SlipȱOp.ȱ25Ȭ10
UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ
APIÁRIOȱDIAMANEȱCOMERCIALȱ EXPORTADORAȱLTDAȱANDȱAPIÁRIOȱ DIAMANTEȱPRODUÇÃOȱEȱCOMERCIALȱDEȱ MELȱLTDA,ȱ
Plaintiffs,ȱ
v.ȱ Before:ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱ UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ Judgeȱ
Defendant,ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185ȱ
andȱ
AMERICANȱHONEYȱPRODUCERSȱ ASSOCIATIONȱANDȱTHEȱSIOUXȱHONEYȱ ASSOCIATION,ȱ
DefendantȬIntervenors.ȱ
OPINIONȱ
[Sustainingȱanȱagencyȱdecisionȱsubmittedȱinȱresponseȱtoȱcourtȱorderȱinȱanȱactionȱ contestingȱaȱfinalȱdeterminationȱconcludingȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigation]ȱ
Dated:ȱJanuaryȱ24,ȱ2025ȱ
PierceȱJ.ȱLee,ȱCrowellȱ&ȱMoringȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱplaintiffsȱApiárioȱ DiamanteȱComercialȱExportadoraȱLtdaȱandȱApiárioȱDiamanteȱProduçãoȱeȱComercialȱdeȱ MelȱLtda.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwasȱDanielȱJ.ȱCannistra.ȱ
KaraȱM.ȱWestercamp,ȱSeniorȱTrialȱCounsel,ȱCommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱCivilȱ Division,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendant.ȱȱWithȱherȱonȱ theȱbriefȱwereȱBrianȱM.ȱBoynton,ȱPrincipalȱDeputyȱAssistantȱAttorneyȱGeneral,ȱPatriciaȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185 Pageȱ2ȱ
M. McCarthy,ȱDirector,ȱReginaldȱT.ȱBlades,ȱJr.,ȱAssistantȱDirector.ȱȱOfȱcounselȱonȱtheȱbrief wasȱBenjaminȱJuvelier,ȱAttorney,ȱOfficeȱofȱtheȱChiefȱCounselȱforȱTradeȱEnforcementȱ& Compliance,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱCommerce,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.
R. AlanȱLuberda,ȱKelleyȱDryeȱ&ȱWarrenȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendantȬ intervenorsȱAmericanȱHoneyȱProducersȱAssociationȱandȱtheȱSiouxȱHoneyȱAssociation.ȱȱ WithȱhimȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwereȱElizabethȱC.ȱJohnson,ȱMelissaȱM.ȱBrewer,ȱandȱMalihaȱKhan.ȱ
Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱȱPlaintiffsȱApiárioȱDiamanteȱComercialȱExportadoraȱLtdaȱ
(“ApiárioȱExport”)ȱandȱApiárioȱDiamanteȱProduçãoȱeȱComercialȱdeȱMelȱLtdaȱ(“Apiárioȱ
Produção”)ȱ(collectively,ȱ“Apiário,”ȱoperatingȱjointlyȱunderȱtheȱtradeȱnameȱ
“Supermel”)ȱcontestedȱanȱaffirmativeȱ“lessȬthanȬfairȬvalue”ȱdeterminationȱ(“Finalȱ
Determination”)ȱthatȱtheȱInternationalȱTradeȱAdministration,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱ
Commerceȱ(“Commerce”ȱorȱtheȱ“Department”)ȱissuedȱtoȱconcludeȱanȱantidumpingȱ
dutyȱinvestigationȱonȱimportedȱrawȱhoneyȱfromȱseveralȱcountries.ȱȱRawȱHoneyȱFromȱ
Brazil:ȱFinalȱDeterminationȱofȱSalesȱatȱLessȱThanȱFairȱValue,ȱ87ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ22,182ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ
Admin.ȱApr.ȱ14,ȱ2022),ȱP.R.ȱ358,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ31Ȭ2ȱ(“FinalȱDetermination”).1ȱȱTheȱcourtȱ
previouslyȱorderedȱCommerceȱtoȱreconsiderȱitsȱFinalȱDetermination.ȱȱApiárioȱDiamanteȱ
ComercialȱExportadoraȱLtda.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ48ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ705ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1398,ȱ1420ȱ
(2024)ȱ(“ApiárioȱI”).ȱ
1 ȱCitationsȱtoȱdocumentsȱfromȱtheȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Apr.ȱ18,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ30ȱ (conf.),ȱ31ȱ(public)ȱ(supplementedȱbyȱECFȱNos.ȱ33ȱ(conf.),ȱ34ȱ(public),ȱfiledȱonȱNov.ȱ16,ȱ 2023)ȱareȱreferencedȱhereinȱasȱ“P.R.ȱ__”ȱforȱpublicȱversions.ȱȱCitationsȱtoȱdocumentsȱ fromȱtheȱRemandȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Nov.ȱ1,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ51ȱ(conf.),ȱ52ȱ(public),ȱareȱ referencedȱhereinȱasȱ“P.R.R.ȱ__”ȱforȱpublicȱversions.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185 Pageȱ3ȱ
BeforeȱtheȱcourtȱisȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ“RemandȱRedetermination,”ȱissuedȱinȱ
responseȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱApiárioȱI.ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱ
PursuantȱtoȱCourtȱRemandȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱAug.ȱ26,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41Ȭ1ȱ(“Remandȱ
Redetermination”).ȱȱȱ
TheȱcourtȱsustainsȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱȱ
I. BACKGROUND
Backgroundȱforȱthisȱcaseȱisȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱcourt’sȱpriorȱopinionȱandȱisȱ
supplementedȱherein.ȱȱApiárioȱI,ȱ48ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ705ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1401–02.ȱ
A. TheȱContestedȱDecision
OnȱNovemberȱ23,ȱ2021,ȱCommerceȱissuedȱaȱ“PreliminaryȱDetermination”ȱafterȱ
itsȱantidumpingȱinvestigationȱofȱrawȱhoneyȱfromȱBrazilȱforȱtheȱtimeȱperiodȱ(theȱ“periodȱ
ofȱinvestigation”ȱorȱ“POI”)ȱofȱAprilȱ1,ȱ2020ȱthroughȱMarchȱ31,ȱ2021,ȱinȱwhichȱitȱassignedȱ
aȱ29.61%ȱestimatedȱdumpingȱmarginȱtoȱSupermelȱandȱaȱ20.19%ȱdumpingȱmarginȱtoȱallȱ
otherȱexportersȱandȱproducers.ȱȱRawȱHoneyȱFromȱBrazil:ȱPreliminaryȱAffirmativeȱ
DeterminationȱofȱSalesȱatȱLessȱThanȱFairȱValue,ȱPostponementȱofȱFinalȱDetermination,ȱandȱ
ExtensionȱofȱProvisionalȱMeasures,ȱ86ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ66,533,ȱ66,533–34ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱ
Nov.ȱ23,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱ292,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ31Ȭ31ȱ(“PreliminaryȱDetermination”);ȱDecisionȱ
MemorandumȱforȱtheȱPreliminaryȱDeterminationȱinȱtheȱLessȬThanȬFairȬValueȱInvestigationȱofȱ
RawȱHoneyȱfromȱBrazilȱ17,ȱ21ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱNov.ȱ17,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱ288,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ31Ȭ30ȱ
(“Prelim.ȱI&DȱMem.”).ȱȱOnȱDecemberȱ17,ȱ2021,ȱhavingȱcorrectedȱministerialȱerrorsȱinȱtheȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185ȱ ȱ Pageȱ4ȱ
PreliminaryȱDeterminationȱpursuantȱtoȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.224(f),ȱCommerceȱissuedȱanȱ
“AmendedȱPreliminaryȱDetermination,”ȱinȱwhichȱitȱassignedȱaȱ10.52%ȱestimatedȱ
dumpingȱmarginȱtoȱSupermelȱandȱaȱ9.38%ȱestimatedȱdumpingȱmarginȱtoȱallȱotherȱ
exportersȱandȱproducers.ȱȱRawȱHoneyȱFromȱBrazil:ȱAmendedȱPreliminaryȱDeterminationȱofȱ
SalesȱatȱLessȱThanȱFairȱValue,ȱ86ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ71,614,ȱ71,615ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱDec.ȱ17,ȱ
2021),ȱP.R.ȱ313,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ31Ȭ34ȱ(“AmendedȱPreliminaryȱDetermination”).ȱ
OnȱAprilȱ14,ȱ2022,ȱCommerceȱissuedȱtheȱFinalȱDetermination,ȱwhichȱ
incorporatedȱbyȱreferenceȱaȱ“FinalȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandum.”ȱȱIssuesȱandȱ
DecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱtheȱFinalȱAffirmativeȱDeterminationȱinȱtheȱLessȬThanȬFairȬValueȱ
InvestigationȱofȱRawȱHoneyȱfromȱBrazilȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱApr.ȱ7,ȱ2022),ȱP.R.ȱ354,ȱECFȱ
No.ȱ31Ȭ3ȱ(“FinalȱI&DȱMem.”).ȱȱInȱtheȱFinalȱDetermination,ȱCommerceȱassignedȱSupermelȱ
anȱestimatedȱdumpingȱmarginȱofȱ83.72%ȱadȱvaloremȱbyȱinvokingȱ“factsȱotherwiseȱ
available”ȱunderȱSectionȱ776(a)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱofȱ1930,ȱasȱamendedȱ(“TariffȱAct”),ȱ
19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a),ȱandȱanȱ“adverseȱinference”ȱunderȱSectionȱ776(b)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ
19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b),ȱprovisionsȱtoȱwhichȱCommerceȱoftenȱrefersȱinȱtheȱaggregateȱasȱ
“adverseȱfactsȱavailable”ȱorȱ“AFA.”ȱȱFinalȱDetermination,ȱ87ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ22,182–83.2ȱȱ
CommerceȱfoundȱthatȱSupermelȱ“significantlyȱimpededȱtheȱproceedingȱbyȱnotȱ
substantiating”ȱtheȱreportedȱcostȱofȱproductionȱofȱrawȱhoneyȱandȱthereforeȱappliedȱ
ȱCitationsȱtoȱtheȱU.S.ȱCodeȱhereinȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2018ȱedition.ȱȱCitationsȱtoȱtheȱCodeȱ 2
ofȱFederalȱRegulationsȱhereinȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2022ȱedition.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185 Pageȱ5ȱ
“totalȱAFA”ȱtoȱassignȱtheȱ83.72%ȱrateȱtoȱSupermel.ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱ12,ȱ18–20.ȱȱ
FollowingȱanȱaffirmativeȱinjuryȱdeterminationȱbyȱtheȱU.S.ȱInternationalȱTradeȱ
Commission,ȱCommerceȱissuedȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorderȱonȱrawȱhoneyȱfromȱ
Argentina,ȱBrazil,ȱIndia,ȱandȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱVietnamȱ(theȱ“Order”).ȱȱRawȱ
HoneyȱFromȱArgentina,ȱBrazil,ȱIndia,ȱandȱtheȱSocialistȱRepublicȱofȱVietnam:ȱAntidumpingȱ
DutyȱOrders,ȱ87ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ35,501ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱJuneȱ10,ȱ2022),ȱP.R.ȱ362,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ
31Ȭ1.ȱ
B. TheȱCourt’sȱPriorȱOpinionȱandȱOrder
InȱApiárioȱI,ȱtheȱcourtȱheldȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱtotalȱapplicationȱofȱfactsȱ
otherwiseȱavailableȱwithȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱ“wasȱbasedȱonȱmultipleȱfindingsȱofȱfactȱ
forȱwhichȱtheȱrecordȱdoesȱnotȱcontainȱsubstantialȱevidence”ȱandȱremandedȱtheȱFinalȱ
DeterminationȱtoȱCommerceȱforȱaȱ“redeterminationȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthatȱreconsiders,ȱbasedȱonȱtheȱ
existingȱrecord,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱonȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677eȱ
toȱSupermel;ȱthatȱdeterminesȱaȱnewȱestimatedȱdumpingȱmarginȱforȱSupermel;ȱandȱthatȱ
isȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱthisȱAmendedȱOpinionȱandȱOrder.”ȱȱ48ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ705ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ
atȱ1420.ȱ
Commerceȱbasedȱitsȱtotalȱapplicationȱofȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱandȱanȱadverseȱ
inferenceȱonȱseveralȱfactualȱfindings,ȱeachȱofȱwhichȱtheȱcourtȱfoundȱtoȱbeȱunsupportedȱ
byȱsubstantialȱrecordȱevidence.ȱȱCommerceȱsetȱasideȱSupermel’sȱentireȱcostȱofȱ
productionȱandȱcomparisonȱmarketȱdatabasesȱasȱunverifiable,ȱbasedȱonȱitsȱfindingsȱthatȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185ȱ ȱ Pageȱ6ȱ
Supermelȱprovidedȱinsufficientȱresponsesȱregardingȱitsȱpurchasesȱofȱrawȱhoneyȱfromȱitsȱ
beekeeperȱsuppliers,ȱthatȱSupermelȱdidȱnotȱprovideȱsufficientȱdocumentationȱ
supportingȱitsȱpurchaseȱdatabase,ȱandȱthatȱSupermelȱdidȱnotȱdemonstrateȱhowȱitsȱ
purchaseȱdatabaseȱ“tied”ȱtoȱitsȱaccountingȱsystem.ȱȱId.,ȱ48ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ705ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ
1406–19.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱheldȱtheseȱfindingsȱtoȱbeȱunsupportedȱonȱtheȱrecordȱconsideredȱasȱaȱ
whole,ȱasȱtheȱrecordȱeitherȱrenderedȱinsignificantȱtheȱpurportedȱdeficienciesȱCommerceȱ
identifiedȱorȱcontradictedȱthemȱaltogether.ȱȱId.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱfurtherȱfoundȱthatȱCommerceȱ
failedȱtoȱbringȱcertainȱdeficienciesȱtoȱSupermel’sȱattentionȱandȱprovideȱSupermelȱanȱ
opportunityȱtoȱremedyȱthem,ȱasȱrequiredȱbyȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677m(d).ȱȱId.,ȱ48ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ
705ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1409–11.ȱȱȱ
WhileȱgrantingȱreliefȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱorderingȱaȱremandȱofȱtheȱFinalȱ
Determination,ȱtheȱcourtȱdeniedȱreliefȱonȱplaintiffs’ȱclaimȱthatȱCommerceȱ“actedȱ
unlawfully”ȱwhen,ȱinȱitsȱ“PreliminaryȱIssuesȱ&ȱDecisionȱMemorandum,”ȱPrelim.ȱI&Dȱ
Mem.ȱ18,ȱitȱcontemplatedȱapplyingȱadverseȱinferencesȱinȱfutureȱadministrativeȱreviewsȱ
ifȱitȱdidȱnotȱreceiveȱaccurate,ȱverifiableȱcostȱinformation.ȱȱConcludingȱthatȱtheȱclaimȱwasȱ
notȱbasedȱonȱaȱpresentȱinjuryȱinȱfactȱandȱsoughtȱwhatȱwouldȱbeȱanȱadvisoryȱopinion,ȱ
theȱcourtȱdeniedȱrelief.ȱȱId.,ȱ48ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ705ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1419–20.ȱ
C. SubmissionȱofȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱandȱComments
Inȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱApiárioȱI,ȱCommerceȱsubmittedȱ
theȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱtoȱtheȱcourtȱonȱAugustȱ26,ȱ2024.ȱȱPlaintiffsȱcommentedȱinȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185 Pageȱ7ȱ
favorȱofȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱonȱSeptemberȱ24,ȱ2024.ȱȱPls.’ȱCommentsȱonȱ
RemandȱResultsȱ(Sept.ȱ24,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ43.ȱȱDefendantȬintervenors,ȱtheȱAmericanȱ
HoneyȱProducersȱAssociationȱandȱtheȱSiouxȱHoneyȱAssociation,ȱcommentedȱinȱ
oppositionȱonȱSeptemberȱ25,ȱ2024.ȱȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱinȱOpp.ȱtoȱtheȱCommerceȱ
Dep’t’sȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Sept.ȱ25,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ46ȱ(conf.),ȱ47ȱ(public)ȱ
(“AHPAȱComments”).ȱȱTheȱgovernmentȱfiledȱitsȱresponseȱonȱOctoberȱ18,ȱ2024,ȱ
requestingȱ“thatȱtheȱCourtȱsustainȱCommerce’sȱremandȱredeterminationȱandȱenterȱ
judgmentȱinȱfavorȱofȱtheȱUnitedȱStates.”ȱȱDef.’sȱCommentsȱinȱSupportȱofȱRemandȱ
Redeterminationȱ9ȱ(Oct.ȱ18,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ50.ȱ
II. DISCUSSION
A. JurisdictionȱandȱStandardȱofȱReview
Theȱcourtȱexercisesȱjurisdictionȱunderȱsectionȱ201ȱofȱtheȱCustomsȱCourtsȱActȱofȱ
1980,ȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1581(c),ȱpursuantȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱcourtȱreviewsȱactionsȱcommencedȱ
underȱsectionȱ516AȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1516a,ȱincludingȱanȱactionȱcontestingȱaȱ
finalȱdeterminationȱthatȱCommerceȱissuesȱtoȱconcludeȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱ
investigation.ȱ
Inȱreviewingȱanȱagencyȱdetermination,ȱincludingȱoneȱmadeȱuponȱremandȱtoȱtheȱ
agency,ȱtheȱcourtȱ“shallȱholdȱunlawfulȱanyȱdetermination,ȱfinding,ȱorȱconclusionȱfoundȱ
.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtoȱbeȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱorȱotherwiseȱnotȱinȱ
accordanceȱwithȱlaw.”ȱȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).ȱȱSubstantialȱevidenceȱrefersȱtoȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185 Pageȱ8ȱ
“‘suchȱrelevantȱevidenceȱasȱaȱreasonableȱmindȱmightȱacceptȱasȱadequateȱtoȱsupportȱaȱ
conclusion.’”ȱȱSKFȱUSA,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ537ȱF.3dȱ1373,ȱ1378ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2008)ȱ
(quotingȱConsol.ȱEdisonȱCo.ȱofȱNewȱYorkȱv.ȱNat’lȱLab.ȱRels.ȱBd.,ȱ305ȱU.S.ȱ197,ȱ229ȱ(1938)).ȱ
B. UseȱofȱFactsȱOtherwiseȱAvailableȱandȱAdverseȱInferencesȱunderȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e
Whenȱ“anȱinterestedȱpartyȱorȱanyȱotherȱperson”ȱwithholdsȱrequestedȱ
information,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a)(2)(A),ȱorȱ“significantlyȱimpedesȱaȱproceeding,”ȱid.ȱ
§ 1677e(a)(2)(C),ȱorȱwhenȱtheȱinformationȱofferedȱ“cannotȱbeȱverifiedȱasȱprovidedȱin
sectionȱ1677m(i)ȱofȱthisȱtitleȱ[19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677m(i)],”ȱid.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a)(2)(D),ȱCommerceȱ
resortsȱtoȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailable.ȱȱIfȱCommerceȱ“findsȱthatȱanȱinterestedȱpartyȱhasȱ
failedȱtoȱcooperateȱbyȱnotȱactingȱtoȱtheȱbestȱofȱitsȱabilityȱtoȱcomplyȱwithȱaȱrequestȱforȱ
information,”ȱCommerceȱ“mayȱuseȱanȱinferenceȱthatȱisȱadverseȱtoȱtheȱinterestsȱofȱthatȱ
partyȱinȱselectingȱfromȱamongȱtheȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailable.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b)(1)(A).ȱȱȱ
C. TheȱRemandȱRedetermination
InȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱreportedȱthatȱitȱ“reanalyzedȱ
Supermel’sȱhoneyȱacquisitionȱcosts”ȱandȱ“determinedȱonȱremandȱthatȱtheȱcompleteȱ
reconciliationȱofȱSupermel’sȱdataȱtoȱitsȱsuppliers’ȱreportedȱdataȱisȱimmaterialȱtoȱtheȱ
analysisȱofȱSupermel’sȱdata,ȱbasedȱonȱotherȱreliableȱandȱverifiableȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱ
record.”ȱȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ6.ȱȱRejectingȱdefendantȬintervenors’ȱargumentsȱthatȱ
Commerceȱshouldȱcontinueȱapplyingȱadverseȱfactsȱavailableȱandȱshouldȱdenyȱaȱclaimedȱ
offsetȱtoȱSupermel’sȱdirectȱmaterialȱcostsȱfromȱtwoȱtaxȱcredits,ȱCommerceȱadoptedȱtheȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185 Pageȱ9ȱ
10.52%ȱpreliminaryȱestimatedȱweightedȬaverageȱdumpingȱmarginȱcalculatedȱforȱ
SupermelȱinȱtheȱAmendedȱPreliminaryȱDetermination.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ6–12.ȱȱCommerceȱassignedȱ
aȱ9.38%ȱestimatedȱweightedȬaverageȱdumpingȱmarginȱtoȱallȱotherȱrespondents.ȱȱId.ȱ
atȱ12.ȱ
D. TheȱFirstȱAdministrativeȱReview
InȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱnotedȱthatȱ“theȱrateȱassignedȱtoȱ
Supermelȱinȱthisȱremandȱdeterminationȱforȱcashȱdepositȱpurposesȱwillȱsoonȱbeȱ
overtakenȱby”ȱtheȱ“forthcoming”ȱfinalȱresultsȱofȱtheȱfirstȱadministrativeȱreviewȱofȱtheȱ
Orderȱcoveringȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱwhichȱ“willȱsetȱtheȱliquidationȱrateȱforȱthatȱ
periodȱofȱreviewȱandȱaȱnewȱcashȱdepositȱrate”ȱthatȱ“willȱsupersedeȱanyȱcashȱdepositȱ
rateȱsetȱbyȱthisȱremandȱdetermination.”ȱȱId.ȱȱDefendantȬintervenorsȱdoȱnotȱcontestȱthisȱ
statement.ȱ
CommerceȱinitiatedȱanȱadministrativeȱreviewȱofȱtheȱOrderȱonȱAugustȱ3,ȱ2023,ȱinȱ
accordanceȱwithȱsectionȱ751(a)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1675(a),ȱandȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ
§§ 351.213,ȱ351.221.ȱȱInitiationȱofȱAntidumpingȱandȱCountervailingȱDutyȱAdministrative
Reviews,ȱ88ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ51,271,ȱ51,273ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱAug.ȱ3,ȱ2023).ȱȱCommerceȱ
selectedȱtwoȱmandatoryȱrespondentsȱforȱindividualȱexamination,ȱApisȱNativaȱ
AgroindustrialȱExportadoraȱLtda.ȱ(“ApisȱNativa”)ȱandȱMelbrasȱImportadoraȱEȱ
ExportadoraȱAgroindustrialȱLtda.ȱ(“Melbras”),ȱandȱpublishedȱitsȱ“PreliminaryȱResults”ȱ
onȱJulyȱ5,ȱ2024.ȱȱRawȱHoneyȱFromȱBrazil:ȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱandȱPartialȱRescissionȱofȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185 Pageȱ10ȱ
AntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview;ȱ2021–2023,ȱ89ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ55,582,ȱ55,582ȱ(Int’lȱ
TradeȱAdmin.ȱJulyȱ5,ȱ2024).ȱȱCommerceȱpreliminarilyȱassignedȱtheȱfollowingȱweightedȬ
averageȱdumpingȱmarginsȱforȱtheȱperiodȱofȱreviewȱNovemberȱ23,ȱ2021ȱthroughȱMayȱ31,ȱ
2023:ȱApis,ȱ0%;ȱMelbras,ȱ2.31%;ȱallȱnonȬexaminedȱcompaniesȱ(includingȱSupermel),ȱ
2.31%.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ55,582–84.ȱ
TheȱcourtȱagreesȱwithȱCommerceȱthatȱtheȱfinalȱdumpingȱmarginȱassignedȱtoȱ
Supermelȱinȱtheȱfirstȱadministrativeȱreviewȱwillȱsupplantȱtheȱestimatedȱcashȱdepositȱ
rateȱdeterminedȱinȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱOnceȱthatȱoccurs,ȱdefendantȬ
intervenors’ȱclaimsȱcontestingȱtheȱcashȱdepositȱrateȱassignedȱtoȱSupermelȱinȱtheȱ
RemandȱRedeterminationȱwillȱbecomeȱmoot.ȱȱSeeȱTorringtonȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ
44ȱF.3dȱ1572,ȱ1577ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ1995).ȱ
E. DefendantȬIntervenors’ȱObjectionsȱtoȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination
DefendantȬintervenorsȱraiseȱfiveȱclaimsȱinȱcontestingȱtheȱRemandȱ
Redetermination.ȱȱFirst,ȱtheyȱcontendȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱappliedȱtheȱincorrectȱstandardȱinȱ
ApiárioȱIȱwhenȱreviewingȱtheȱDepartment’sȱfindingsȱonȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱandȱanȱ
adverseȱinference.ȱȱAHPAȱCommentsȱ20–21,ȱ26.ȱȱSecond,ȱinȱaȱrelatedȱargument,ȱtheyȱ
argueȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱuseȱofȱ“totalȱAFA”ȱinȱtheȱFinalȱDeterminationȱwasȱ
supportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidence.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ11–14,ȱ16–17,ȱ20–26.ȱȱThird,ȱtheyȱallegeȱthatȱ
whatȱtheyȱviewȱasȱadditionalȱdeficienciesȱinȱSupermel’sȱquestionnaireȱresponsesȱduringȱ
theȱinvestigationȱcompelȱCommerceȱtoȱapplyȱtotalȱadverseȱfactsȱavailable.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ5–11,ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185 Pageȱ11ȱ
16–18.ȱȱFourth,ȱtheyȱclaimȱthatȱaȱtaxȱoffsetȱtoȱSupermel’sȱdirectȱmaterialȱcostsȱisȱnotȱ
sufficientlyȱsupportedȱbyȱdocumentationȱonȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ31–34.ȱȱFinally,ȱtheyȱclaimȱ
thatȱCommerceȱdidȱnotȱexplainȱadequatelyȱitsȱreasoningȱforȱitsȱRemandȱ
RedeterminationȱandȱthatȱCommerceȱdidȱnotȱaddressȱtheirȱargumentsȱbeforeȱtheȱcourtȱ
inȱApiárioȱIȱandȱinȱtheirȱcommentsȱonȱtheȱdraftȱremandȱredetermination.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ28–31.ȱ
Theȱcourtȱrejectsȱeachȱofȱtheseȱarguments.ȱȱTheȱfirstȱtwoȱarguments—thatȱtheȱ
courtȱpreviouslyȱappliedȱanȱincorrectȱstandardȱandȱthatȱtheȱuseȱofȱtotalȱAFAȱwasȱ
supportedȱbyȱtheȱrecordȱofȱtheȱinvestigation—areȱimproperȱattemptsȱtoȱrelitigateȱissuesȱ
alreadyȱlitigatedȱandȱdecidedȱinȱApiárioȱI.ȱȱTheȱproperȱwayȱtoȱraiseȱtheseȱissuesȱwasȱ
throughȱtheȱfilingȱofȱaȱmotionȱforȱreconsiderationȱunderȱUSCITȱRuleȱ60(b),ȱwhichȱ
providesȱforȱreliefȱfromȱanȱ“order[]ȱorȱproceeding”ȱforȱreasonsȱthatȱincludeȱ“mistake,ȱ
inadvertence,ȱsurprise,ȱorȱexcusableȱneglect,”ȱorȱ“anyȱotherȱreasonȱthatȱjustifiesȱrelief.”ȱ
TheȱcourtȱisȱunconvincedȱbyȱdefendantȬintervenors’ȱthirdȱargument,ȱi.e.,ȱthatȱ
whatȱdefendantȬintervenorsȱnowȱconsiderȱtoȱbeȱadditionalȱdeficienciesȱinȱSupermel’sȱ
questionnaireȱresponsesȱduringȱtheȱinvestigation,ȱAHPAȱCommentsȱ5–11,ȱ16–18,ȱ
compelledȱCommerceȱtoȱreinstateȱaȱdecisionȱtoȱapplyȱtotalȱAFA.ȱȱȱ
DefendantȬintervenors’ȱargumentsȱfailȱtoȱpersuadeȱtheȱcourtȱthatȱCommerce,ȱ
despiteȱtheȱconsiderableȱdiscretionȱinherentȱinȱanyȱexerciseȱofȱauthorityȱunderȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ
§ 1677e,ȱwasȱobligatedȱtoȱbaseȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱonȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailable
withȱanȱadverseȱinference.ȱȱNotably,ȱCommerceȱdidȱnotȱsubmitȱtheȱRemandȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185ȱ ȱ Pageȱ12ȱ
Redeterminationȱunderȱprotestȱand,ȱaccordingly,ȱreachedȱonȱitsȱown,ȱindependentlyȱofȱ
anyȱdirectiveȱofȱtheȱcourt,ȱitsȱfindingȱthatȱitȱhadȱsufficientȱrecordȱinformationȱtoȱsupportȱ
aȱ10.52%ȱestimatedȱweightedȱaverageȱdumpingȱmargin.ȱȱDefendantȬintervenorsȱargue,ȱ
toȱtheȱcontrary,ȱthatȱtheȱcourt,ȱinȱdirectingȱCommerceȱtoȱdetermineȱaȱnewȱdumpingȱ
margin,ȱ“reweighedȱfactualȱfindings,”ȱ“substitutedȱitsȱjudgmentȱforȱthatȱofȱCommerce”ȱ
andȱinȱeffectȱdeniedȱ“Commerceȱdiscretionȱtoȱreconsiderȱorȱfurtherȱexplainȱitsȱrationaleȱ
forȱapplicationȱofȱAFA.”ȱȱAHPAȱCommentsȱ26.ȱȱTheseȱargumentsȱareȱspeciousȱandȱ
misreadȱtheȱcourt’sȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱApiárioȱI,ȱwhichȱdisallowedȱcertainȱfindingsȱasȱ
unsupportedȱbyȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱbutȱdidȱnotȱprecludeȱnewȱfindingsȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱ
useȱofȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱorȱadverseȱinferences,ȱifȱsupportedȱbyȱtheȱexistingȱ
record.ȱȱCommerceȱexaminedȱthatȱrecordȱandȱpermissiblyȱexercisedȱitsȱdiscretion,ȱ
reversingȱitsȱpreviousȱdeterminationȱunderȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e.ȱȱAsȱdiscussedȱbelow,ȱ
defendantȬintervenorsȱhaveȱfailedȱtoȱmeetȱtheirȱburdenȱofȱshowingȱthatȱCommerceȱ
lackedȱaȱbasisȱinȱsubstantialȱrecordȱevidenceȱforȱthisȱcourseȱofȱaction.ȱ
DefendantȬintervenorsȱdirect,ȱessentially,ȱfiveȱobjectionsȱbasedȱonȱwhatȱtheyȱnowȱ
characterizeȱasȱSupermel’sȱfailureȱtoȱsubmitȱadequateȱresponsesȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ
questionnaires.ȱȱFirst,ȱtheyȱargueȱthatȱSupermelȱ“failedȱtoȱprovideȱaccurateȱsalesȱ
reconciliations”ȱ“ofȱitsȱreportedȱsalesȱwithȱitsȱfinancialȱstatements”ȱandȱthatȱSupermelȱ
didȱnotȱprovideȱsufficientȱsupportingȱdocumentation.ȱȱAHPAȱCommentsȱ5–6.ȱȱSecond,ȱ
theyȱcontendȱthatȱSupermelȱsubmittedȱmisreportedȱpaymentȱdates,ȱgrossȱunitȱprices,ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185ȱ ȱ Pageȱ13ȱ
packingȱexpensesȱandȱmaterialsȱwithȱtheirȱhoneyȱsales.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ7–10.ȱȱThird,ȱtheyȱargueȱ
thatȱSupermelȱmisclassifiedȱsalesȱofȱhoneyȱbyȱfailingȱ“toȱcorroborateȱitsȱpurportedȱsalesȱ
ofȱorganicȱhoney,ȱrelevantȱcertificationȱexpenses,ȱandȱcertainȱcriticalȱproductȱ
characteristics.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ10.ȱȱFinally,ȱtheyȱclaimȱSupermelȱfailedȱtoȱverifyȱitsȱsalesȱandȱcostȱ
information.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ16–18.ȱȱȱ
TheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱrespondedȱtoȱallȱofȱtheseȱobjectionsȱbyȱexplainingȱ
thatȱ“Supermel’sȱdataȱisȱotherwiseȱreliableȱandȱverifiableȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱotherȱ
informationȱavailableȱonȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱBecauseȱtheseȱdataȱareȱreliableȱandȱverifiableȱonȱ
theȱbasisȱofȱotherȱinformationȱavailableȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱAFAȱisȱnotȱwarrantedȱinȱthisȱ
case.”ȱȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ9.ȱȱȱ
DefendantȬintervenors,ȱwhileȱidentifyingȱwhatȱtheyȱclaimȱareȱdeficientȱ
responses,ȱAHPAȱCommentsȱ5–11,ȱ16–18,ȱfailȱtoȱperfectȱtheirȱclaimȱbyȱdemonstratingȱ
thatȱCommerceȱexceededȱitsȱdiscretionȱunderȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e,ȱandȱtheyȱmakeȱnoȱ
attemptȱtoȱshow,ȱinȱparticular,ȱhowȱtheirȱclaimedȱdeficienciesȱaffectedȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ
marginȱcalculation.ȱȱTheirȱfiveȱobjectionsȱamountȱtoȱlittleȱmoreȱthanȱaȱgeneral,ȱ
unsupportedȱcontentionȱthatȱCommerceȱshouldȱhaveȱconductedȱadditionalȱverificationȱ
and,ȱhadȱitȱdoneȱso,ȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱcompelledȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱthereȱwereȱinadequateȱ
“reconciliations,”ȱ“supportingȱdocumentation,”ȱandȱcorroborations.ȱȱUponȱreviewingȱ
theȱanalysisȱitȱconductedȱandȱconcludedȱinȱtheȱPreliminaryȱDetermination,ȱCommerceȱ
rejectedȱthisȱunsupportedȱcontention.ȱȱInȱadvocatingȱforȱaȱnew,ȱtotalȱuseȱofȱanȱadverseȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185ȱ ȱ Pageȱ14ȱ
inferenceȱandȱurgingȱtheȱcourtȱtoȱorderȱanotherȱremandȱtoȱCommerceȱforȱthatȱpurposeȱ
(theȱresultȱofȱwhichȱwouldȱbeȱmoot),ȱdefendantȬintervenorsȱessentiallyȱargueȱthatȱ
Commerceȱmustȱconductȱaȱnewȱinvestigation.ȱȱInȱlightȱofȱtheȱentire,ȱlengthyȱrecordȱofȱ
thisȱproceedingȱandȱtheȱDepartment’sȱreasonableȱexerciseȱofȱitsȱdiscretionȱinȱpreparingȱ
theȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱtheȱcourtȱdeclinesȱtoȱdoȱso.ȱ
TheȱcourtȱalsoȱrejectsȱdefendantȬintervenors’ȱfourthȱclaimȱthatȱSupermelȱfailedȱtoȱ
supportȱitsȱoffsetȱforȱaȱtaxȱcredit.ȱȱUnderȱ“Brazilianȱlaw,ȱaȱmanufacturerȱcanȱclaimȱaȱtaxȱ
creditȱequalȱtoȱtheȱamountȱofȱtheȱPISȱ[ProgramȱofȱSocialȱIntegration]ȱandȱCOFINSȱ
[ContributionȱforȱtheȱFinancingȱofȱSocialȱSecurity]ȱ[taxes]ȱpaidȱonȱtheȱrawȱmaterials,”ȱ
basedȱonȱaȱpercentageȱofȱtheȱinvoiceȱvalue.ȱȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱInvestigationȱofȱRawȱHoneyȱ
FromȱBrazil:ȱSupermel’sȱSectionsȱA–CȱSupplementalȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱ16ȱ(Oct.ȱ6,ȱ2021),ȱ
P.R.ȱ224–26,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ52.ȱȱCommerceȱ“evaluatedȱtheȱinformationȱprovided”ȱbyȱ
Supermelȱregardingȱtheȱ“PIS/COFINS”ȱtaxȱcreditȱandȱfoundȱthatȱSupermelȱ“answeredȱ
inȱfull”ȱwhatȱitȱcharacterizesȱasȱ“severalȱfollowȬupȱquestions.”ȱȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ
10. CommerceȱrejectedȱdefendantȬintervenors’ȱargumentȱthatȱSupermel’sȱclaimedȱoffset
valueȱshouldȱbeȱdeniedȱbecauseȱSupermelȱdidȱnotȱtieȱitȱtoȱitsȱaccountingȱrecordsȱ
because,ȱforȱexample,ȱ“theȱsampleȱsupplierȱinvoicesȱdoȱnotȱseparatelyȱidentifyȱamountsȱ
forȱPIS/COFINSȱtaxes.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ10–11.ȱȱInȱrejectingȱthatȱargument,ȱCommerceȱexplainedȱ
“theȱamountȱofȱPISȱandȱCOFINSȱtaxesȱpaidȱmayȱnotȱbeȱseparatelyȱidentifiedȱonȱtheȱ
invoicesȱreceivedȱinȱconnectionȱwithȱdomesticȱinputȱpurchases”ȱandȱ“theȱtaxesȱareȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185ȱ ȱ Pageȱ15ȱ
embeddedȱinȱtheȱactualȱamountȱpaid.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ11ȱ(footnoteȱandȱinternalȱquotationȱmarksȱ
omitted).ȱȱ“Regardingȱtheȱpetitioners’ȱassertionȱthatȱtheȱoffsetȱvalueȱinȱtheȱcostȱ
reconciliationȱwasȱnotȱassociatedȱwithȱanyȱcorrespondingȱtrialȱbalanceȱaccountȱ
number,”ȱCommerceȱfoundȱthatȱ“Supermelȱinȱitsȱnormalȱbooksȱandȱrecordsȱdoesȱnotȱ
haveȱaȱseparateȱaccountȱforȱPIS/COFINsȱoffsetȱorȱtaxȱcredits”ȱandȱstatedȱthatȱthatȱitȱ“didȱ
notȱrequestȱeitherȱinȱtheȱinitialȱorȱsupplementalȱquestionnairesȱthatȱSupermelȱ
specificallyȱreconcileȱtheȱoffsetȱvalueȱtoȱitsȱaccountingȱrecords.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ10–11.ȱ
DefendantȬintervenorsȱdoȱnotȱcontestȱtheȱDepartment’sȱfinding,ȱseeȱid.ȱatȱ11,ȱthatȱ
PISȱandȱCOFINSȱtaxesȱmayȱnotȱappearȱasȱaȱseparateȱlineȱitemȱonȱanȱinvoice.ȱȱNorȱdoȱ
theyȱcontestȱtheȱDepartment’sȱfindingȱthatȱunderȱtheȱBrazilianȱtaxȱsystem,ȱPISȱandȱ
COFINSȱtaxesȱ“areȱembeddedȱinȱtheȱactualȱamountȱpaid.”ȱȱId.ȱȱInstead,ȱdefendantȬ
intervenorsȱargueȱineffectuallyȱthatȱ“[i]tȱisȱtheȱrespondent’sȱburdenȱtoȱpopulateȱtheȱ
recordȱwithȱrelevantȱinformationȱandȱtoȱdemonstrateȱthatȱaȱclaimedȱoffsetȱisȱ
warranted.”ȱȱAHPAȱCommentsȱ32.ȱȱCommerceȱreviewedȱtheȱrecordȱinȱresponseȱtoȱ
defendantȬintervenors’ȱallegationȱandȱconcluded,ȱbasedȱonȱsubstantialȱrecordȱevidence,ȱ
thatȱSupermelȱqualifiedȱforȱtheȱoffset.ȱ
TheȱcourtȱalsoȱrejectsȱdefendantȬintervenors’ȱfinalȱargument,ȱi.e.ȱthatȱCommerce,ȱ
inȱitsȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱ“failedȱtoȱadequatelyȱexplainȱitsȱreasoningȱandȱfailedȱtoȱ
addressȱargumentsȱraisedȱbyȱdefendantȬintervenors”ȱinȱtheirȱbriefȱsubmittedȱtoȱtheȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185ȱ ȱ Pageȱ16ȱ
courtȱinȱApiárioȱIȱandȱinȱtheirȱcommentsȱonȱtheȱdraftȱremandȱredetermination.ȱȱAHPAȱ
Commentsȱ28.ȱȱȱ
DefendantȬintervenors’ȱcontentionȱthatȱCommerceȱshouldȱhaveȱaddressedȱtheȱ
argumentsȱraisedȱinȱtheirȱRuleȱ56.2ȱbriefȱbeforeȱtheȱcourtȱinȱApiárioȱIȱisȱnonsensical,ȱasȱ
theȱRuleȱ56.2ȱbriefsȱwereȱsubmittedȱforȱconsiderationȱbyȱtheȱcourt.ȱȱAsȱtoȱtheirȱclaimȱthatȱ
Commerceȱfailedȱtoȱaddressȱtheirȱdraftȱcomments,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677f(i)(3)ȱrequiresȱ
Commerceȱtoȱprovideȱanȱexplanationȱofȱtheȱbasisȱforȱitsȱfindingsȱandȱtoȱaddressȱtheȱ
relevantȱargumentsȱmadeȱbyȱinterestedȱparties.ȱȱExplainingȱtheȱbasisȱofȱitsȱfindingsȱdoesȱ
notȱrequireȱCommerceȱtoȱaddressȱeveryȱargumentȱpresentedȱbyȱinterestedȱparties.ȱȱ
“Existingȱlawȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱinsteadȱrequiresȱthatȱissuesȱmaterialȱtoȱtheȱagency’sȱdeterminationȱbeȱ
discussedȱsoȱthatȱtheȱpathȱofȱtheȱagencyȱmayȱreasonablyȱbeȱdiscernedȱbyȱaȱreviewingȱ
court.”ȱȱStatementȱofȱAdministrativeȱActionȱaccompanyingȱtheȱUruguayȱRoundȱ
AgreementsȱAct,ȱH.R.ȱRep.ȱNo.ȱ103–316,ȱatȱ892ȱ(1994)ȱ(internalȱquotationsȱandȱcitationsȱ
omitted).ȱȱCommerceȱaddressedȱsomeȱofȱdefendantȬintervenors’ȱlengthyȱargumentsȱ
onlyȱgenerallyȱratherȱthanȱaddressȱeveryȱargumentȱwithȱparticularity.ȱȱThatȱisȱnotȱaȱ
basisȱuponȱwhichȱtheȱcourtȱmayȱrejectȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱ
III. CONCLUSION
TheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱinȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱtoȱassignȱanȱ
estimatedȱdumpingȱmarginȱofȱ10.52%ȱtoȱSupermelȱisȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ22Ȭ00185 Pageȱ17ȱ
andȱadequatelyȱexplained.ȱȱCommerceȱreasonablyȱexercisedȱitsȱdiscretionȱinȱremedyingȱ
theȱdeficienciesȱtheȱcourtȱidentifiedȱinȱApiárioȱI.ȱ
TheȱcourtȱwillȱenterȱjudgmentȱsustainingȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱ
/s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu TimothyȱC.ȱStanceuȱ Judgeȱ
Dated:ȱJanuaryȱ24,ȱ2025ȱ ȱ ȱNewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