Opinion ID: 3157928
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the impact of imports of such mer-

Text: chandise on domestic producers of domes- tic like products, but only in the context of production operations within the United States; and (ii) may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of imports. The period of investigation for this petition covered 2009 through the first six months of 2012. Two Commissioners, Chairman Williamson and Commissioner Aranoff, found material injury to the domestic industry. As to the volume of imports of subject merchandise, these Commissioners found “the volume of subject imports and the increase in volume to be significant, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States.” ITC Views at . These Commissioners found that the imports’ continuing growth in market share, accompanied by price suppression, “played a role in precluding the domestic industry 6 SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. US from increasing production to take advantage of the increase in apparent consumption.” Id. at . Turning to the price effects of the subject imports, these Commissioners found that although both import and domestic prices were rising and the imported wind towers had a higher total delivered cost than comparable domestic wind towers, the price gap was shrinking and potential customers were using the imports to put pressure on domestic prices. They stated: We find that although [original equipment manu- facturers] ultimately are concerned with total delivered cost, they do not agree to purchase wind towers from the closest available source without regard to f.o.b. pricing. Rather, they negotiate with the domestic producers regarding f.o.b. prices, the largest component of delivered cost. Id. at . With respect to the impact of subject imports, these Commissioners found that the growing volume of the imports suppressed domestic prices, and that the domestic industry experienced “steep declines in operating income” between 2009 and 2012. Id. at . Taken together, Commissioners Williamson and Aranoff determined that there was material injury to the domestic industry. On appeal to the Court of International Trade, and now to this court, Siemens argued that these findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Siemens states that these two Commissioners incorrectly compared the f.o.b. prices of the imports, instead of delivered costs, and that they accepted the false information that domestic producers had the capacity to supply the domestic market, at least at certain locations in the United States. Siemens also states that the domestic industry was subject to operational inefficiencies, and that production SIEMENS ENERGY, INC. v. US 7 during the period of investigation was slowed by the expected non-renewal of the Production Tax Credit and other tax incentives, whereby domestic producers chose not to expand capacity, in view of potential reduced demand. The Court of International Trade considered the arguments, and concluded that the two Commissioners’ findings of material injury are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. The evidence of increasing import volume, price pressure and price suppression, unused domestic capacity, reduced income, and enlarging operating losses, supports these Commissioners’ finding of material injury to the domestic industry. See Consol. Edison Co., 305 U.S. at 229.