Slip Op. 25-36
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BAROQUE TIMBER INDUSTRIES (ZHONGSHAN) CO., LTD. AND RIVERSIDE PLYWOOD CORPORATION, Before: Timothy M. Reif, Judge Plaintiffs, Court No. 23-00136 v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
[Remanding Commerce’s final results in the tenth administrative review of the countervailing duty order covering multilayered wood flooring from the People’s Republic of China.]
Dated: April 3, 2025
Andrew T. Schutz, Grunfeld Desiderio Lebowitz Silverman & Klestadt, LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiffs Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. and Riverside Plywood Corporation. With him on the briefs were Francis J. Sailer, Jordan C. Kahn and Michael S. Holton.
Brendan D. Jordan, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., and JonZachary Forbes, Of Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C., argued for defendant United States. With them on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director and Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C.
*** Court No. 23-00136 Page 2
Reif, Judge: Before the court is the motion for judgment on the agency record by
plaintiffs Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. and Riverside Plywood
Corporation (collectively, “Baroque” or “plaintiff”). 1
Plaintiff invokes this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c)
and seeks review of the final results of the tenth administrative review by the U.S.
Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on
multilayered wood flooring (“MLWF” or “subject merchandise”) from the People’s
Republic of China (“China”), published as Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2020, 88
Fed. Reg. 34,828 (Dep’t of Commerce May 31, 2023) (“Final Results”), PR 367, and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Dep’t of Commerce May 24, 2023)
(“IDM”), PR 361.
Plaintiff alleges that Commerce’s Final Results were not supported by substantial
evidence on the record and were otherwise not in accordance with law in regard to
Commerce’s: (1) calculation of the benchmark price for plywood; and (2) application of
adverse facts available (“AFA”) to find certain of Baroque’s input suppliers to be
government authorities. See Pls.’ Mot. for J. on the Agency R. (“Baroque Br.”), ECF
Nos. 27-28.
For the reasons discussed below, the court remands Commerce’s calculation of
the plywood benchmark and application of AFA to find certain of Baroque’s input
suppliers to be government authorities.
1 Baroque Timber is a cross-owned affiliate of Riverside Plywood. Court No. 23-00136 Page 3
BACKGROUND
On December 8, 2011, Commerce issued a CVD order on MLWF from China.
Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Duty
Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 76,693 (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 8, 2011), amended by
Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s Republic of China: Amended
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 Fed. Reg. 5,484 (Dep’t of Commerce
Feb. 3, 2012). 2
On February 4, 2022, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the CVD
order on MLWF from China for the period of review (“POR”) January 1, 2020, through
December 31, 2020. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 87 Fed. Reg. 6,487 (Dep’t of Commerce Feb. 4, 2022), PR 13.
On March 10, 2022, Commerce selected Baroque as well as Jiangsu Senmao
Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (“Senmao”) as mandatory respondents in the
administrative review. Memorandum from U.S. Department of Commerce to Office of
DIR/EC Pertaining to Interested Parties Respondent Selection (Mar. 10, 2022), CR8,
PR 63.
On December 22, 2022, Commerce published its preliminary results, in which it
calculated a preliminary countervailable subsidy rate of 15.93 percent for Baroque.
Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results
and Partial Recission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2020, 87 Fed. Reg.
2 The amendment consisted of removing an incorrect Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) number from the scope of the orders. Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s Republic of China: Amended Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 Fed. Reg. 5,484, 5,485 (Dep’t of Commerce Feb. 3, 2012). Court No. 23-00136 Page 4
78,644 (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 22, 2022) (“Preliminary Results”), PR 321, and
accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 15, 2022)
(“PDM”), PR 316.
In its preliminary results, Commerce calculated a benchmark price for plywood,
an input used to produce MLWF, by taking an average of two datasets in the record: a
dataset from the International Tropical Timber Organization (“ITTO”) containing plywood
data from Ghana, Brazil and Peru and a global dataset from the United Nations
Comtrade database (“UN Comtrade”). PDM at 45-49. Additionally, Commerce
preliminarily determined to apply an adverse inference that Baroque’s input suppliers
were authorities of the Government of China (“GOC”) because the GOC withheld
information that Commerce deemed necessary for analyzing Chinese Communist Party
(“CCP”) involvement in those suppliers. Id. at 14-18.
On May 31, 2023, Commerce published its Final Results, in which it calculated a
final countervailable subsidy rate of 17.06 percent for Baroque. Final Results, 88 Fed.
Reg. at 34,829. In its Final Results, Commerce continued to use both UN Comtrade
and ITTO data to calculate the plywood benchmark. 3 IDM at 76. Regarding the
application of AFA to find Baroque’s input suppliers to be government authorities,
Commerce made no changes from the preliminary results. See id. at 54.
3 Commerce included also in its plywood benchmark calculation Stats.NZ export data. See IDM at 76. In its briefing, Baroque considers the Stats.NZ data and the UN Comtrade data to be “essentially the same” and refers only to the UN Comtrade data for “convenience.” Baroque Br. at 11 n.1. The court does the same. Court No. 23-00136 Page 5
On June 30, 2023, and on July 31, 2023, Baroque filed summons and complaint,
respectively, before the Court seeking judicial review of certain aspects of the Final
Results. Summons, ECF No. 1; Complaint, ECF No. 13.
On February 23, 2024, plaintiff filed its motion for judgment on the agency record.
Baroque Br.
On February 27, 2025, the court heard oral argument. See Oral Arg. Tr., ECF
No. 42.
As noted, in its motion, plaintiff maintains that Commerce’s Final Results were
not supported by substantial evidence on the record and were otherwise not in
accordance with law regarding Commerce’s: (1) calculation of the benchmark price for
plywood; and (2) application of AFA to find certain input suppliers to be government
authorities. See Baroque Br. at 1-2.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear an action is a “threshold”
inquiry. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). The court
exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1581(c).
The court will uphold Commerce’s determinations in CVD proceedings unless
they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in
accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). “Substantial evidence is more
than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305
U.S. 197, 229 (1938). “The substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever Court No. 23-00136 Page 6
in the record fairly detracts from its weight." Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S.
474, 488 (1951).
A court “[is] obliged to set aside Commerce's determination if it is unsupported by
substantial evidence on the record[ ] or otherwise not in accordance with law. To fulfill
that obligation, . . . Commerce [must] examine the record and articulate a satisfactory
explanation for its action.” CS Wind Viet. Co. v. United States, 832 F.3d 1367, 1376
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (quoting 19 U.S.C. §
1516a(b)(1)(B)(i)).
“[W]hen a statute grants an agency power to administer fact-intensive inquires,
the agency's conclusion should be reversed only if the record is ‘so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder’ could reach the same conclusion.” Cooper (Kunshan) Tire Co. v.
United States, 45 CIT __, __, 539 F.Supp.3d 1316, 1325 (2021) (quoting INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 484 (1992)).
“To be in accordance with law, the agency's decision must be authorized by the
statute, and consistent with the agency's regulations.” Yama Ribbons & Bows Co. v.
United States, 36 CIT 1250, 1253, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1297 (2012). It is well-
established that “an agency's action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by
the agency itself.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 50 (1983) (citations omitted). A reviewing court will “uphold a decision
of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned.” Id. at 43
(quoting Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 286
(1974)). Court No. 23-00136 Page 7
DISCUSSION
I. Whether Commerce’s calculation of the benchmark for plywood is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law
The court addresses first Baroque’s challenge to Commerce’s calculation of the
plywood benchmark. Specifically, Baroque challenges Commerce’s inclusion of non-
grade specific UN Comtrade data in Commerce’s tier two plywood benchmark
calculation.
A. Additional Background
In the Final Results, Commerce calculated plywood benchmark prices by
averaging the UN Comtrade data and the ITTO data placed on the record. See IDM at
76.
The UN Comtrade dataset consists of data reported monthly by approximately 90
countries for plywood transactions during the period of review. See Letter from Wiley
Rein LLP to Secretary of Commerce Pertaining to AMMWF Benchmark Pricing
Information (Oct. 11, 2022), Ex. 1-A, PR 269, 271; Letter from Husch Blackwell LLP to
Secretary of Commerce Pertaining to Senmao Benchmark Submission (Oct. 11, 2022),
attach. 1-3, PR 281-284.
The ITTO dataset contains plywood export prices from Brazil and Peru during the
period of review, reported bi-monthly and differentiated by grade. See Letter from
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman, & Klestadt LLP to Secretary of Commerce
Pertaining to Riverside Plywood and Baroque Benchmark Submission (Oct. 11, 2022),
Ex. 2B, PR 291-295. The relevant ITTO data are the C/CC grade prices from the “Brazil
– Parica Domestic Plywood Prices,” “Brazil – Pinewood EY Exports” and “Peru Export
plywood” categories. Id. Court No. 23-00136 Page 8
B. Legal Framework
A countervailing duty is “a remedial measure that provides relief to domestic
manufacturers by imposing duties upon imports of comparable foreign products that
have the benefit of a subsidy from the foreign government.” Fine Furniture (Shanghai)
Ltd. v. United States, 748 F.3d 1365, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The countervailing duty
imposed shall be “equal to the amount of the net countervailable subsidy.” 19 U.S.C. §
1671(a).
Commerce will determine that a countervailable subsidy exists when a foreign
authority provides a specific financial contribution to a party, and that party benefits
therefrom. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5). A benefit is conferred where “goods or services
are provided for less than adequate remuneration [‘LTAR’],” which is “determined in
relation to prevailing market conditions for the good . . . which is subject to the
investigation or review.” Id. § 1677(5)(E)(iv). Prevailing market conditions include
“price, quality, availability, marketability, transportation, and other conditions of purchase
or sale.” Id.
To determine whether goods were provided for less than adequate remuneration,
“Commerce must determine the proper benchmark price.” Essar Steel Ltd. v. United
States, 678 F.3d 1268, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.511). The
benchmark price is “the price that could have constituted adequate remuneration.” Fine
Furniture, 748 F.3d at 1368. To measure the adequacy of remuneration, Commerce
“compares the respondent’s reported costs for the input in question . . . with the
calculated benchmark price, which is representative of the market price for the good at Court No. 23-00136 Page 9
issue.” Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States, 39 CIT __, __, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1351,
1356 n.9 (2015).
Under 19 C.F.R. § 351.511(a)(2), Commerce sets forth the “bases for identifying
an appropriate market-based benchmark for measuring the adequacy of the
remuneration of a government provided good or service.” Id. In order of preference,
the potential benchmarks are as follows: (1) market prices from actual transactions
within the country under investigation for the government-provided good (e.g., actual
sales, actual imports, or competitively run government auctions) (“tier one”
benchmarks); (2) world market prices that would be available to purchasers in the
country under investigation (“tier two” benchmarks); or (3) prices consistent with market
principles based on an assessment by the Department of the government-set price (“tier
three” benchmarks). Id. (citing High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty
Determination, 76 Fed. Reg. 64,301, 64,304 (Dep't of Commerce Oct. 18, 2011)).
“If there is no useable market-determined price with which to make the
comparison,” then Commerce will calculate a tier two benchmark, “measuring the
adequacy of remuneration by comparing the government price to a world market price
where it is reasonable to conclude that such price would be available to purchasers in
the country in question.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.511(a)(2)(ii). In calculating a tier two
benchmark, if “there is more than one commercially available world market price,”
Commerce is required to “average such prices to the extent practicable, making due
allowance for factors affecting comparability.” Id. “These factors ensure that the Court No. 23-00136 Page 10
composite benchmark reflects prevailing market conditions in the [producer’s] home
country. [The factors] include ‘price, quality, availability, marketability, transportation,
and other conditions of purchase or sale.’” RZBC Grp. Shareholding Co. v. United
States, 39 CIT __, __, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1288, 1305 (2015) (quoting 19 U.S.C. §
1677(5)(E)).
“The court’s role is not to assess whether the benchmark data Commerce used
was [sic] the ‘best available,’ but rather whether Commerce's choice was reasonable.”
Guizhou Tyre Co. v. United States, 42 CIT __, __, 348 F. Supp. 3d 1261, 1274 (2018)
(citing Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United States, 27 CIT 1763, 1770, 298 F. Supp.
2d 1328, 1336 (2003)).
C. Analysis
For the reasons discussed below, the court is not able to conclude that
Commerce’s calculation of the plywood benchmark is supported by substantial
evidence. The court remands to Commerce to take the actions as set forth below.
In the Final Results, Commerce determined to calculate the final plywood
benchmark by averaging both the non-grade specific UN Comtrade data and the grade-
specific ITTO data from Brazil and Peru. See IDM at 76.
In the IDM, Commerce explained that it continued to include the UN Comtrade
data in its calculation because Baroque “did not adequately support its arguments that
the UN Comtrade data are inappropriate to calculate plywood benchmarks for Baroque
Timber’s plywood purchases.” Id. at 75. Commerce acknowledged that Baroque
supported its arguments that plywood grade has a significant impact on price with
“certifications from Baroque Timber’s suppliers, information on plywood industry grading Court No. 23-00136 Page 11
practices, and an expert witness statement.” Id. However, Commerce disagreed that
the record rendered the non-grade specific UN Comtrade data “unsuitable to
benchmark purchases that consist of only a single grade.” Id.
Commerce explained that while its practice is to “calculate product-specific
benchmarks,” Commerce in general “utilize[s] benchmarks derived from broad averages
. . . [which] need not reflect goods that are identical to the government-provided good.”
Id. Given this practice, Commerce determined that there was “no basis . . . to remove
[the UN Comtrade data] from the benchmark just because it includes all grades of
[plywood] and no extraction of grade-specific information is possible.” Id. at 76.
Additionally, Commerce cited its “practice to average multiple world market
prices, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. [§] 351.511(a)(2)(ii)”, in determining to average the UN
Comtrade and ITTO data. Id. Following this practice, Commerce concluded that both
the UN Comtrade and ITTO data are “world market prices suitable for benchmarking”
plywood and determined to continue averaging such data in Commerce’s final plywood
benchmark. Id.
Baroque argues that the Court should instruct Commerce to recalculate its
plywood benchmark for two reasons. First, Baroque asserts that Commerce’s plywood
benchmark calculation was unsupported by substantial evidence because Commerce
disregarded “record evidence demonstrat[ing] that UN Comtrade data [are] overbroad
and include[] grades of plywood that are materially and significantly different than the
plywood used by Baroque.” Pls.’ Reply Br. (“Baroque Reply Br.”) at 1, ECF Nos. 34-35.
Baroque contends that the record demonstrates that Baroque “did not purchase or use
plywood grades greater than those reported by ITTO” and that no MLWF producer in Court No. 23-00136 Page 12
China would ever use higher priced grade A or B plywood. Id. at 2. Therefore, Baroque
argues that the UN Comtrade data, which contain prices for grades A and B plywood,
are distortive and not comparable to the plywood actually purchased by Baroque.
Second, Baroque asserts that Commerce’s inclusion of the UN Comtrade data is
unlawful because such inclusion was not in accordance with either the statute or
Commerce’s own regulations. Baroque notes that 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5)(E)(iv) mandates
that Commerce account for “prevailing market conditions” such as “price” and “quality”
when performing an LTAR benefit analysis. Id. Baroque notes further that Commerce’s
regulations mandate that Commerce must make “due allowance for factors affecting
comparability” when measuring the adequacy of remuneration. Baroque Br. at 6
(quoting 19 C.F.R. § 351.511(a)(2)). Baroque argues that, by including the UN
Comtrade data, Commerce did not properly account for prevailing market conditions or
factors affecting comparability and as a result, the calculated benefit “is a result of grade
differences and not a result of the countervailable subsidy being received.” Baroque
Reply Br. at 3.
As to Baroque’s first argument, the court concludes that Commerce did not
address adequately the information in the record demonstrating that the UN Comtrade
data are overbroad and, on that basis, may not be comparable for purposes of the
plywood benchmark calculation.
In the IDM, Commerce acknowledged that the record demonstrated that plywood
grade has a significant impact on price and that Baroque purchased only lower grade
plywood. However, notwithstanding that Commerce acknowledged this fact, Commerce
asserted that Baroque failed to demonstrate “that the UN Comtrade data are Court No. 23-00136 Page 13
inappropriate to calculate plywood benchmarks.” IDM at 75. Commerce explained that
the HTS subheadings comprising the UN Comtrade dataset encompass Baroque’s
plywood purchases and are therefore “world market prices suitable for benchmarking”
plywood. Id. at 76. Commerce asserted further that Baroque did not offer “any
information to rebut [Commerce’s] conclusion that these HS subheading [sic] describe
Baroque Timber’s plywood purchases.” Id. at 75. Last, Commerce stated that its
practice “does not necessitate the exclusion of all broad or basket-category data” and
that “benchmarks need not reflect goods that are identical to the government-provided
good.” Id.
“The substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever in the record
fairly detracts from its weight.” Universal Camera Corp., 340 U.S. at 488; see also
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“A reviewing
court must consider the record as a whole . . ..”). “While [the agency] need not address
every argument and piece of evidence, . . . it must address significant arguments and
evidence which seriously undermines [sic] its reasoning and conclusions.” Altx, Inc. v.
