Case 1:25-cv-00095-N / A Document 7 Filed 06 / 23 / 25 Page 8 of 11
investigation before granting reporting exclusions. The arbitrary nature of Commerce’ s decision regarding Marbonite and Segam is further evidenced by the rejection of a separate and subsequent reporting exclusion request for Affiliate A because“{ f } inal affiliation and collapsing determinations { would } not be made until { it } more thoroughly reviewed Antiqa’ s affiliation information.”
Claim 2 33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 are incorporated herein by reference. 34. Additionally, even considering the limited evidence available on the record of the proceedings, Commerce did not properly conduct the collapsing analysis and erred in its decision to not collapse Marbonite and Segam with the Antiqa entity. Thus, Commerce’ s collapsing analysis is not supported by substantial evidence and is otherwise not in accordance with law.
Claim 3 35. Paragraphs 1 through 34 are incorporated herein by reference. 36. Commerce’ s non-affiliation determination regarding Win-Tel and its input supplier, Neelson, was also not supported by substantial evidence and is otherwise not in accordance with law.
Claim 4 37. Paragraphs 1 through 36 are incorporated herein by reference. 38. Commerce’ s established practice has consistently been that verification is not an opportunity for submission of new factual information. See e. g., Goodluck India Limited v. United States, 11 F. 4 th 1335( Fed. Cir. 2021).
39. When Commerce discovers new and previously undisclosed factual information at verification, Commerce practice is to reject that new factual information and to apply adverse
8