Apiário Diamante Comercial Exportadora Ltda. v. United States

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 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