United States, 25 CIT 1100, 1117-18, 167 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1374 (2001) (internal
citation omitted).
In this case, Baroque put forth “significant arguments and evidence,” id. at 1117-
18, 167 F. Supp. 2d at 1374, that the inability to excise grade A and grade B prices from
the UN Comtrade data is a flaw causing the plywood benchmark to be skewed by
higher prices not associated with Baroque’s actual purchases. See IDM at 71-73.
Commerce explained that the HTS subheadings comprising the UN Comtrade
data describe Baroque’s plywood purchases. See id. at 74. However, Commerce did Court No. 23-00136 Page 14
not explain how inclusion of the UN Comtrade data was justified under the statute and
Commerce regulations, notwithstanding the alleged flaws. In failing to offer such an
explanation, Commerce failed to provide “a reasoned analysis or explanation” for
rejecting Baroque’s arguments and including the UN Comtrade data. Wheatland Tube
Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
For the same reason, the court is unable to conclude that Commerce’s decision
is supported by substantial evidence. See Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United
States, 42 CIT __, __, 352 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1333 (2018) (“Trina Solar I”) (remanding
where Commerce included Comtrade data in a benchmark calculation “without properly
considering whether the Comtrade data was too flawed to be probative of the world
market price for the input at issue”); 4 see also Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v.
United States, 44 CIT __, __, 466 F. Supp. 3d 1287, 1295 (2020) (“Trina Solar III”)
(sustaining Commerce’s use of only non-Comtrade data because such data were
“specific to the inputs used by the parties” and “probative of the world market price”).
As to Baroque’s second argument, the court reserves judgment as to whether
Commerce’s inclusion of the UN Comtrade data in the plywood benchmark violates
4 In Trina Solar I, the Court ruled that Commerce “made little effort to counter claims that Comtrade data was based on too broad a product category to provide an accurate world market price.” Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 42 CIT __, __, 352 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1332 (2018). In justifying its use of Comtrade data, Commerce stated only that “the HTS descriptions were suitable for constructing a world price.” Id. The Court remanded to Commerce to either use only the non-Comtrade dataset in its benchmark calculation or else “explain why the inclusion of the Comtrade data does not produce a fatally inaccurate result.” Id. at 1333. Court No. 23-00136 Page 15
Commerce’s statutory and regulatory obligations or whether a benchmark derived solely
from the ITTO data would comply with such regulations. 5
Accordingly, the court remands to Commerce to use solely the ITTO grade-
specific data in its plywood benchmark calculation or explain: (1) the reason that the
inclusion of the UN Comtrade data does not produce a fatally distortive benchmark; and
(2) the reason that a plywood benchmark derived solely from the ITTO data would not
meet Commerce’s statutory and regulatory requirements.
II. Whether Commerce’s application of AFA to find certain of Baroque’s input suppliers to be government authorities was unlawful
The court addresses Baroque’s challenge to Commerce’s application of AFA to
find certain of Baroque’s input suppliers to be government authorities. Specifically,
Baroque argues that Commerce’s application of AFA was unlawful for two reasons: (1)
necessary information was not missing from the record; and (2) Commerce failed to
specify deficiencies in the GOC’s responses and did not permit the GOC to correct such
deficiencies.
For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that Commerce’s application
of AFA to find that certain of Baroque’s input suppliers are government authorities was
not in accordance with law. The court remands to Commerce to take the actions as set
forth below.
5 In Trina Solar I, the Court ruled that Commerce “failed to properly make allowance for ‘factors affecting comparability’” by averaging broad UN Comtrade data with a product- specific dataset. Trina Solar I, 42 CIT at __, 352 F. Supp. 3d at 1332 (quoting 19 C.F.R. § 351.511(a)(2)(ii)). In Trina Solar III, the Court ruled that “[r]elying on [a product- specific dataset] alone meets the comparability requirements of 19 C.F.R. § 351.511(a)(2)(ii) and is in accordance with Commerce’s obligations under the regulations.” Trina Solar III, 44 CIT at __, 466 F. Supp. 3d at 1295 (emphasis supplied). Court No. 23-00136 Page 16
On March 14, 2022, Commerce issued its initial countervailing duty questionnaire
to the GOC. See Letter from U.S. Department of Commerce to Embassy of the
People’s Republic of China Pertaining to Government of China’s Initial Questionnaire
(Mar. 14, 2022) (“Initial Questionnaire”), PR 65.
In the “Input Producer Appendix” to the Initial Questionnaire, Commerce
requested information pertaining to the ownership and structure of Baroque’s input
suppliers, as well as the presence or involvement of any CCP entities in those suppliers.
See Initial Questionnaire at II-34 to II-38. Specifically, Commerce asked the GOC
“whether a CCP committee, branch or ‘primary organization’ has been formed” within
any of the suppliers and whether “any decisions taken by [a supplier] are subject to
review or approval by” the GOC or by any one of nine listed CCP-associated entities
(the “nine entities question”). Id. at II-36. Additionally, Commerce asked the GOC to
“identify any individual owners, members of the board of directors, or senior managers
who were Government or CCP officials during the POR” (the “CCP officials question”).
Id. at II-37.
Further, Commerce asked the GOC to “explain how [it] developed the information
used in [its] response . . . to determine whether or not company owners, members of the
board of directors or managers were or were not officials of any of the above nine
entities.” Id. For this question, Commerce specifically asked the GOC to address the
following points: (1) the “records question”: “What records did you review to determine
the information that was reported in the response?”; (2) the “government sources
question”: “Explain whether there are sources at the national, provincial, municipal, or Court No. 23-00136 Page 17
local levels to determine whether company owners, members of the board of directors
or managers were officials of any of the above nine entities”; (3) the “annual reports
question”: “In addition to Government records (including CCP records), is there
information in the annual reports of the companies, such as biographical summaries,
that would indicate whether company owners, members of the board of directors or
managers were officials of any of the above nine entities?”; and (4) the “other
documents question”: “Explain whether there are any other company records or
company documents that are submitted to the Government that would indicate a
person’s official role with the Government, including the CCP.” Id.
On May 11, 2022, the GOC submitted its response to Commerce’s Initial
Questionnaire. See Response from DeKieffer & Horgan to Secretary of Commerce
Pertaining to Government of China’s Section II Questionnaire Response (May 11, 2022)
(“GOC IQR”), CR 35-54, PR 93-102. For 16 input suppliers, 6 the GOC responded to the
nine entities question as follows:
There is no primary party organization in this producer. There is no decision taken by the producer that is subject to the review or approval by the Government or the 9 entities listed in the question. As demonstrated in the Articles of Association of the producer, the decisions are made within internal organizations of the producer without reference to any external review or approval.
Id., Ex. LTAR-1 at LTAR-48.
For the same 16 input suppliers, the GOC responded to the CCP officials
question as follows: “There are no individual owners, members, [sic] of the board of
6 Baroque reported more than 100 input suppliers but challenges the application of AFA to only 16. See Baroque Br., attach. 1. Court No. 23-00136 Page 18
directors, or senior managers who were Government or CCP officials during the POR at
this producer.” Id. at LTAR-66.
In response to the records question, the GOC explained that it “sent the relevant
questions to the input suppliers” and reported the responses it received from those
suppliers. Id. at LTAR-69. In response to the government sources question, the GOC
responded that there “is no central informational database to search for such
information.” Id. In response to the annual reports question, the GOC responded that
“[u]nder relevant Chinese laws, companies have no obligation to identify whether their
owners, members of the board of directors, or managers are officials or representatives
of any” of the nine entities. Id. In response to the other documents question, the GOC
stated that “no other company records or company documents that are submitted to the
government would indicate a person’s official role with the government or CCP.” Id.
Commerce identified certain areas in the GOC IQR for which Commerce required
additional information and on June 23, 2022, Commerce issued a supplemental
questionnaire to the GOC. See Letter from U.S. Department of Commerce to DeKieffer
& Horgan Pertaining to Government of China’s Supplemental Questionnaire (June 23,
2022) (“Supplemental Questionnaire”), CR 70, PR 119. Commerce requested
additional information as to how the GOC verified its responses (the “verification
question”):
For 16 input producers, you claimed that the CCP has no role in the decision making of the producers and the input producers are not required to carry out obligations on behalf of the GOC and/or CCP. Please explain what, if any, steps you took to verify or further examine the accuracy of this information, including what, if any, documentation was reviewed. Provide documentation to support your response.
Id. at 7 (emphasis supplied). Court No. 23-00136 Page 19
Further, Commerce asked the following question (the “CCP Opinion question”) in
response to the GOC’s initial responses:
The General Office of the CCP Central Committee Issued the Opinion on Strengthening the United Front Work of the Private Economy in the New Era placed on the record by the petitioner on May 26, 2022, states that the CCP committees at all levels must implement ideological work in the private economy sector, and the CCP committees must aim this work at all private enterprises and private economy practitioners. Please respond to the following questions. Please explain the discrepancy between the apparent CCP’s Opinion and your questionnaire response. Provide documentation to support your response.
Id. at 8 (emphasis supplied).
On July 14, 2022, the GOC submitted its response to Commerce’s Supplemental
Questionnaire. See Response from DeKieffer & Horgan to Secretary of Commerce
Pertaining to Government of China Supplemental Questionnaire Response (July 14,
2022) (“GOC SQR”), CR 73-77, PR 227. Regarding verification, the GOC stated that it
“went through all the Articles of Association of [the input suppliers at issue] and confirmed
that, [sic] all the company affairs are conducted and determined internally [and that]
[t]here is no interference from the CCP or any other parties.” Id. at 10. Although the GOC
provided signed statements from the suppliers, the GOC did not provide government
documentation in support of its response.
In response to the CCP Opinion question, the GOC stated that there was “no
discrepancy between the CCP’s Opinion and GOC’s response.” Id. at 11. The GOC
explained that the CCP’s Opinion “only refers to the purpose of improving the rule of law
and moral standards of private economic personnel” and “does not indicate that the CCP Court No. 23-00136 Page 20
committees have interference in the operation, management, or any other company
affairs.” Id. The GOC did not provide documentation in support of its response.
On October 6, 2022, Commerce sent a Second Supplemental Questionnaire to the
GOC and on October 21, 2022, the GOC submitted its response. See Response from
DeKieffer & Horgan to Secretary of Commerce Pertaining to Government of China’s
Second Section II Supplemental Questionnaire Response (Oct. 21, 2022) (“GOC SQR
II”), PR 308.
A countervailable subsidy may be found where the entity providing the subsidy is
an “authority.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5)(B). An “authority” is defined as “a government of a
country or any public entity within the territory of the country.” Id. Commerce’s
“longstanding practice” is to treat “most government-owned corporations as the
government itself.” Countervailing Duties, 63 Fed. Reg. 65,348, 65,402 (Dep't of
Commerce Nov. 25, 1998).
Commerce may make determinations on the basis of the facts otherwise
available whenever “necessary information is not available on the record” or “an
interested party or any other person” (1) withholds information requested by Commerce;
(2) fails to submit such information on time or in the form and manner requested by
Commerce; (3) significantly impedes the proceedings; or (4) provides information that
Commerce is unable to verify. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a); see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.308(a).
In selecting from facts otherwise available, Commerce may use an inference that
is adverse to the interests of a party “if [that] party has failed to cooperate by not acting
to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.” 19 U.S.C. § Court No. 23-00136 Page 21
1677e(b)(1); see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.308(c). A respondent's failure to cooperate to
“the best of its ability” is determined by “assessing whether [the] respondent has put
forth its maximum effort to provide Commerce with full and complete answers to all
inquiries in an investigation.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382
(Fed. Cir. 2003). If Commerce determines that a response to a request for information
does not comply with the request, Commerce “shall promptly inform the person
submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that person with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency.”
19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d).
If Commerce finds that further information submitted in response to such
deficiency is unsatisfactory or untimely, Commerce may “disregard all or part of the
original and subsequent responses.” Id. However, Commerce “shall not decline to
consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the
determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements . . .” if: (1) the
information is timely; (2) verifiable; (3) complete enough to be reliable; (4) the interested
party demonstrates that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and
meeting the requirements established by Commerce; and (5) Commerce can use the
information without undue difficulties. Id. § 1677m(e).
1. Whether Commerce determined reasonably that necessary information was missing from the record
The court addresses first whether Commerce determined reasonably that it
lacked necessary information to analyze whether certain of Baroque’s input suppliers
are government authorities. Court No. 23-00136 Page 22
Baroque argues that the GOC provided full and detailed responses to
Commerce’s inquiries and, therefore, necessary information was not missing from the
record. Baroque Reply Br. at 11-20.
In the IDM, Commerce explained that it asked the GOC to provide “information
about the involvement of the CCP in each” of the input suppliers, information that
Commerce deemed “necessary to fully evaluate whether the purportedly privately-
owned input producers are ‘authorities.’” IDM at 55. Commerce stated that the GOC’s
responses were insufficient because “the GOC did not provide any government
documentation to support its claim that the individually-owned suppliers were not
government authorities.” Id. at 58 (emphasis supplied). The GOC submitted
certifications from the input suppliers denying any CCP influence, but Commerce
explained that those certifications were “not the government documents” required and
were “pro forma in nature, lacking particular details for examining possible government
involvement in each company.” Id. at 55.
Commerce explained further that “the company statements the GOC did provide
do not definitively deny the involvement by the government or the CCP in these
suppliers; rather, they merely state rhetorically that even if there was some CCP
presence in the company, it has no bearing on the company’s management and
operations.” Id. at 58. On this basis, Commerce determined that none of the company
statements “actually address[es] whether any of the supplier’s individual owners,
managers, or board [sic] of directors are in fact CCP officials.” Id.
Commerce concluded that without “government documentation, [Commerce
could not] conclude that there is no official CCP presence in any of the . . . input Court No. 23-00136 Page 23
suppliers.” Id. Accordingly, Commerce determined that the GOC withheld necessary
information and, therefore, applied an adverse inference that the CCP exerts
“meaningful control over the [input suppliers] and their resources.” Id.
Baroque argues that Commerce determined incorrectly that the GOC withheld
necessary information. Baroque argues that the GOC provided full responses to
Commerce’s inquiries and that Commerce failed to explain what precise necessary
information was missing and why. Baroque Br. at 29; see also supra background
Section II.A.
In the IDM, Commerce stated that the GOC’s company statements and narrative
denials of CCP influence, without supporting government documentation, did not
provide sufficient detail regarding the extent of CCP involvement in the suppliers. IDM
at 58. Commerce explained that it requires more than mere company statements
because “[p]ublicly available information indicates that Chinese law requires the
establishment of CCP organizations ‘in all companies, whether state, private, domestic,
or foreign-invested’ and that such organizations may wield a controlling influence in the
company’s affairs.” Id. at 57 (citing Certain Metal Lockers and Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 86
Fed. Reg. 35,741 (Dep’t of Commerce Jul. 7, 2021) and accompanying IDM (Dep’t of
Commerce June 28, 2021) at cmt. 5).
As an example, Commerce noted that, in the final results of the 2019 MLWF
administrative review, the GOC acknowledged that one input supplier contained a
primary party organization. Id. There, the GOC included a summary report which
“indicate[d] the influence of the CCP over the employees in the company.” Id. (quoting Court No. 23-00136 Page 24
Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Recission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2019, 87 Fed. Reg.
36,305 (Dep’t of Commerce June 16, 2022) and accompanying IDM (Dep’t of
Commerce June 10, 2022) at cmt. 4). Commerce added that its “request for information
from the GOC is a request for government information independent from company
information.” Id. at 58.
In sum, Commerce explained adequately that the GOC’s responses did not
include supporting government documentation ʊDQGQRWMXVWLQWHUQDOFRPSDQ\
VWDWHPHQWVRUYHUEDODIILUPDWLRQVʊregarding the extent of CCP involvement in the
suppliers and that Commerce had previously required the GOC to submit government
documentation to demonstrate that input suppliers were not authorities.
Therefore, the court concludes that Commerce determined reasonably that the
GOC did not provide information necessary for Commerce to analyze whether certain of
Baroque’s input suppliers are government authorities.
2. Whether Commerce provided the GOC with notice and an opportunity to remedy its deficient responses
The court turns next to whether Commerce provided the GOC with adequate
notice and an opportunity to remedy its deficient responses, as required by 19 U.S.C. §
1677m(d).
Baroque argues that “Commerce did not provide the GOC with any notice that
the specific information provided regarding the [] suppliers at issue was deficient in any
way.” Baroque Br. at 31. Baroque notes that neither the nine entities question nor the
CCP officials question in the Initial Questionnaire requested supporting documentation.
Id. at 30. Court No. 23-00136 Page 25
Baroque asserts further that Commerce sent the GOC supplemental
questionnaires that did not explicitly reference any deficiencies in the GOC’s initial
responses, thereby denying to the GOC an opportunity to remedy any deficiency such
as a failure to provide government documentation. Id. at 31. As a consequence,
Baroque contends, Commerce’s application of AFA based on the GOC’s failure to
cooperate fully with Commerce requests for information runs contrary to the
requirements of § 1677m(d).
The government argues that: (1) Baroque failed to exhaust its administrative
remedies because it never raised a § 1677m(d) argument during the administrative
proceeding; and (2) Commerce complied with § 1677m(d) “by requesting verifiable
information and asking specific questions regarding CCP presence and influence in the
supplemental questionnaire.” Def. Br. at 30-33.
On the first point, the court concludes that the pure-question-of-law exception to
administrative exhaustion applies here.
The pure-question-of-law exception to administrative exhaustion applies “when
(1) plaintiff raises a new argument; (2) this argument is of a purely legal nature; (3) the
inquiry requires neither further agency involvement nor additional fact finding or opening
up the record; and (4) the inquiry neither creates undue delay nor causes expenditure of
scarce party time and resources.” Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. v. United States, 46
CIT __, __, 605 F. Supp. 3d 1348, 1366 (2022) (quoting Zhongce Rubber Grp. Co. v.
United States, 42 CIT __, __, 352 F. Supp. 3d 1276, 1279 (2018)).
All four requirements are met here. Baroque has raised for the first time whether
Commerce failed to provide any notice of deficiency to the GOC as required by § Court No. 23-00136 Page 26
1677m(d). This Court has previously held that whether “Commerce complied with the
notice requirement [of § 1677m(d)] is a purely legal question” where “the facts relevant
to that inquiry are present on the record [and] [n]o further agency involvement is
required for the Court to consider the question.” Id. Here, the only question before the
court is whether Commerce’s questionnaires provided the GOC with adequate notice
and an opportunity to respond. Commerce’s questionnaires are before the court and
the court cannot identify any additional factual development or agency involvement that
would be required before the court considers this issue. Further, the parties have not
raised any concerns about scarce resources or time. Therefore, the court will consider
Baroque’s objection on the merits.
The court concludes that Commerce did not fulfill its obligations under §
Section 1677m(d) requires that if Commerce determines that a response to a
request for information does not comply with the request, Commerce “shall promptly
inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to
the extent practicable, provide that person with an opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) (emphasis supplied).
The questions are, therefore: (1) whether Commerce adequately informed the
GOC that its responses were deficient for want of government documentation; and (2)
whether Commerce provided the GOC with an opportunity to remedy that deficiency.
For the following reasons, the court concludes with respect to both questions that
Commerce did not. Court No. 23-00136 Page 27
In the “Input Producer Appendix” to the Initial Questionnaire, Commerce
requested information pertaining to the ownership and structure of Baroque’s input
suppliers, as well as the presence or involvement of any CCP entities in those suppliers.
See Initial Questionnaire at II-34 to II-38; see also supra background Section II.A
(detailing the nine entities question, the CCP officials question and related records and
government sources questions). Neither the nine entities question nor the CCP officials
question requested that the GOC provide supporting government documentation and
the GOC did not provide any such documentation.
In the government sources question, Commerce did inquire specifically as to
whether there existed government source documents to analyze the involvement of
CCP-related entities in the input suppliers. See Initial Questionnaire at II-37. This
question did not, however, request that the GOC provide supporting documentation in
the event that such government source documents existed. 7 In response, the GOC
provided an admittedly nonresponsive answer, stating that there “is no central
informational database to search for such information.” GOC IQR, Ex. LTAR-1 at LTAR-
69.
In the cover letter to the Supplemental Questionnaire, Commerce informed the
GOC that Commerce “identified certain areas in the initial questionnaire response
submitted by the GOC for which [Commerce] require[d] additional information.”
7 At oral argument, the court asked the government whether the government sources question requested government documentation. Oral Arg. Tr. at 39:12-15. The government admitted that the question did “[n]ot necessarily” do so. Id. Court No. 23-00136 Page 28
Supplemental Questionnaire at 1. However, Commerce did not elaborate further in the
cover letter what these “certain areas” were.
In the Supplemental Questionnaire, Commerce then reiterated the nine entities
question and the CCP officials question nearly verbatim from the Initial Questionnaire,
without any reference to the GOC’s initial responses or explanation as to what
Commerce found lacking in those responses. See id. at 7 (“[P]lease identify whether
any owner, director, or manager is a member or representative of any of the [nine]
entities”; “[P]lease identify which owners, managers, and directors were Chinese
government or CCP officials during the POR.”). Commerce did not identify a lack of
government documentation as a deficiency in the GOC’s initial responses nor did
Commerce request that the GOC provide any government documentation in its
supplemental responses. 8 Additionally, Commerce did not identify the GOC’s response
to the government sources question as deficient nor did Commerce reiterate the
question in any form. See id.
This Court has held that “Commerce satisfies its obligation under § 1677m(d) to
place the respondent on notice of the nature of a deficiency in its initial questionnaire
response where a supplemental questionnaire ‘specifically point[s] out and request[s]
clarification of [the] deficient responses,’ and identifies the information needed to make
the required showing.” Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 45 CIT __, __, 518 F. Supp.
8 In the Supplemental Questionnaire, Commerce did request, for the first time, that the GOC provide supporting documentation for its responses to the verification and CCP Opinion questions. See Supplemental Questionnaire at 7-8; see also supra background Section II.A. However, neither of these questions explicitly requested government documentation and the GOC did not provide any government documentation in its supplemental responses. See GOC SQR at 10-11. Court No. 23-00136 Page 29
3d 1309, 1322-23 (2021) (alterations in original) (emphasis supplied) (quoting NSK Ltd.
v. United States, 481 F.3d 1355, 1360 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); see also Maverick Tube
Corp. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that Commerce
satisfied its obligation under § 1677m(d) when the respondent “failed to provide the
information requested in Commerce's original questionnaire, and the supplemental
questionnaire notified [the respondent] of that defect”).
Here, Commerce failed to satisfy its obligation under § 1677m(d) because
Commerce did not “specifically point[] out and request[] clarification” of the deficiency
(i.e., the lack of government documentation) in the GOC’s initial responses and did not
identify government documentation as “the information needed to make the required
showing.” Maverick Tube Corp., 857 F.3d at 1361; see also Hyundai Steel Co., 45 CIT
at __, 518 F. Supp. 3d at 1322 (“Broadly drawn initial or supplemental questionnaires
may not sufficiently place a respondent on notice of the nature of the deficiency, and
deprive it of the opportunity to remedy that deficiency.”).
Commerce’s repetition alone of the nine entities and CCP officials questions was
not sufficient to provide the GOC with notice that its initial responses to those questions
were deficient. This Court has held previously that “[s]imilarities in questions between
the initial and supplemental questionnaire alone do not serve as evidence that
Commerce found the initial questionnaire response deficient.” Cf. Hyundai Heavy
Indus. Co. v. United States, 44 CIT __, __, 485 F. Supp. 3d 1380, 1402 (2020) (rejecting
petitioner’s “assumption that Commerce’s issuance of a supplemental questionnaire
containing a question similar to one posed in the initial questionnaire establishes that
Commerce found the [initial] response . . . deficient”). Court No. 23-00136 Page 30
Commerce’s failure to identify specifically the deficiency in the GOC’s responses
and identify what information could be provided to cure that deficiency denied the GOC
the “opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency,” as mandated by § 1677m(d).
Notably, Commerce’s questionnaires did not specifically request government
documentation. 9
Commerce’s omission with regard to the supplemental nine entities and CCP
officials questions stands out given that Commerce complied with the requirements of §
1677m(d) for other questions in the same questionnaire. For example, supplemental
question four notes that in the Initial Questionnaire, Commerce requested that the GOC
provide “original and translated copies of laws, regulations or other governing
documents cited by the GOC in the Export Buyer’s Credit Response.” Supplemental
Questionnaire at 4. Commerce then stated clearly in the question that the GOC’s initial
response was deficient because the GOC “did not provide the 2013 amendment” to the
Export Buyers’ Credit Program Administrative Measures. Id. Last, Commerce
requested precisely the information the GOC needed to provide to respond fully:
“Please provide the 2013 amendment and guidelines to the above-mentioned laws.” Id.
It is well established that the burden of creating an adequate record rests with a
respondent, see ABB Inc. v. United States, 42 CIT __, __, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1206, 1222
(2018); however, Commerce is “obligat[ed] to let the respondent know what information
[Commerce] really wants.” Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe v. United States, 23 CIT 804,
9 At oral argument, the government admitted that Commerce’s questionnaires did not request specifically government documentation. See Oral Arg. Tr. at 39:12-15, 40:10-18 (“[I]f you’re asking, was there [a] specific requirement in the questionnaire itself saying you have to give us government documentation? I don’t believe that the questionnaire specifically asked that.”). Court No. 23-00136 Page 31
820 (1999); see also Queen's Flowers de Colombia v. United States, 21 CIT 968, 980,
981 F. Supp. 617, 628 (1997) (stating that an “alleged response deficiency cannot
support application of [AFA] where the information sought was apparently never
requested”).
The GOC “cannot logically be faulted for failing to provide information beyond the
scope of the question that Commerce asked.” Jinan Yipin Corp. v. United States, 31
CIT 1901, 1916, 526 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1360-61 (2007). If Commerce viewed
government documentation from the GOC as necessary information, Commerce was
“obligat[ed] to let the [GOC] know.” Ta Chen, 23 CIT at 820; see also Jinan Yipin Corp.,
31 CIT at 1914, 516 F. Supp. 2d at 1359 (“If . . . it was essential . . . for Commerce to be
provided with [certain] information . . ., then Commerce needed to request that specific
information.” (emphasis supplied)). 10
Accordingly, Commerce did not comply with its obligations under § 1677m(d) and
as a result Commerce’s application of AFA to find that certain of Baroque’s input
suppliers were government authorities is not in accordance with law. See 19 U.S.C. §
1677e(a) (stating that Commerce may make determinations on the basis of facts
available “subject to” the requirements of § 1677m(d)).
The court directs Commerce, on remand, to: (1) identify with specificity the
deficiencies in the GOC’s initial or supplemental responses to the nine entities, CCP
officials and other related questions; (2) describe clearly the nature of each deficiency
and what information could correct that deficiency; (3) if Commerce continues to
10 Recognizing this at oral argument, the court noted to the government that the “point of a questionnaire is you’re seeking to get information from someone and you’re most likely to get that information . . . if you’re very precise.” Oral Arg. Tr. at 46:16-19. Court No. 23-00136 Page 32
determine that supporting government documentation is necessary information, request
that information explicitly from the GOC; and (4) provide the GOC an opportunity to
remedy any specified deficiencies.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the court remands Commerce’s Final Results. For the foregoing
reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Commerce’s calculation of the plywood benchmark is remanded
for further explanation; it is further
ORDERED that Commerce’s decision to apply AFA to find certain of Baroque’s
input suppliers to be government authorities is remanded for compliance with §
1677m(d); it is further
ORDERED that Commerce shall file its remand results within 90 days following
the date of this Order; it is further
ORDERED that within 14 days of the date of filing of Commerce’s remand
results, Commerce shall file an index and copies of any new administrative record
documents; and it is further
ORDERED that, if applicable, the parties shall file a proposed scheduling order
with page limits for comments on the remand results no later than seven days after
Commerce files its remand results with the Court.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Timothy M. Reif Timothy M. Reif, Judge
Dated: April 3, 2025 New York, New York