Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
deficient responses , as parties attempt to argue here . For Commerce to conduct an accurate antidumping analysis , it needs to collect information on home market sales , sales in the United States , and the COP for those products sold . Commerce ’ s concern in this case is the fact that the U . S . sales and COP data deficiencies are sufficiently extensive such that it is simply impossible for Commerce to calculate an accurate dumping margin using the data currently on the record . As such , we find that the issues discussed in Mukand are particularly relevant to the present situation and support a similar conclusion that , due to the issues with the data , it is reasonable for Commerce to conclude that it is not appropriate to fill gaps in the record with the application of facts available and , instead , rely completely on AFA to assign Antique Group a rate in the instant review .
Antique Group contends that Hyundai Electric supports a requirement that Commerce rely on information on the record of the proceeding here , rather than apply AFA . We find that the specific facts in Hyundai Electric differ from the present case . In particular , in Hyundai Electric , Commerce applied AFA to the respondent because information was missing for a single sale and the record indicated that the respondent misunderstood Commerce ’ s request . 143 The CAFC concluded that there was not substantial evidence to conclude that the respondent had failed to cooperate with Commerce ’ s requests , noting that the record demonstrated that most of the record information was reliable and should have been used . 144 However , unlike Hyundai Electric , as discussed above in detail , a significant and necessary part of Antique Group ’ s questionnaire responses was deficient and cannot be considered reliable . Accordingly , Commerce has no basis to determine that it would be appropriate to calculate a margin based on the record information . Moreover , in Hyundai Electric , the respondent was not found to untimely file responses or refuse to provide information to Commerce , but rather simply did not answer the questions from Commerce in the manner in which Commerce had anticipated . In this instant review , there is no dispute that Antique Group did not file its supplemental questionnaire response in a timely manner .
With respect to arguments by parties that Commerce has sufficient time in the proceeding to collect additional information and analyze it ( or analyze the information on the record ), these arguments are moot . As discussed above , Commerce has determined that there is no basis to accept the rejected supplemental questionnaire submission and , an analysis of Antique Group ’ s initial questionnaire responses indicates that the unresolved deficiencies resulting from the untimely questionnaire response mean that Commerce cannot calculate a reliable or accurate margin for Antique Group from information on the record . Furthermore , Antique Group appears to misunderstand the statute when it contends that , despite missing the deadline to address deficiencies identified by Commerce , Commerce has an obligation to ensure that the rate assigned to Antique Group is “ as accurate and current as possible .” As explained below , while the statute establishes how an AFA rate can be selected , there is no provision in the Act that requires Commerce to ensure a non-cooperating respondent receives a rate that is accurate , current or otherwise reflective of the respondent ’ s operations . In fact , section 776 ( b )( 1 )( B ) of the Act expressly states that Commerce is not required to take into account how a respondent would have otherwise performed , had it fully cooperated in the proceeding when determining
143
See Hyundai Electric at 9 .
144
Id . at 10-11 .
32 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved