Barcode : 4326250-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
individually investigated , including averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated .”
The SAA also provides that when the dumping margins for all individually investigated exporters and producers are determined entirely on the basis of facts available or are zero or de minimis , “{ t } he expected method in such cases will be to weight-average the zero and de minimis margins and margins determined pursuant to the facts available , provided that volume data is available .” 245 However , the SAA also instructs that , “ if this { expected } method is not feasible , or if it results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or producers , Commerce may use other reasonable methods ” to calculate the rate for the companies not selected for individual examination in this review . 246
Following a review of the parties ’ arguments , we find that the margin assigned to the nonselected companies in the Preliminary Results is not reasonably reflective of the non-selected companies ’ potential dumping margins during the POR . In the Preliminary Results , we assigned the non-selected companies a simple average of the total AFA margin assigned to Antique Group and the weighted-average dumping margin of zero percent calculated for PESL , resulting in a rate of 161.56 percent for the non-selected companies . 247 The calculation of this non-selected companies ’ margin was as close as Commerce could adhere to the SAA ’ s “ expected method ” without disclosing BPI . 248
In response to the numerous arguments regarding the calculation of the margin for the nonselected companies , we examined the parties ’ claims that the margin assigned to the non-selected companies at the Preliminary Results was not reasonably reflective , as contemplated by the SAA . As a result , we reviewed the history of rates in this Order . In the underlying investigation , Commerce calculated weighted-average dumping margins for the mandatory respondents ranging from 2.67 to 5.15 percent . 249 This resulted in an all-others margin of 3.19 percent . 250 Moreover , the one fully calculated weighted-average dumping margin , for PESL , in this instant review is zero percent . Thus , we find that , other than the AFA rate we applied to Antique Group in the Preliminary Results ( and continue to apply for these final results ), all of the rates in this Order are significantly lower than the rate of 161.53 percent assigned to the nonselected companies in the Preliminary Results . Accordingly , based on the history of rates for this Order , we determine that the 161.53 percent margin is not reasonably reflective of the nonselected companies ’ potential dumping margins during the POR .
245
Id .
246
Id .; see also Albemarle ( explaining that if the “ expected method ” is “ not feasible ” or the method “ results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or producers ,” Commerce may , instead , “ use other reasonable methods .”).
247
See Preliminary Results .
248
Commerce was unable to weight average the de minimis and AFA rates because doing so would potentially disclose BPI of both of the respondents . In accordance with Commerce ’ s practice , we calculated an average margin for non-selected respondents using the publicly available , ranged total U . S . sales values of the selected respondents , compared the resulting public , weighted-average margin to the simple average of the dumping margins , and used the amount which is closer to the actual weighted-average margin of the selected respondents as the margin for the nonselected respondents . See Preliminary Results PDM at 11-12 .
249
See Order .
250
Id .
54 Filed By : David Lindgren , Filed Date : 1 / 3 / 23 1:27 PM , Submission Status : Approved