There’s no hard rule or cut off.
Prost ’4 [Sharon; June 18; Federal Court of Appeals Judge on the Federal Circuit; Westlaw, “Comm. for Fairly Traded Venezuelan Cement v. United States,” 372 F.3d 1284]
The URAA and the SAA neither amend nor refine the language of § 1677(4)(C). In fact, they merely suggest, without disqualifying other alternatives, a “clearly higher/substantial proportion” approach. Indeed, the SAA specifically mentions that *1290 no “precise mathematical formula” or “ ‘benchmark’ proportion” is to be used for a dumping concentration analysis. SAA at 860 (citations omitted); see also Venez. Cement, 279 F.Supp.2d at 1329–30. Furthermore, as the Court of International Trade noted, the SAA emphasizes that the Commission retains the discretion to determine concentration of imports on a “case-by-case basis.” SAA at 860. Finally, the definition of the word “substantial” undercuts the CFTVC's argument. The word “substantial” generally means “considerable in amount, value or worth.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2280 (1993). It does not imply a specific number or cut-off. What may be substantial in one situation may not be in another situation. The very breadth of the term “substantial” undercuts the CFTVC's argument that Congress spoke clearly in establishing a standard for the Commission's regional antidumping and countervailing duty analyses. It therefore supports the conclusion that the Commission is owed deference in its interpretation of “substantial proportion.” The Commission clearly embarked on its analysis having been given considerable leeway to interpret a particularly broad term.