Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
� Commerce has actual quantities and prices on the record , as well as other necessary information and , as such , it is unreasonable and unlawful for Commerce to rely on this petition rate for determining an AFA rate . As the CIT stated in Pro-Team Coil II , information that could inform the reliability and reliance of the petition rate cannot be overlooked . 159
� The courts have held that Commerce must corroborate the AFA rate , noting that uncorroborated petition rates cannot be used for the purposes of AFA . 160 In Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from Taiwan and Glycine from India , Commerce relied on rates calculated in earlier reviews for other respondents because it was unable to corroborate the petition rate . 161
� The CAFC concluded in Gallant Ocean that when a petition rate is unreasonably high , Commerce should base its selection of an AFA rate on other information that is more reflective of dumping rates for similarly situated companies . 162
� Commerce has declined to place BPI on the record of this review , denying parties an opportunity to review the petition rate . This is contrary to the CIT ’ s ruling in Deacero , where the CIT stated that Commerce has an obligation to produce documents used to analyze why the chosen rate is probative . 163
� Commerce ’ s corroboration methodology ignores the fact that the petition rate is outdated and speculative and that the rate is significantly higher than rates calculated in the investigation . Thus , use of this AFA rate is unlawful .
� The record does not demonstrate that the secondary information used to corroborate the AFA rate has probative value , as required by the SAA . 164
� In BMW and Gallant Ocean , the courts found that Commerce must also consider whether the number of transaction-specific rates above the petition rate are not aberrational and , where there are a small number of transactions , how those are related to the respondent ’ s actual rate . 165
� As demonstrated by PESL ’ s zero margin in the Preliminary Results , it is clear that the AFA rate of 323.12 percent is aberrational and cannot be used because it is not representative of Antique Group ’ s commercial activities .
� A review of PESL ’ s CONNUM-specific margins indicate that the AFA rate is aberrational and the rates to which the petition rate are compared are not representative of the products Antique Group sold during the POR . Commerce has not explained how this comparison corroborates the AFA rate .
159
Id . at 36 ( citing Pro-Team Coil Nail Enter ., Inc . v . United States , 483 F . Supp . 3d 1242 , 1251 ( CIT 2020 ) ( Pro- Team Coil II )).
160
Id . at 38 ( citing Albemarle Corp . & Subsidiaries v . United States , 821 F . 3d 1345 , 1356 ( Fed . Cir . 2016 ) ( Albemarle )).
161
Id . ( citing Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from Taiwan : Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review ; 2014-2015 , 81 FR 43991 ( July 6 , 2016 ) ( Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from Taiwan ), and accompanying IDM at Comment 9 ; and Glycine from India : Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review ; 2018-2020 , 86 FR 62508 ( November 10 , 2021 ) ( Glycine from India ), and accompanying IDM at 34 ( Comment 4 )).
162
Id . at 39 ( citing Gallant Ocean , 602 F . 3d at 1324 ).
163
Id . at 40 ( citing Deacero S . A . P . I . de C . V . v . United States , 353 F . Supp . 3d 1303 , 1313-14 ( CIT 2018 )).
164
Id . at 42 ( citing SAA ).
165
Id . ( citing BMW of N . Am . LLC v . United States , 208 F . Supp . 3d 1388 , 1397-98 ( CIT 2017 ) ( BMW ); and Gallant Ocean , 602 F . 3d at 1324 )).
36 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved