Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
Further , some parties contend that , because of the “ bracketing not final ” rule under 19 CFR 351.303 ( c )( 2 )( ii ), which allows a party to submit a complete final version of the submission one day after the deadline to complete all bracketing of proprietary information , the missed deadline did not impede the proceeding because Antique Group could have taken an additional day to finalize its submission , had it elected to submit its response under this option . We disagree with this argument . First , Antique Group did not file its response , “ bracketing not final ;” thus , it was not possible for Antique Group to finalize its submission under the one-day lag rule . Second , the fact that a party has until close of business the following day to submit a final bracketed version does not mean that a party can ignore a deadline established by Commerce , nor do the regulations afford parties additional time to finalize their submissions . As the regulation notes , “ the final business proprietary document must be identical in all respects to the business proprietary document filed on the previous day except for any bracketing corrections … .” 99 Thus , whether or not a party avails itself of the “ bracketing not final ” regulation does not mean that it is excused from submitting the response on time . It is immaterial ; Antique Group should have been aware of the deadline and failed to properly calendar the deadline and / or alert Commerce to any difficulties it faced filing on time .
Finally , while Commerce appreciates that the preparation of questionnaire responses may place a significant and stressful burden on the parties working on the submission , as the CIT explained in TKT , the inexperience of personnel in responding to the requests , or issues related to COVID- 19 does not excuse a party from timely filing its responses . 100 In addition , when Commerce is conducting its analysis within the statutory and regulatory framework , the agency is not empowered to consider the effects that decisions made in the case may have on certain industries or sectors of the economy ; our analysis is based on the information provided by and the actions of the respondents in the case . As such , our determination to reject Antique Group ’ s supplemental questionnaire response cannot be guided by what effects such a decision may have , but instead are based solely on the facts of the case and the actions taken by Antique Group .
Comment 3 : Whether Commerce Should Continue to Apply AFA to Antique Group
Antique Group ’ s Case Brief 101
� Should Commerce continue to reject Antique Group ’ s supplemental questionnaire response , the record indicates that the requested supplemental information covers items that are already on the record or that have no impact on Antique Group ’ s margin calculation .
� There is enough sales and cost information on the record for Commerce to calculate a dumping margin for Antique Group , and thus , there is no basis upon which Commerce should apply AFA .
minute extension requests on the parties and { Commerce }.”); see also Neo Solar Power Corp . v . United States , 190 F . Supp . 3d 1255 , 1262-63 ( CIT 2016 ) (“ Commerce does not allege any prejudice specific to this case , but it does allege the general prejudice stemming from late filings because of the strict statutory deadlines governing its determinations .”).
99
See 19 CFR 351.303 ( c )( 2 )( ii ).
100
See TKT , 587 F . Supp . 3d at 1357 .
101
See Antique Group ’ s Case Brief at 12-30 .
21 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved