Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
result , even though the submission was filed after the deadline , the result was harmless , and there was no delay in the instant review .
� In Artisan , the CIT concluded that Commerce should not have rejected a late submission , nor should it have applied AFA as a result , as it had not demonstrated that the delayed submission affected the review in any meaningful way . 71
� Commerce ’ s explanation that accepting the late submission would have negative impacts on other proceedings is not part of the test established in Artisan . Just as in Artisan , Commerce has not demonstrated how the delayed submission by Antique Group would have impacted this review , and more specifically , Commerce has not shown how the late filing prejudiced any party .
� By refusing to grant relief to Antique Group , Commerce has failed to consider the consequences that the application of AFA will have on U . S . homebuilders and consumers and thus , has erred by focusing on speculative harm , rather than on the real harm that this decision has caused .
Jessie-Kan et al .’ s Case Brief 72 � Under 19 CFR 351.302 ( b ), Commerce has the authority to extend the time limits for submissions where good cause is shown , and should have done so in this instance . � While Commerce has discretion in these matters , the CAFC stated in NTN Bearing that deadlines should be waived where failure to do so would be an abuse of the agency ’ s discretion . 73 In Artisan and Kirovo , the CIT explained that the enforcement of deadlines requires discretion and should be examined to ensure that this discretion is not abused . 74 Additionally , where Commerce has rejected information , Papierfabrik established that courts may evaluate whether Commerce abused its discretion in such situations . 75
� When deciding whether to reject a submission , Commerce is required to consider the burden imposed upon the agency and the need for finality . 76 Commerce failed to weigh this when deciding to reject a slightly delayed submission and the impact it would have on parties . In addition , because the response was due prior to the Preliminary Results , finality concerns were not an issue here . In sum , no parties were prejudiced by the late submission , and thus , the application of total AFA was not a justified response to the error .
� Given the explanations provided by Antique Group in its requests for reconsideration , as well as the fact that the respondent was otherwise fully cooperative , Commerce abused its discretion by refusing the accept the rejected supplemental questionnaire .
� Not only is Antique Group punished for this error , but the other non-selected companies subject to the instant review will also be harmed by the application of AFA to the respondent .
71
Id . at 12 ( citing Artisan , 978 F . Supp . 2d 1334 ).
72
See Jessie-Kan et al .’ s Case Brief at 4-9 .
73
Id . at 5 ( citing NTN Bearing , 74 F . 3d . at 1207 ).
74
Id . ( citing Artisan , 978 F . Supp . 2d at 1342 ; and Kirovo Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat , JSC v . United States , 58 F . Supp . 3d 1397 , 1411 ( CIT 2015 ) ( Kirovo )).
75
Id . ( citing Papierfabrik August Koehler SE v . United States , 843 F . 3d . 1373 , 1384 ( Fed . Cir . 2016 ) ( Papierfabrik )).
76
Id . at 6 ( citing Grobest & I-Mei Indus . ( Vietnam ) Co . v . United States , 815 F . Supp . 2d 1342 , 1365 ( CIT 2012 ) ( Grobest )).
14 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved