Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
� Antique Group ’ s counsel in India is accustomed to deadlines being due at 5:00 p . m . ET , and the time zone differences with a 10:00 a . m . ET deadline result in difficulty recognizing the uncommon deadline . While Antique Group acknowledges making a mistake in correctly calendaring the deadline , the late submission could not have been prevented by the use of reasonable measures because the team was not expecting a deadline other than 5:00 p . m . ET . In addition , a key executive was stricken with COVID-19 , presenting additional extraordinary circumstances which could not have been reasonably avoided .
� Antique Group has committed to additional measures to ensure that it adheres to all future deadlines . This , combined with the respondent ’ s cooperation throughout the review , demonstrates that it has acted in good faith , and Commerce should accept the submission for consideration . This is consistent with what Commerce has permitted in prior proceedings . 63
� Acceptance of the rejected supplemental questionnaire response would be inconsequential to the conduct of the review , whereas the continued rejection of the response and the corresponding application of AFA would be an unlawful and punitive result .
� The practice of law is stressful , and Commerce , in this case , has the discretion to reduce the stress of those parties who made an innocent mistake .
Arizona Tile et al .’ s Case Brief 64 � It was reasonable for Antique Group ’ s team to assume a deadline of 5:00 p . m . ET for the submission of the response .
� Commerce has the discretion to provide parties an opportunity to correct a late submission where a firm takes remedial steps to correct the error leading to the untimely submission . Antique Group explained to Commerce how it had taken additional measures to ensure that no further errors of this nature take place , including monitoring the time of the deadline and retaining U . S . counsel to assist with future submissions .
� Commerce ’ s regulation requiring extraordinary circumstances for retroactive extension of a deadline is inconsistent with the statute . Commerce has a practice of affording firms a second chance to refile a late submission , particularly in extraordinary circumstances such as the situation that arose in this case . 65 The present situation warrants a second chance , as Antique Group had previously filed all submissions on time , and the respondent clearly intended to meet the expected 5:00 p . m . ET deadline by filing prior to that time . 66
63
Id . at 9-10 ( citing Antique Group ’ s Letter , “ Request for Reconsideration and Request for Extension to File Out of Time ,” dated June 10 , 2022 ; Large Residential Washers from Mexico : Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review ; 2016-2017 , 83 FR 11963 ( March 19 , 2018 ) ( Washers from Mexico ), and accompanying IDM at 16 ; and Silicon Metal from the Republic of Kazakhstan : Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination , 83 FR 9831 ( March 8 , 2018 ) ( Silicon Metal from Kazakhstan ), and accompanying IDM at n . 64 ).
64
See Arizona Tile et al .’ s Case Brief at 7-13 .
65
Id . at 8-9 ( citing Silicon Metal from Kazakhstan IDM at Comment 1 ; and Antique Group ’ s Letter , “ Pre- Preliminary Comments ,” dated June 14 , 2022 , at 6 .).
66
Id . at 8 ( citing Large Residential Washers from Mexico : Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review ; 2016-2017 , 82 FR 51810 ( November 8 , 2017 ), and accompanying PDM at “ Application of Facts Available and Adverse Inferences ,” unchanged in Washers from Mexico .)
12 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved