Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
Parties also contend that the reliance on the 10:00 a . m . ET deadline was arbitrary and capricious and resulted in extraordinary circumstances , because the deadline was unanticipated and not routine . They contend that , as a result , this necessarily required Commerce to grant an ex post facto extension to account for the unexpected deadline and to allow the submission to be considered timely filed . The parties making this argument overlook the fact that the Commerce deadline was clearly presented to Antique Group , and the respondent did not attempt to get a further extension after Commerce set the deadline and before the deadline had passed . In addition , parties fail to explain how a 10:00 a . m . ET deadline was arbitrary or capricious in nature . All deadlines are set based on the facts on hand , balanced with the timeline in the proceedings and considering the needs of Commerce and the responding party ; it is that balance that Commerce struck when extending this deadline first from Wednesday , May 4 , 2022 at 5:00 p . m . ET to Wednesday , May 11 , 2022 at 5:00 p . m . ET , 88 and then again from Wednesday , May 11 , 2022 at 5:00 p . m . ET to Monday , May 16 , 2022 at 10:00 a . m . ET . 89 Ultimately , Commerce , not the respondent , is responsible for setting deadlines and ensuring that the proceeding continues apace and , while a deadline may be unanticipated on the part of the respondent , this does not relieve the respondent of the obligation to comply with the deadline , outside of extraordinary circumstances . In fact , 19 CFR 351.302 ( b ) defines extraordinary circumstances as an unexpected event that could not have been prevented if reasonable measures had been taken and that precluded a party from timely filing an extension request . Commerce applies this rule uniformly and even-handedly to all parties . While parties attempt to argue that a Commerce deadline of 10:00 a . m . ET meets this standard , this is intended to address external circumstances that arise such that a party could not have possibly submitted something on time . Given that the concept of extraordinary circumstances relates to whether parties can meet a deadline , it is simply not possible that a deadline set a week in advance somehow results in extraordinary circumstances .
With respect to arguments that the extraordinary circumstances regulations conflict with the statutory requirement that Commerce afford parties an opportunity to remedy the record , Arizona Tile et al . misunderstand the two procedures by mistakenly attempting to state that the extraordinary circumstances regulation impedes a party ’ s ability to correct its deficiencies . Section 782 ( d ) of the Act requires that Commerce afford parties an opportunity to remedy any deficiencies ; this is precisely what the supplemental questionnaire that Antique Group failed to respond to in a timely manner was intended to do . Once Commerce issues its supplemental questionnaire , identifying the deficiencies , it is the respondent ’ s responsibility to determine whether it will submit timely responses to those deficiency questions . Regardless of whether the respondent elects not to respond or fails to adhere to the established deadline , by providing a respondent with an opportunity to remedy any deficiencies , Commerce has met its statutory requirement . In the event that a party is unable to submit its responses in a timely manner , Commerce has an obligation to consider any explanations that there were extraordinary circumstances under 19 CFR 351.302 ( b ) that prevented the party from meeting the deadline . However , a determination on the part of Commerce that a party ’ s failure to meet the criteria for extraordinary circumstances does not mean that Commerce has somehow infringed on the statutory requirement to provide a party with an opportunity to remedy its deficiencies . To the
88
See Commerce ’ s Letter , “ First Extension of Time for Antique Group ’ s Second Supplemental Questionnaire Response ,” dated May 2 , 2022 .
89
See Antique Group SQ2 Second Extension .
18 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved