Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
request from Commerce , and Commerce was unable to cite any evidence that the respondent did not cooperate to the best of its ability . 148 This is an important distinction ; mistakes can happen , and as long as a company cooperates to the best of its ability , the application of AFA is not justified . In this case , we continue to find that Antique Group failed to cooperate to the best of its ability , and thus , the situation contemplated in Hyundai Electric does not apply to the instant review .
Ultimately , Commerce provided Antique Group an opportunity to remedy a significant number of deficiencies in its initially reported data , and it failed to submit the information by the established deadline . As Nippon Steel explains , section 776 ( b ) of the Act does not require an evaluation of a party ’ s intent , it is simply a means of determining whether the respondent has cooperated by providing Commerce with the necessary information . 149 In fact , in Nippon Steel , the respondent argued that Commerce should have evaluated the overall pattern of behavior in the proceeding , including its reasons for the mistake and its correction thereof , when determining whether to apply AFA . 150 Yet , the CAFC ruled that section 776 ( b ) of the Act does not set a requirement for “ willfulness ” or “ reasonable respondent ” standard , but instead requires a factual assessment of the extent to which a respondent cooperates in providing Commerce the requested information . 151 In the instant case , as we have discussed in the Preliminary Results and above , Antique Group was provided an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies identified by Commerce , yet it failed to do so within the established timeframe provided by Commerce . Antique Group ’ s motivation or intent is irrelevant here ; what matters is whether Antique Group was able to review its records and provide Commerce with the corrected information it requested in the timeframe that was established . As the record shows , the respondent did not meet this standard and , as such , Commerce determined that the respondent did not cooperate to the best of its ability . Therefore , Commerce continues to find that the record supports the application of AFA in determining the margin assigned to Antique Group in this administrative review .
Antique Group argues that AFA is not justified because , according to the SAA , Commerce must consider the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation , and Antique Group would not benefit from missing the deadline because the record was “ largely complete .” 152 The SAA ’ s intent was to ensure that a party would not be rewarded with a dumping margin using facts available plugs for missing information through lack of cooperation that would be more favorable than if the company cooperated fully . That scenario is not applicable in this instant review . As discussed above , Commerce disagrees with the contention that the record is complete or reliable ; therefore , we are not in a situation where Commerce can use facts available to plug minor gaps in the record because the gaps in the record are not minor . Both the U . S . sales data and cost of production data are unreliable and , therefore , not usable in a margin calculation . Moreover , Commerce did not have an opportunity to request information for any further questions that it may have had subsequently for Antique Group in relation to the home market sales data as the review progressed .
148
See Hyundai Electric at 10-11 .
149
See Nippon Steel , 337 F . 3d at 1382-83 .
150
Id ., 337 F . 3d at 1383
151
Id .
152
See Antique Group ’ s Case Brief at 29 ( citing SAA at 140 ).
34 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved