Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
�
For the final results , Commerce should accept Antique Group ’ s rejected supplemental questionnaire response onto the record and rely on it for the respondents ’ margin calculations ; this rate should then be incorporated into the calculation of the rate for the non-selected companies .
Petitioner ’ s Rebuttal Brief 77 �
Contrary to Antique Group ’ s arguments , the supplemental questionnaire that was rejected did , in fact , seek critical information necessary for calculating a dumping margin and fundamental information about whether the data provided in the initial questionnaire responses was correctly reported .
� The courts have recognized that Commerce has broad authority to enforce deadlines . 78 Commerce properly used that discretion to set and enforce deadlines in this review by finding that Antique Group failed to fully cooperate in the proceeding when it did not submit its supplemental questionnaire responses in a timely manner .
�
�
�
�
�
There is no factual basis upon which arguments are made that Commerce misused or abused its discretion to set deadlines in this case . Interested parties making these arguments rely on Artisan and Grobest ; however , the CIT has stated that the CAFC ’ s decision in Dongtai Honey overrides these decisions . 79 In Dongtai Honey , the CAFC upheld Commerce ’ s rejection of an untimely-filed supplemental response and a request for a retroactive extension request . While parties argued in that case that the submission should be accepted in the interest of fairness and accuracy , as they have here , in that ruling , the CAFC noted that Commerce has the discretion to set its deadlines , had made the importance of the deadlines known to the respondent , and properly exercised that discretion in that case . 80 In Bebitz , the CIT affirmed the application of AFA by referencing Dongtai Honey . It concluded that the respondent knew the consequences of missing the deadline but still failed to comply with it , while also noting that it is up to Commerce to dictate when the information is needed , not the respondent . Finally , the CIT found that , just because the respondent put forth some effort does not mean the respondent put forth the maximum effort and , had it , it could have met Commerce ’ s deadline . 81 Similar to Bebitz , the CIT permitted Commerce ’ s determination to apply AFA in TKT to stand with a similar reasoning , but also found that the inexperience of personnel to respond to questionnaires and issues related to COVID-19 do not preclude a timely filing of responses . In that case , the CIT also rejected arguments under Artisan because it was inconsistent with Dongtai Honey . 82 The reliance on a 10:00 a . m . ET deadline was within Commerce ’ s authority , and Commerce could not have been clearer when setting the date and time that the
77
See Petitioner ’ s Rebuttal Brief at 1-21 .
78
Id . at 4 ( citing Yantai Timken Co . v . United States , 521 F . Supp . 2d 1356 , 1370 ( CIT ) ( Yantai Timken ), aff ’ d , 300 F . App ’ x 934 ( Fed . Cir . 2008 )).
79
Id . at 4-5 ( citing Artisan , 978 F . Supp . 2d 1334 ; Grobest ; and Dongtai Peak Honey Indus . Co . v . United States , 777 F . 3d 1343 , 1347 ( Fed . Cir . 2015 ) ( Dongtai Honey )).
80
Id . at 5-6 ( citing Dongtai Honey , 777 F . 3d at 1347 ).
81
Id . at 7-8 ( citing Bebitz Flanges Works Priv . Ltd . v . United States , 433 F . Supp . 3d 1297 ( CIT 2020 ) ( Bebitz )).
82
Id . at 8-10 ( citing Tau-Ken Temir LLP v . United States , 587 F . Supp . 3d 1346 ( CIT 2022 ) ( TKT )).
15 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved