Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Similarly , the courts have rejected arguments that a rate is not corroborated when compared to a small number of sales or where those transaction-specific margins are significantly higher than the overall calculated margins . In fact , the courts have said that the statute does not impose any of the additional corroboration requirements that parties in this case now propose . 184 There is no basis for which Commerce should have to perform a bona fides analysis of PESL ’ s sales to determine whether or not to include them in the margin analysis . The reason for a bona fides analysis in a review is to ensure that producers are not manipulating sales to obtain favorable ( i . e ., lower ) margins . In this case , Antique Group argues this same analysis is required of PESL ’ s sales to show that certain sales are not bona fide because they have margins that are too high . Because of this , there is no reason to believe that the sales in question are manipulated and thus , by extension , no basis upon which to conduct a bona fides analysis . DSG et al ., when arguing that historical margins in AD cases from India demonstrate that the petition rate cannot be used for AFA , points to no authority whereby Commerce should consider rates from other cases that are based on entirely different merchandise and different time periods . Sections 776 ( b )( 2 )( A ) and ( c ) of the Act permit Commerce to rely on information from the petition provided that it is corroborated ; Commerce has done so in the instant review . The courts have upheld Commerce ’ s right to rely on petition rates from many years if that rate can be corroborated . While parties argue that Commerce must evaluate whether the petition rate is reflective of the commercial reality of Antique Group , these arguments ( e . g ., referencing Gallant Ocean ) are based on interpretations of a prior version of the Act . Section 776 ( d )( 3 ) of the Act is clear that Commerce is not required to demonstrate that a dumping margin reflects the commercial reality of an interested party , which the courts have recognized . Arguments that Commerce must consider Antique Group ’ s activities during the review in determining the AFA rate are contrary to the plain wording of section 776 ( b )( 1 )( B ) of the Act , which states that Commerce is not required to make assumptions about information an interested party may have provided , had it complied with the request for information . Parties cite no precedent that indicates the tests they advocate for are required , and these are inconsistent with the statute and Commerce ’ s methodology . Commerce has no obligation to corroborate the petition rate any further than determining that it is reasonable when compared with information at hand . Because the record demonstrates that the petition rate is within the range of individual rates calculated for PESL , the rate has been correctly corroborated . The statute explains that , to use information in a dumping calculation , the information must not be so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching a determination . While Antique Group and others may speculate that Antique Group ’ s information was sufficient for Commerce to use , it is not their place to dictate whether that is the case .
Commerce ’ s Position : Commerce continues to find it appropriate to use the petition rate of 323.12 percent as the AFA rate assigned to Antique Group in these final results .
184
Id . ( citing Nan Ya Plastics Corp . v . United States , 810 F . 3d 1333 , 1346 ( Fed . Cir . 2016 ) ( Nan Ya Plastics )).
40 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved