Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
result by failing to cooperate than if it fully cooperated , while also being within the individually calculated margins of the cooperating party in this review as described below .
In order to rely on the highest petition rate in this instance , Commerce was required to demonstrate that there is other probative information that supports the reliance on this rate . In the event that the highest petition rate is unavailable or uncorroborated , then Commerce would next consider a component method of corroborating the highest petition margin as the AFA rate . However , our analysis in the Preliminary Results noted that , upon review of the individual margin rates calculated for PESL , the highest petition rate of 323.12 percent fell within the range of PESL ’ s individually-calculated margins . This continues to be the case . The fact that Commerce has accepted PESL ’ s reporting as actual sales information is indicative of the probative value of this secondary information and , as such , the individual margins generated in PESL ’ s calculations corroborate the use of the highest petition rate as the AFA rate . Therefore , we continue to conclude that the highest petition rate as an AFA rate for Antique Group has been corroborated by secondary information on the record , as required by the statute .
While parties contend that Commerce should have afforded an opportunity to revisit the petition rate and suggest changes or adjustments , we find that parties have provided no compelling reason for doing so . Sections 776 ( b )( 2 ) and ( c )( 1 ) of the Act allow Commerce to rely on information derived from the petition as long as the secondary information is also corroborated . It imposes no other requirement to use the petition rate . Moreover , Commerce routinely relies on the petition rate when selecting the highest available rate for AFA , and the fact that Commerce accepted the petition rate , which is based on factual information provided during the initial petition phase of an investigation , is indicative of the fact that it is a reasonable rate . Further , Commerce ’ s practice is not to recalculate dumping margins provided in petitions , but rather , as stated above , to corroborate the applicable petition rate when applying that rate as AFA . 188 To now allege that the petition rate was incorrectly calculated or that it should be updated to reflect the current POR because parties are faced with the prospect of being assigned that rate is an insufficient reason for concluding that the petition rate is somehow unreliable , when it was determined to be reliable in the initial investigation .
Various parties also contend that , if Commerce continues to apply AFA to Antique Group , we should select a rate that is representative of Antique Group ’ s sales activities or product line . As we noted above , these arguments are generally based on past court precedent that has since been overruled by the TPEA . We find no compelling explanation or rationale for how , given the revisions to the statute under the TPEA , Commerce has any obligation to consider Antique Group ’ s operations or commercial reality when selecting an AFA rate . Moreover , again , the parties have failed to demonstrate how the reliance on this selection criteria is somehow better than Commerce ’ s existing methodology for selecting an AFA rate . As such , we continue to find that there is no reason to revisit the calculation of the petition rate or to stray from the established methodology when selecting the AFA rate .
188
See , e . g ., Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge from the People ’ s Republic of China : Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value , 75 FR 41808 ( July 19 , 2010 ), and accompanying IDM at Comment 1 ; see also Certain Steel Grating from the People ’ s Republic of China : Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value , 75 FR 32366 ( June 8 , 2010 ), and accompanying IDM at Comment 2 .
42 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved