imports are typically sold into the spot market, should have led the ITC to compare future subject imports with future uncommitted demand. See id. at 33-34. Plaintiffs attempt to buttress their argument by stating that the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) uses uncommitted demand to predict prices and production, and that the ITC relied upon uncommitted domestic demand in its determination of material injury in Uranium from Tajikistan and Ukraine. Id. Defendant first responds that the ITC is required to determine the effects of subject imports on the industry as a whole, not only that section of the market in which imports are concentrated. See Def.’s Br. at 27 (citing Saarstahl AG v. United States, 18 CIT 595, 601-02, 858 F. Supp. 196, 201 (1994) (<HOLDING>)). Moreover, in light of Plaintiffs’ argument
holding that the commission reasonably interpreted the statute as requiring it to assess the condition of the industry as a whole recognizing that a statute should be read as comprehensive whole holding that a phrase should be interpreted consistent with the context of the statute in which it is contained holding that consideration supports the agreement as a whole holding that warrantless search as probation condition was a valid limitation to the defendants fourth amendment rights when defendant asserted the condition was not reasonably related to rehabilitation