Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
petitioner attempts to support this assertion with general citations to PESL ’ s summary of all of its submitted financial statements and the financial statements and website information of Shiva Granito . 50 Additionally , the petitioner acknowledges that it is simultaneously asking Commerce to use these statements as evidence of stability in the QSP market and arguing that these statements are not an appropriate source of CV information . 51
We disagree with the petitioner that Commerce ’ s practice in OCTG from Korea 2016-2017 supports using Antique Group ’ s CV information from the underlying investigation . In that case , Commerce used information from a prior POR after examining the appropriateness of available sources as an alternative to the preferred method , including considerations of contemporaneity . 52 In contrast , in this review , we find Shiva Granito ’ s POR information can be used under alternative ( iii ). We note that in the subsequent review of OCTG from Korea , concerns of contemporaneity informed Commerce ’ s decision to rely on a different source of CV information . 53
The petitioner also compares Commerce ’ s approach in OCTG from Korea 2016-2017 with its remand redetermination in OCTG from Turkey Final Remand . 54 However , we consider this also to be dissimilar to the instant case . In OCTG from Turkey Investigation , Commerce used financial statements as a reasonable method under alternative ( iii ), finding that available information under alternative ( ii ) would disclose business proprietary information ( BPI ). 55 However , in the remand determination upheld by the CIT , Commerce introduced a method of using the otherwise BPI information under alternative ( ii ) that did not disclose the BPI of the other respondent in the review . 56 Crucially , the other respondent ’ s information was based on the same time period of sales , i . e ., the POI .
The petitioner ’ s use of Atar S . R . L . is inapt with respect to the instant review . 57 In that case , the CAFC addressed Commerce ’ s exclusion of below-cost sales from its profit calculation in Pasta from Italy 2004-2005 , using information from respondents in the previous review . The CAFC did not address Commerce ’ s finding earlier in that review to reject other sources of CV information . In Pasta from Italy 2004-2005 , Commerce relied on respondents ’ information from
50
Id . at 11-12 ( citing PESL ’ s CV Submission at Exhibits CV-1 and CV-2 ).
51
Id .
52
See OCTG from Korea 2016-2017 IDM at Comment 2 ( where Commerce found “… notwithstanding the fact that SeAH ’ s data are less contemporaneous than the alternative financial data sources , SeAH ’ s data are the most specific to OCTG , and , therefore , pursuant to section 773 ( e )( 2 )( B ) of the Act , represent the best source of financial ratios in this review .”).
53
See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea : Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review ; 2017-2018 , 84 FR 63615 ( November 18 , 2019 ), and accompanying PDM at 18 , unchanged in Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea : Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review ; 2017-2018 , 85 FR 41949 ( July 13 , 2020 ), and accompanying IDM at Comment 3 .
54
See Petitioner ’ s Case Brief at 5 ( citing Maverick Tube , sustaining Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand , Maverick Tube Corporation et al v . United States , Consol . Court No . 14-00244 , Slip Op . 15-107 ( CIT 2015 ), dated February 1 , 2016 ( OCTG from Turkey Final Remand ), available at https :// access . trade . gov / resources / remands / 15-107 . pdf ).
55
See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Turkey : Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances , in Part , 79 FR 41971 ( July 18 , 2014 ) ( OCTG from Turkey Investigation ), and accompanying IDM at Comment 3 .
56
See Maverick Tube , 163 F . Supp . 3d 1345 .
57
See Petitioner ’ s Brief at 5 ( citing Atar S . R . L . v . United States , 730 F . 3d 1320 ( Fed . Cir . 2013 ) ( Atar S . R . L .)).
10 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved