Opinion ID: 3196399
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review Trade Court decisions de novo, applying the same standard used by the Trade Court when reviewing Commerce decisions. Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Under that standard, we will uphold Commerce’s determinations unless they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla” and amounts to what a “reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Downhole, 776 F.3d at 1374 (quoting Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Our review is limited to the record before Commerce in the particular review proceeding at issue and includes all “evidence that supports and detracts” from Commerce’s conclusion. Sango Int’l L.P. v. United States, 567 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2009). An agency finding may still be supported by substantial evidence even if two inconsistent conclusions can be JIAXING BROTHER FASTENER CO. v. US 13 drawn from the evidence. Downhole, 776 F.3d at 1374 (citing Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966)). We review de novo whether Commerce erred in inter- preting a governing statute. PSC VSMPO-Avisma Corp. v. United States, 688 F.3d 751, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). 16