarter when Welded Tube shuttered the plant, this fact does not undermine the broader record evidence supporting the ITC’s conclusion. Notably, Welded Tube’s president stressed that the economic conditions that precipitated the plant’s closure had taken their toll for years prior to' the shuttering of the plant, not just in that quarter. (See Mandel Aff.) With respect to Allied’s plant closure, the Commission recognized that Allied closed its plant “in Pennsylvania due in part to subject import competition,” but found that record evidence indicated that JMC acquired the plant in 2012 and “restored at least a portion of the mill’s capacity by distributing some of the mill’s equipment to other JMC mills.” Views at 42 (citing Staff Report at VI-20; Kurasz Aff.; American Metal Market, JMC to Buy, Gut, and Shut Atkore Plant, Mar. 14, 2012). Although the record indicates that JMC “[[Confidential Data Deleted ]]” nothing indicates that JMC used these parts only “[[Confidential Data Deleted ]]” as Allied maintains. (Allied Mot. 19.) Regardless of how the equipment was used, the ITC determined that the effect of the mill’s closure, a drop in domestic production capacity of 0.9 percent between interim 2011 and interim 2012, “had little impact on the domestic industry.” Views at 42 (citing Staff Report at Table III — 3). Consequently, substantial evidence supports the Commission’s findings concerning Welded Tube of Canada’s plant closure in North Carolina and Allied’s plant closure in Pennsylvania and, therefore, the court will not disturb these findings. D. The Commission Acted Within Its Discretion in Its Use of the Interim 2011 and 2012 Data 1. Contentions JMC and Wheatland assert that the ITC ignored record statements that the distorting effects of an [[Confidential Data Deleted ]] during the first half of 2011 made the domestic industry’s contemporaneous financial results an inconsistent and unreliable indicator of industry trends. (JMC Mot. 30; accord Wheatland Mot. 13.) Specifically, because the interim 2011 financial data “[[Confidential Data Deleted]]” the data made concurrent operating margins appear inordinately strong and, therefore, not indicative of the domestic industry’s actual performance. (JMC Mot. 31 (citation and quotation marks omitted); see Wheatland Mot. 13-14.) JMC further avers that the ITC should not have used the subject import market share data for interim 2012, because the data was skewed by the present petition’s filing, which the ITC found likely to have contributed to a 90.9 percent collapse in subject imports from India between interim 2011 and interim 2012. (JMC Mot. 19-20.) JMC asserts that this decline more than offset the 38.9 percent increase in subject imports from Oman and 5.7 percent increase from Vietnam during the same period, artificially depressing the volume and market share of subject imports in interim 2012. (JMC Mot. 20.) Therefore, according to JMC, the ITC’s use of this distorted data was improper. 2. Analysis The ITC has “discretion to make reasonable interpretations of the evidence and to determine the overall significance of any particular factor in its analysis.” U.S. Steel Corp., 36 CIT at -, 856 F.Supp.2d at 1321 (citation and quotation marks omitted). The ITC found that the interim 2011 data did not [[Confidential Data Deleted ]] as JMC and Wheatland allege. The ITC noted that in 2011, [[Confidential Data Deleted ]], which it could have classified as [[Confidential Data Deleted]] under the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Views at 36 & n. 177 (citing Staff Report at VI-15-16 & n. 15). By choosing to treat these items as [[Confidential Data Deleted ]]. Id. at 36 (citing Staff Report at IV-15-16). Moreover, the record shows that the [[Confidential Data Deleted ]] did not pervasively affect domestic producers’ operating income in the first half of 2011. In fact, only [[Confidential Data Deleted]]. See Staff Report at VI-12 n. 11, Table VI-2. Tellingly, over half of domestic producers indicated that their “other factory costs” remained stable or increased in the first half of 2011, in comparison with 2010. See id. at Table VI-2. Therefore, based on its review of industry-wide data, the Commission had substantial evidence for its finding that the interim 2011 data did not overstate the domestic industry’s operating margins. The court, therefore, will not disturb the ITC’s use of the interim 2011 data. See U.S. Steel Corp., 36 CIT at -, 856 F.Supp.2d at 1321. Regarding the Commission’s use of the interim 2012 market share data, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I) states that: [t]he Commission shall consider whether any change in the volume, price effects, or impact of imports of the subject merchandise since the filing of the petition in an investigation ... is related to the pendency of the investigation and, if so, the Commission may reduce the weight accorded to the data for the period after the filing of the petition in making its determination of material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of the establishment of an industry in the United States. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I)