Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
�
The information submitted previously by Antique Group is sufficient to calculate an accurate dumping margin but , to the extent any gaps exist , it is because Antique Group misunderstood the deadline , not because the respondent was withholding information in an attempt to obtain a more favorable outcome in the review .
ASG ’ s Case Brief 112 � The record demonstrates that Antique Group cooperated to the best of its ability , and the rejection of the late response was unreasonable . As a result , application of AFA is not consistent with the law , and Commerce should instead assign to Antique Group a rate that reasonably reflects the potential dumping margin of the company in the final results . 113
DSG et al .’ s Case Brief 114 � The application of AFA for a late filing is a punishment that is disproportionate to the conduct .
GlobalFair ’ s Case Brief 115
� Antique Group fully participated in the administrative review , adhering to all the filing deadlines except for the inadvertent mistake of missing a single deadline by a few hours . Antique Group did not withhold or refuse to provide information , and this mistake did not compromise Commerce ’ s ability to conduct this review .
� This case is an example of what the CAFC meant when , in Nippon Steel , it explained that AFA cannot be used only from a failure to respond but in those cases where the respondent was less than fully cooperative . 116
� Commerce ’ s deadline for the response at 10:00 a . m . ET was unreasonable but , even so , missing the deadline by a few hours did not impede Commerce ’ s ability to analyze the information .
� The minor mistake on the time the submission was due does not warrant AFA in the same manner that Commerce would treat a non-cooperative respondent or one that submitted fraudulent responses .
� Commerce typically relies on AFA in those instances where the record is limited and deficient but , in this case , Antique Group ’ s sales and cost data were on the record and could be used to calculate a dumping margin , even if the supplemental questionnaire response in question is rejected .
� The information missing from the rejected supplemental questionnaire was already addressed in earlier questionnaire responses , and thus , would have had little bearing on a margin calculation . In addition , Commerce would have issued additional supplemental questionnaires to obtain any missing information necessary for the calculations .
112
See ASG ’ s Case Brief at 2-3 .
113
Id . at 3 ( citing Hyundai Electric at 9 (“ As the Court of International Trade concluded , there was not substantial evidence on which to base an adverse inference . ... In { Nippon Steel }, this court recognized that compliance to the best of a respondent ’ s ability ‘ does not require perfection and recognizes that mistakes sometimes occur ’… .” ( internal citations omitted ))).
114
See DSG Et Al .’ s Case Brief at 5-14 , 52 .
115
See GlobalFair ’ s Case Brief at 2-7 .
116
Id . at 3 ( citing Nippon Steel , 337 F . 3d at 1383 ).
24 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved