Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
evidence that Commerce should stray from the established precedent . We note that , while the historical margins across Indian cases may demonstrate that the AFA rate assigned to Antique Group is a high rate , each order on a particular product is a separate , unique proceeding , and the outcome of the rates calculated in each of those proceedings is based on the case-specific facts . The rates in other Indian AD proceedings are immaterial to our corroboration analysis .
Additionally , Antique Group contends that Commerce should conduct a bona fides analysis of PESL ’ s sales to determine whether certain sales that are generating the high individuallycalculated margins that preliminarily corroborated the petition rate are , in fact , non-bona fide sales . We disagree . While Antique Group cites the investigation to argue that Commerce has stated that a bona fides analysis is required for administrative reviews under section 751 ( a )( 2 )( B )( iv ) of the Act , we note that , in the investigation , PESL specifically requested that Commerce disregard paid sample sales . 192 It was only considering that request that led Commerce to determine that the analysis was not appropriate to conduct a bona fides analysis . Unlike in the investigation , PESL did not request that Commerce exclude any sales from the margin calculations in the instant review and , more to point , Commerce did not identify any information on the record that would lead it to conclude that the sales in question are not bona fide . The sales Commerce has used to corroborate the petition rate are being used as part of PESL ’ s weighted-average margin calculation , and there is no record information that would lead Commerce to reconsider their inclusion in PESL ’ s calculation .
Comment 5 : Whether Commerce Should Rely on a Different Method for Selecting the Non-Selected Company Rate
ASG ’ s Case Brief 193
� Section 735 ( c )( 5 )( B ) of the Act permits Commerce to use any reasonable method to establish the all-others rate in those instances where all dumping margins are zero , de minimis , or based entirely on AFA . While the SAA explains that the expected method is to average zero , de minimis , and AFA margins , it also notes that if that results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for noninvestigated exporters or producers , Commerce may use other reasonable methods . 194 � The rate of 161.56 assigned to the non-selected companies is unreasonable and should not be assigned to the non-selected companies in the final results . This rate is significantly higher than rates determined in the investigation , which did not exceed 5.15 percent . � As noted in Albemarle , accuracy and fairness warrant reconsideration of the rate assigned to non-selected companies . 195
192
See Final Determination IDM at Comment 4 .
193
See ASG ’ s Case Brief at 3-8 .
194
Id . at 5 ( citing SAA )
195
Id . at 6-7 ( citing Albemarle , 821 F . 3d . at 1354 (“ accuracy and fairness must be Commerce ’ s primary objectives in calculating a separate rate for cooperating exporters ” ( citing Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co . v . United States , 716 F . 3d 1370 , 1379 ( Fed . Cir . 2013 ) ( Bestpak ) (“ An overriding purpose of Commerce ’ s administration of antidumping laws is to calculate dumping margins as accurately as possible .”)); Gallant Ocean ( a rate must be a “ reasonably accurate estimate of the respondent ’ s actual rate ”) ( internal quotation marks and citations omitted ); SNR Roulements v . United States , 402 F . 3d 1358 , 1363 ( Fed . Cir . 2005 ) ( SNR Roulements ) (“ Antidumping laws intend to calculate antidumping duties on a fair and equitable basis .”); and Rhone Poulenc , 899 F . 2d at 1191 ( the “ basic purpose of the statute ” is to “ determine { e } current margins as accurately as possible ”)).
44 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved