Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
�
�
�
� submission was due , with the time listed in bolded font alongside the date . Only inattentiveness would have led to the time being overlooked . Commerce is not constrained to setting all deadlines to be due at 5:00 p . m . ET . Section 351.303 ( b ) of Commerce ’ s regulations only governs deadlines established within Commerce ’ s regulations , while 19 CFR 351.302 ( b ) permits Commerce to extend deadlines without any constraints on the time of a deadline . In fact , the Extension Limits Preamble , which explains the regulations related to extensions , includes examples of deadlines set at times other than 5:00 p . m . ET , clearly demonstrating that Commerce did not intend to limit all deadlines to 5:00 p . m . ET . 83 Arguments that even an experienced respondent would not be aware of deadlines set to other than 5:00 p . m . ET are meritless . Commerce utilized deadlines of 10:00 a . m . ET for the other respondent , PESL , prior to assigning Antique Group a similar deadline . This supports a finding that Antique Group would have been aware of the possibility of these deadlines and also undermines arguments that Commerce treated the two respondents differently . Antique Group never requested an extension until 5:00 p . m . ET ahead of the deadline and , as 19 CFR 351.302 ( c ) establishes , an untimely extension request will not be considered unless a party demonstrates extraordinary circumstances . Antique Group first claimed that the extraordinary circumstances were because it had overlooked the time of the deadline . Later , the respondent argued that the extraordinary circumstances were because of a case of COVID-19 and the need of the consulting team to travel to Antique Group ’ s offices . Commerce properly concluded that none of these explanations demonstrated extraordinary circumstances which prevented Antique Group from submitting the response or from requesting additional time ahead of the deadline . Had Antique Group taken reasonable measures , such as reading the extension letter carefully , it would have been able to meet the deadline .
Commerce ’ s Position : We continue to find that the rejection of Antique Group ’ s supplemental questionnaire was warranted and , moreover , we conclude that there is no basis upon which to reconsider the rejection .
Parties dually contend that Antique Group could not have anticipated a 10:00 a . m . ET deadline and that it was an inadvertent calendaring oversight that should be forgiven while also arguing that the respondent was faced with extraordinary circumstances that prevented it from complying with the deadline . As a result , parties argue that Commerce should accept the additional controls put in place by Antique Group ’ s counsel and accept the late submission . Commerce finds these explanations unavailing .
When Commerce established the deadline that was ultimately missed by Antique Group , it stated in the extension letter : “{ a } ccordingly , the deadline for Antique Group to submit its response to the Second Supplemental Questionnaire is now 10:00 a . m . Eastern Time , May 16 , 2022 .” 84 As the petitioner correctly notes , both the date and time of the deadline were made clear to Antique
83
Id . at 12-13 ( citing Extension of Time Limits , 78 FR 57790 , 57792 ( September 20 , 2013 ) ( Extension Limits Preamble )).
84
See Commerce ’ s Letter , “ Second Extension of Time for Antique Group ’ s Second Supplemental Questionnaire Response ,” dated May 9 , 2022 ( Antique Group SQ2 Second Extension ) ( emphasis in original ).
16 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved