Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
�
�
�
�
�
�
� possible that the application of a particular methodology is unreasonable in a given case . 215 The preliminary rate assigned to non-selected respondents is significantly different from those rates calculated in the investigation and for PESL in the Preliminary Results . Similar to the CIT ’ s determination in Navneet , the fact that the rate is significantly higher than all prior margins indicates that it is unreasonable . 216 In the Preliminary Results , Commerce failed to complete the analysis required by law to determine whether the non-selected company rate was reasonably reflective of the potential non-selected company dumping margins . 217 In cases such as this where Commerce has only selected two respondents out of many companies subject to the review , it is appropriate to consider the margins applied in the investigation , which were based on actual dumping margins . In Nails from Oman Preliminary Results and Shrimp from Vietnam , Commerce did just this , assigning nonselected companies a rate from the investigation which was determined to be more reasonable than the margin assigned to the mandatory respondent ( s ) in the administrative review . 218 In Bestpak , Commerce attempted to average margins of zero and AFA to obtain a rate for non-selected respondents . In that case , the CAFC held that this average was unreasonable as it did not reflect economic reality . 219 In addition , the CIT in Navneet found that Commerce must ensure that any rate selected for non-selected companies is supported by corroborated record evidence , explaining that the rate based on an average of zero and AFA rates was arbitrary and not reflective of economic reality . 220 In the instant review , Commerce has failed to demonstrate that the rate of 161.56 percent reflects economic reality and , as such , should not be used in the final results . The preliminary rate of 161.56 percent assigned to the non-selected companies is uncorroborated by record evidence and aberrational when compared to PESL ’ s zero margin , as well as the margins calculated in the investigation . In the recent Nails from Oman Preliminary Results , Commerce , presented with a similar situation to that here , assigned the all-others rate from the investigation to the nonselected companies in that administrative review . 221 Similarly , in Shrimp from Vietnam , Commerce determined that the most reflective non-selected company rate was that from the investigation . 222 Commerce should rely on a similar approach for the final results of by assigning the all-others rate from the original investigation to the non-selected companies in this review .
215
Id . at 3 ( citing Thai Pineapple Canning Indus . Corp . v . United States , 273 F . 3d 1077 , 1085 ( Fed . Cir . 2001 ) ( Thai Pineapple )).
216
Id . at 4-5 ( citing Navneet Publications ( India ) Ltd . v . United States , 999 F . Supp . 2d 1354 , 1365 ( CIT 2014 ) ( Navneet )).
217
Id . at 5 ( citing SAA at 873 ).
218
Id . at 5-6 ( citing Nails from Oman Preliminary Results ; and Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam : Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 73 FR 52273 ( September 9 , 2008 ) ( Shrimp from Vietnam ), and accompanying IDM at Comment 6 ).
219
Id . at 7 ( citing Bestpak , 716 F . 3d at 1379 ).
220
Id . ( citing Navneet , 999 F . Supp . 2d at 1363-64 ).
221
Id . at 9-10 ( citing Nails from Oman Preliminary Results PDM at 13 ).
222
Id . at 10 ( citing Shrimp from Vietnam ).
49 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved