Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
opportunity to remedy untimely submissions , that is not contemplated by the Act , and Commerce has no obligation to accept untimely filed submissions , regardless of whether the submission is an attempt to remedy or address deficiencies identified by Commerce . As such , because Commerce provided Antique Group with an opportunity to remedy its deficiencies under section 782 ( d ) of the Act , we conclude that any arguments related to BlueScope and China Kingdom , where Commerce was challenged for not providing parties opportunities to remedy deficiencies , are inapposite to the situation at hand .
Parties also contend that Commerce has sufficient information on the record to calculate an accurate dumping margin for Antique Group . They point to the fact that Antique Group filed its initial questionnaire response and the first supplemental questionnaire response , which was focused on sections A ( general information ) and B ( home market sales ) of the initial questionnaire . While this information is on the record , it does not negate the fact that Commerce issued a sizeable supplemental questionnaire that identified a number of deficiencies in Antique Group ’ s sections C ( U . S . sales ) and D ( cost of production ) questionnaire responses ; 127 it was this submission that was untimely filed with Commerce and was rejected , as discussed above in Comment 2 . Antique Group contends that the information requested by Commerce in the Antique Group Second Supplemental Questionnaire was not vital to calculating an accurate margin and , therefore , should not impede Commerce ’ s ability to rely on other record information to determine a margin . Commerce disagrees with this argument . The most basic premise of AD proceedings is to evaluate whether goods that were sold in the United States were sold at less than normal value . As such , any suggestion that the deficiencies that Commerce identified in the Antique Group Second Supplemental Questionnaire were not important is simply untrue and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the information requested by Commerce .
First , a vitally important piece of our analysis is to ensure that the reported sales information reconciles with the respondent ’ s financial records ; if a respondent cannot ensure that the sales information reconciles with its financial records , Commerce has no basis to believe that the sales information has been correctly reported . Thus , one of the very first questions in the Antique Group Second Supplemental Questionnaire was requesting a variety of information regarding the reconciliation between the reported U . S . sales data and Antique Group ’ s financial information . 128 Commerce pointed out a variety of issues with the reconciliation , including noting that certain information appeared to have been incorrectly reported . Accordingly , without a reliable reconciliation , Commerce has no basis upon which to conclude that the U . S . sales information reported by Antique Group was correct . This alone is sufficient for Commerce to conclude that the data on the record is not reliable and , therefore , is unable to guarantee that any dumping margin based on the existing data would be accurate .
Next , Commerce reviewed Antique Group ’ s reporting of its product codes , noting that additional information was necessary . 129 Commerce relies on this information to ensure that the physical characteristics of the product are accurately reported and , by extension , each control number ( CONNUM ) is correctly set up . Given the nature of how Antique Group initially set up its product codes , Commerce was unable to understand whether the product codes and other
127
See Antique Group Second Supplemental Questionnaire .
128
Id . at 2 .
129
Id . at 3 .
28 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved