Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. United States

SlipȱOp.ȱ25Ȭ12ȱ UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ SIEMENSȱGAMESAȱRENEWABLEȱENERGY,ȱ Plaintiff,ȱ v.ȱ UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ ȱBefore:ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ Defendant,ȱ ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ andȱ WINDȱTOWERȱTRADEȱCOALITION,ȱ DefendantȬIntervenor.ȱ OPINIONȱ [Sustainingȱanȱagencyȱdecisionȱsubmittedȱinȱresponseȱtoȱcourtȱorderȱinȱanȱactionȱ contestingȱaȱfinalȱdeterminationȱconcludingȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigation]ȱ Dated:ȱJanuaryȱ28,ȱ2025ȱ DanielȱJ.ȱCannistra,ȱSimeonȱYerokun,ȱandȱPierceȱJ.ȱLee,ȱCrowellȱ&ȱMoringȱLLP,ȱofȱ Washington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱplaintiffȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergy.ȱȱ StephenȱCarlȱTosini,ȱSeniorȱTrialȱCounsel,ȱCommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱCivilȱ Division,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendant.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱ theȱbriefȱwereȱBrianȱM.ȱBoynton,ȱActingȱAssistantȱAttorneyȱGeneral,ȱPatriciaȱM.ȱ McCarthy,ȱDirector,ȱandȱReginaldȱT.ȱBlades,ȱJr.,ȱAssistantȱDirector.ȱȱOfȱcounselȱonȱtheȱ briefȱwasȱFeeȱPauwels,ȱAttorney,ȱOfficeȱofȱtheȱChiefȱCounselȱforȱTradeȱEnforcementȱ&ȱ Compliance,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱCommerce,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ2ȱ ȱ AlanȱH.ȱPrice,ȱWileyȱReinȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendantȬintervenorȱ WindȱTowerȱTradeȱCoalition.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwereȱRobertȱE.ȱDeFrancesco,ȱIII,ȱ LauraȱElȬSabaawi,ȱDerickȱG.ȱHolt,ȱandȱJohnȱAllenȱRiggins.ȱ ȱ Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱPlaintiffȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱS.A.ȱ(“Siemensȱ Gamesa”)ȱbroughtȱthisȱactionȱtoȱcontestȱaȱ“lessȬthanȬfairȬvalue”ȱdeterminationȱ(“Finalȱ LTFVȱDetermination”)ȱbyȱtheȱInternationalȱTradeȱAdministration,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱ Commerceȱ(“Commerce”ȱorȱtheȱ“Department”)ȱconcludingȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱ (“AD”)ȱinvestigationȱofȱcertainȱwindȱtowersȱfromȱSpainȱ(theȱ“subjectȱmerchandise”).ȱȱ TheȱcourtȱtwiceȱhasȱorderedȱCommerceȱtoȱreconsiderȱitsȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination.ȱȱ SiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ47ȱCITȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1337ȱ(2023)ȱ (“SiemensȱGamesaȱI”);ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ47ȱCITȱ__,ȱ659ȱ F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1343ȱ(2023)ȱ(“SiemensȱGamesaȱII”).ȱ BeforeȱtheȱcourtȱisȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ“SecondȱRemandȱRedetermination,”ȱissuedȱ underȱprotestȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱSiemensȱGamesaȱII.ȱȱFinalȱ ResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱSecondȱCourtȱRemandȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱ Juneȱ21,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ77Ȭ1ȱ(“SecondȱRemandȱRedetermination”).ȱȱTheȱSecondȱRemandȱ Redeterminationȱcalculatesȱanȱestimatedȱdumpingȱmarginȱofȱ28.55%ȱforȱanȱentityȱ consistingȱofȱSiemensȱGamesaȱandȱrelatedȱcompanies.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ56.ȱ DefendantȬintervenorȱWindȱTowerȱTradeȱCoalitionȱ(theȱ“Coalition”ȱorȱtheȱ “WTTC”),ȱtheȱpetitionerȱinȱtheȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigation,ȱopposesȱtheȱSecondȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱonȱvariousȱgrounds.ȱȱDefendantȬIntervenorȱWindȱTowerȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ3ȱ ȱ TradeȱCoalition’sȱCommentsȱonȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Julyȱ22,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱ Nos.ȱ81ȱ(conf.),ȱ82ȱ(public)ȱ(“Def.ȬInt.’sȱComments”).ȱȱDefendantȱasksȱtheȱcourtȱtoȱ sustainȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱDefendant’sȱCommentsȱinȱSupportȱofȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Aug.ȱ21,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ85ȱ(“Def.’sȱResp.”).ȱȱPlaintiffȱdidȱnotȱ submitȱcomments.ȱ TheȱcourtȱsustainsȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱ I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ Backgroundȱforȱthisȱcaseȱisȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱcourt’sȱpriorȱopinionsȱandȱisȱ supplementedȱherein.ȱȱSiemensȱGamesaȱI,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1339–40;ȱ SiemensȱGamesaȱII,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1345–48.ȱ A.ȱȱTheȱContestedȱDecisionȱ TheȱFinalȱLTFVȱDeterminationȱwasȱpublishedȱasȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱFromȱ Spain:ȱFinalȱDeterminationȱofȱSalesȱatȱLessȱThanȱFairȱValue,ȱ86ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ33,656ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ Admin.ȱJuneȱ25,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱ152,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41ȱ(“FinalȱLTFVȱDetermination”).1ȱȱCommerceȱ incorporatedȱbyȱreferenceȱanȱaccompanyingȱ“IssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandum.”ȱȱ IssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱtheȱFinalȱAffirmativeȱDeterminationȱinȱtheȱLessȬThanȬ

ȱ ȱDocumentsȱinȱtheȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Mayȱ26,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ41ȱ(public),ȱ42ȱ (conf.),ȱareȱcitedȱasȱ“P.R.ȱ__”ȱ(forȱpublicȱdocuments).ȱȱDocumentsȱfromȱtheȱfirstȱremandȱ proceeding,ȱRemandȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Sept.ȱ8,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ65ȱ(public),ȱ66ȱ(conf.),ȱareȱ citedȱasȱ“P.R.R.ȱ__”ȱ(forȱpublicȱdocuments).ȱȱDocumentsȱfromȱtheȱsecondȱremandȱ proceeding,ȱRemandȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Sept.ȱ6,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ88ȱ(public),ȱ87ȱ(conf.),ȱareȱ citedȱasȱ“2P.R.R.ȱ__”ȱ(forȱpublicȱdocuments).ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ4ȱ ȱ FairȬValueȱInvestigationȱofȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpainȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱ Juneȱ14,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱ149,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41ȱ(“FinalȱI&DȱMem.”).ȱ TheȱFinalȱLTFVȱDeterminationȱconcludedȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigationȱofȱ utilityȱscaleȱwindȱtowersȱfromȱSpainȱcoveringȱaȱperiodȱofȱinvestigationȱ(“POI”)ȱofȱ Julyȱ1,ȱ2019,ȱthroughȱJuneȱ30,ȱ2020.ȱȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination,ȱ88ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ33,656.ȱ 1.ȱȱRespondentȱSelectionȱinȱtheȱInvestigationȱ Duringȱtheȱinvestigation,ȱCommerceȱissuedȱ“QuantityȱandȱValue”ȱ(“Q&V”)ȱ questionnairesȱtoȱnineteenȱknownȱexportersȱandȱproducersȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱ andȱreceivedȱthirteenȱresponses,ȱincludingȱaȱresponseȱfromȱSiemensȱGamesa.ȱȱSiemensȱ GamesaȱII,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1346;ȱLessȬThanȬFairȬValueȱInvestigationȱofȱ UtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpain:ȱResponseȱtoȱQuantityȱandȱValueȱQuestionnaireȱ1ȱ&ȱ Attachmentȱ1ȱ(Dec.ȱ7,ȱ2020),ȱP.R.ȱ84,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41.ȱȱCommerceȱselectedȱVestasȱEolicaȱ S.A.U.ȱ(“VestasȱEolica”)ȱasȱtheȱsoleȱ“mandatory”ȱrespondent,ȱi.e.,ȱaȱrespondentȱ Commerceȱwouldȱinvestigateȱindividually,ȱbutȱVestasȱEolicaȱdeclinedȱtoȱparticipateȱinȱ theȱinvestigation.ȱȱSiemensȱGamesaȱII,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1347.ȱȱSiemensȱ Gamesaȱrequested,ȱonȱbehalfȱofȱitselfȱandȱitsȱaffiliateȱWindarȱRenovablesȱS.A.ȱ (“Windar”),ȱtoȱbeȱinvestigatedȱindividuallyȱasȱaȱmandatoryȱrespondent,ȱbutȱCommerceȱ rejectedȱitsȱrequest.ȱȱLessȬThanȬFairȬValueȱInvestigationȱofȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱ Spain:ȱRequestȱforȱMandatoryȱRespondentȱSelectionȱ1ȱ(Feb.ȱ17,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱ128,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41;ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ5ȱ ȱ UtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpain:ȱRequestȱtoȱSelectȱReplacementȱMandatoryȱRespondentȱ1ȱ (Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱMar.ȱ5,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱ132,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41.ȱ 2.ȱȱAssignmentȱofȱaȱ73.00%ȱRateȱtoȱAllȱRespondentsȱ InȱtheȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination,ȱCommerceȱreachedȱaȱdecisionȱbasedȱentirelyȱ onȱ“factsȱotherwiseȱavailable”ȱunderȱSectionȱ776(a)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱofȱ1930,ȱasȱamendedȱ (“TariffȱAct”),ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a),ȱandȱanȱ“adverseȱinference”ȱunderȱSectionȱ776(b)ȱofȱ theȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b),ȱprovisionsȱtoȱwhichȱCommerceȱoftenȱrefersȱinȱtheȱ aggregateȱasȱ“adverseȱfactsȱavailable”ȱorȱ“AFA.”2ȱȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination,ȱ86ȱFed.ȱ Reg.ȱatȱ33,656–57.ȱȱUnderȱtheseȱprovisions,ȱCommerceȱassignedȱVestasȱEolica,ȱalongȱ withȱsixȱotherȱcompanies,ȱincludingȱWindar,ȱaȱ73.00%ȱdumpingȱmargin,ȱ“theȱsoleȱ dumpingȱmarginȱallegedȱinȱtheȱ[p]etition,”ȱforȱfailingȱtoȱcooperateȱinȱtheȱinvestigationȱ byȱnotȱrespondingȱtoȱtheȱQ&Vȱquestionnaire.ȱȱId.ȱȱCommerceȱadoptedȱtheȱ73.00%ȱrateȱasȱ theȱ“allȱothers”ȱrate,ȱi.e.,ȱtheȱrateȱtoȱbeȱappliedȱtoȱallȱotherȱexportersȱandȱproducersȱofȱ theȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱthatȱitȱdidȱnotȱindividuallyȱexamine,ȱincludingȱSiemensȱ Gamesa.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ33,657.ȱ B.ȱȱSiemensȱGamesaȱIȱ SiemensȱGamesaȱcontestedȱtheȱFinalȱLTFVȱDetermination,ȱclaimingȱthatȱtheȱ Department’sȱassignmentȱofȱtheȱ73.00%ȱrateȱtoȱitȱwasȱunlawfulȱonȱtwoȱgrounds.ȱȱ

ȱ ȱCitationsȱtoȱtheȱU.S.ȱCodeȱhereinȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2018ȱedition.ȱȱCitationsȱtoȱtheȱCodeȱ ofȱFederalȱRegulationsȱhereinȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2021ȱedition.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ6ȱ ȱ SiemensȱGamesaȱI,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1344.ȱȱItȱargued,ȱfirst,ȱthatȱCommerceȱ unlawfullyȱrefusedȱtoȱexamineȱitȱindividuallyȱand,ȱsecond,ȱthatȱCommerceȱunlawfullyȱ adoptedȱtheȱ73.00%ȱrateȱasȱtheȱ“allȱothers”ȱrate,ȱwhichȱwasȱnotȱbasedȱonȱtheȱactualȱdataȱ ofȱanyȱexporter.ȱȱId.ȱ(citationsȱomitted).ȱ InȱSiemensȱGamesaȱI,ȱtheȱcourtȱgrantedȱplaintiff’sȱmotionȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱ agencyȱrecordȱunderȱUSCITȱRuleȱ56.2ȱandȱremandedȱtheȱFinalȱLTFVȱDeterminationȱtoȱ Commerce.ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1349.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱheldȱthatȱtheȱ Department’sȱindividualȱexaminationȱofȱaȱsingleȱrespondent,ȱVestasȱEolica,ȱwasȱ unlawfulȱunderȱtheȱbindingȱdecisionȱinȱYCȱRubberȱCo.ȱ(N.ȱAm.)ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ No.ȱ21Ȭ1489,ȱ2022ȱWLȱ3711377ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱAug.ȱ29,ȱ2022),ȱandȱthatȱtheȱassignmentȱofȱtheȱ 73.00%ȱ“allȱothers”ȱrateȱtoȱSiemensȱGamesaȱdidȱnotȱsatisfyȱtheȱ“reasonableȱmethod”ȱ requiredȱbyȱSectionȱ735(c)(5)(B)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1673d(c)(5)(B).ȱȱSiemensȱ GamesaȱI,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1344–47.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱdirectedȱCommerceȱtoȱ conductȱanȱindividualȱinvestigationȱofȱSiemensȱGamesa,ȱtheȱsoleȱrespondentȱinȱtheȱ investigationȱthatȱisȱaȱpartyȱinȱthisȱlitigation.ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ 1348–49.ȱ C.ȱȱTheȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ InȱtheȱremandȱredeterminationȱCommerceȱissuedȱinȱresponseȱtoȱSiemensȱGamesaȱIȱ (theȱ“FirstȱRemandȱRedetermination”),ȱCommerceȱreopenedȱtheȱrecordȱandȱ “individuallyȱinvestigatedȱSGREȱ[referringȱtoȱplaintiffȱSiemensȱGamesa].”ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ7ȱ ȱ ofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCourtȱRemandȱ1,ȱ4ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱJuneȱ16,ȱ2023),ȱ ECFȱNo.ȱ53Ȭ1ȱ(“FirstȱRemandȱRedetermination”).ȱȱDuringȱtheȱfirstȱremandȱproceeding,ȱ Commerceȱissuedȱaȱ“CollapsingȱMemorandum”ȱinȱwhichȱitȱexplainedȱitsȱpreliminaryȱ determinationȱtoȱtreatȱSiemensȱGamesa,ȱWindar,ȱandȱfiveȱwhollyȱownedȱWindarȱ subsidiariesȱ(theȱ“WindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiaries”)ȱasȱaȱsingleȱ“collapsed”ȱentityȱ (“SGRE/Windar”)ȱpursuantȱtoȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.401(f).3ȱȱId.ȱatȱ1–2,ȱ1ȱn.3,ȱ2ȱn.4,ȱ6;ȱRemandȱ forȱtheȱLessȬThanȬFairȬValueȱInvestigationȱofȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowers:ȱPreliminaryȱ AffiliationȱandȱCollapsingȱMemorandumȱforȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱS.A.ȱandȱ WindarȱRenovablesȱS.A.ȱ1,ȱ8–9ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱApr.ȱ25,ȱ2023),ȱP.R.R.ȱ69,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ65Ȭ9ȱ (“CollapsingȱMemorandum”).ȱȱCommerceȱcollapsedȱSiemensȱGamesaȱwithȱWindarȱandȱ theȱWindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiariesȱ“becauseȱtheirȱoperationsȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱ saleȱandȱproductionȱofȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱareȱintertwined.”ȱȱFirstȱRemandȱ Redeterminationȱ2.ȱȱCommerceȱmaintainedȱitsȱpreliminaryȱcollapsingȱdecisionȱinȱtheȱFirstȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱandȱassignedȱtheȱcollapsedȱentity,ȱbasedȱonȱtheȱtotalȱ applicationȱofȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱandȱanȱadverseȱinference,ȱanȱestimatedȱ weightedȱaverageȱdumpingȱmarginȱofȱ73.00%,ȱaȱrateȱWindarȱdidȱnotȱchallengeȱinȱtheȱ

ȱ 3ȱTheȱfiveȱwhollyȬownedȱWindarȱsubsidiariesȱinȱtheȱcollapsedȱentityȱareȱTadarsaȱ EolicaȱS.L.,ȱWindarȱOffshoreȱS.L.,ȱWindarȱWindȱServicesȱS.L.,ȱAemsaȱSantanaȱS.A.,ȱandȱ ApoyosȱMetalicosȱS.A.ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCourtȱRemandȱ2ȱ n.4ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱJuneȱ16,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ53Ȭ1ȱ(“FirstȱRemandȱRedetermination”).ȱ ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ8ȱ ȱ underlyingȱinvestigationȱandȱwhichȱCommerceȱdeemedȱfinal.4ȱȱId.ȱatȱ2,ȱ6,ȱ8,ȱ22,ȱ26.ȱȱ Commerceȱassignedȱaȱ73.00%ȱrateȱasȱtheȱallȬothersȱrate,ȱagainȱbasedȱonȱtheȱrateȱallegedȱ inȱtheȱpetition.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ9,ȱ36–38.ȱ D.ȱȱSiemensȱGamesaȱIIȱ InȱSiemensȱGamesaȱII,ȱtheȱcourtȱconcludedȱthatȱ“theȱFirstȱRemandȱ Redeterminationȱwasȱcontraryȱtoȱlawȱinȱthreeȱmajorȱrespects.”ȱȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱ F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1350.ȱ First,ȱtheȱcourtȱheldȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱconclusionȱthatȱtheȱunchallengedȱ 73.00%ȱadverseȱinferenceȱrateȱassignedȱtoȱWindarȱinȱtheȱunderlyingȱinvestigationȱwasȱ finalȱandȱcontrollingȱwasȱincorrect,ȱbecauseȱifȱtheȱcourtȱwereȱtoȱsustainȱaȱrateȱforȱtheȱ collapsedȱentity,ȱthatȱcollapsedȱentityȱrateȱ“necessarilyȱwouldȱrenderȱnullȱandȱvoid”ȱ andȱ“wouldȱsupplant”ȱtheȱoriginalȱ73.00%ȱrateȱwhenȱitȱwentȱintoȱeffect.ȱȱId.ȱ Second,ȱtheȱcourtȱheldȱthatȱCommerceȱwasȱnotȱpermittedȱtoȱresortȱtoȱ“factsȱ otherwiseȱavailable”ȱunderȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a)ȱandȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱunderȱ ȱ 4ȱCommerceȱappliedȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱandȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱaccordingȱ toȱtheȱfollowingȱfindings:ȱ(1)ȱWindarȱfailedȱtoȱrespondȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ“Quantityȱ andȱValue”ȱquestionnaireȱinȱtheȱunderlyingȱinvestigation,ȱpermittingȱanȱadverseȱ inference;ȱ(2)ȱWindarȱdidȱnotȱchallengeȱtheȱ73.00%ȱrateȱinȱtheȱFinalȱLTFVȱ Determination,ȱsuchȱthatȱtheȱrateȱwasȱfinalȱandȱCommerceȱcouldȱapplyȱitȱtoȱSiemensȱ Gamesaȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱcollapsedȱentity;ȱ(3)ȱCommerceȱcouldȱnotȱ“revisit”ȱitsȱ “final/unchallengedȱdecision”ȱapplyingȱtheȱ73.00%ȱAFAȱrateȱtoȱWindarȱonȱremandȱ becauseȱtheȱcourtȱ“didȱnotȱrequireȱ(orȱevenȱpermit)”ȱitȱinȱitsȱpriorȱopinion,ȱSiemensȱ GamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ47ȱCITȱ__,ȱ621ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1337ȱ(2023);ȱandȱ(4)ȱ theȱassignmentȱofȱtheȱ73.00%ȱrateȱtoȱtheȱcollapsedȱentityȱwasȱconsistentȱwithȱ“longȬ standing”ȱagencyȱpractice.ȱȱFirstȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ8,ȱ22,ȱ26–27.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ9ȱ ȱ 19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b)ȱinȱassigningȱaȱ73.00%ȱrateȱtoȱSiemensȱGamesa.ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱ F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1350,ȱ1352–54.ȱȱSubstantialȱrecordȱevidenceȱdidȱnotȱ“supportȱtheȱ Department’sȱfindingȱthatȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱaȱresponseȱbyȱWindarȱtoȱtheȱQ&Vȱ questionnaireȱinȱtheȱunderlyingȱinvestigationȱimpairedȱtheȱDepartment’sȱabilityȱtoȱ investigateȱSiemensȱGamesaȱindividuallyȱandȱassignȱitȱanȱestimatedȱdumpingȱmarginȱinȱ theȱremandȱproceeding.”ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1350.ȱ Theȱcourtȱconcluded,ȱthird,ȱthatȱCommerceȱunlawfullyȱselectedȱaȱ73.00%ȱ“allȬ othersȱrate”ȱbecauseȱitȱagainȱdidȱnotȱsatisfyȱtheȱ“reasonableȱmethod”ȱrequirementȱofȱtheȱ TariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1673d(c)(5)(B).ȱȱSiemensȱGamesaȱII,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ 1350,ȱ1359.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱrecognized,ȱnevertheless,ȱthatȱplaintiff,ȱhavingȱbeenȱinvestigatedȱ individuallyȱforȱtheȱFirstȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱlackedȱstandingȱtoȱcontestȱtheȱallȬ othersȱrateȱassignedȱinȱthatȱdetermination.ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1359.ȱ Inȱorderingȱaȱsecondȱremandȱproceeding,ȱtheȱcourtȱpresentedȱCommerceȱwithȱ “aȱchoiceȱbetweenȱtwoȱoptions”:ȱCommerceȱcouldȱeitherȱ(i)ȱ“submitȱaȱnewȱ determinationȱthatȱwouldȱapplyȱtoȱSiemensȱGamesaȱaloneȱandȱallowȱtoȱstandȱasȱ‘final’ȱ theȱuncontested,ȱ73.00ȱpercentȱrateȱitȱassignedȱtoȱWindarȱinȱtheȱFinalȱLTFVȱ Determination,”ȱwhichȱ“wouldȱforecloseȱanyȱcollapsingȱofȱSiemensȱGamesaȱwithȱ Windar,”ȱorȱ(ii)ȱ“substituteȱforȱWindar’sȱexistingȱrateȱaȱnewȱrateȱthatȱitȱwouldȱapplyȱtoȱaȱ collapsedȱentity.”ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1351.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ10ȱ ȱ E.ȱȱSubmissionȱofȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱandȱCommentsȱ Inȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱSiemensȱGamesaȱII,ȱCommerceȱ submittedȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱonȱJuneȱ21,ȱ2024.ȱȱDefendantȬintervenorȱ filedȱcommentsȱonȱJulyȱ22,ȱ2024,ȱandȱtheȱgovernmentȱrespondedȱonȱAugustȱ21,ȱ2024.ȱ II.ȱȱDISCUSSIONȱ A.ȱȱJurisdictionȱandȱStandardȱofȱReviewȱ ȱ 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 “‘suchȱrelevantȱevidenceȱasȱaȱreasonableȱmindȱmightȱacceptȱasȱadequateȱtoȱsupportȱaȱ conclusion.’”ȱȱSKFȱUSA,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ537ȱF.3dȱ1373,ȱ1378ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2008)ȱ (quotingȱConsol.ȱEdisonȱCo.ȱv.ȱNat’lȱLab.ȱRels.ȱBd.,ȱ305ȱU.S.ȱ197,ȱ229ȱ(1938)).ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ11ȱ ȱ B.ȱȱTheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ ȱ InȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱreachedȱitsȱdeterminationȱofȱ aȱ28.55%ȱestimatedȱweightedȬaverageȱdumpingȱmarginȱbyȱagainȱcollapsingȱSiemensȱ Gamesa,ȱWindar,ȱandȱtheȱfiveȱWindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiariesȱintoȱaȱsingleȱentityȱ (theȱ“SGRE/Windar”ȱentity),ȱconductingȱanȱindividualȱexaminationȱofȱthatȱentity,ȱandȱ performingȱaȱverification.ȱȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ1–2,ȱ5,ȱ56.ȱȱCommerceȱ decided,ȱ“givenȱtheȱdegreeȱofȱaffiliationȱamongȱtheȱpartiesȱandȱtheȱintertwinedȱnatureȱ ofȱtheirȱoperations,”ȱthatȱcollapsingȱwasȱ“theȱonlyȱviableȱoption.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ5.ȱ InȱcalculatingȱnormalȱvalueȱforȱitsȱdeterminationȱofȱanȱestimatedȱweightedȬ averageȱdumpingȱmargin,ȱCommerceȱappliedȱ“partial”ȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱwithȱ anȱadverseȱinferenceȱforȱcertainȱinformationȱitȱconsideredȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱmisreported.ȱȱId.ȱ atȱ10.ȱȱSpecifically,ȱCommerceȱusedȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱwithȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱ forȱwhatȱitȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱaȱfailureȱtoȱreport,ȱaccordingȱtoȱ“theoreticalȱweights”ȱasȱ instructedȱbyȱCommerce,ȱcertainȱweightȱinformationȱforȱwindȱtowersȱsoldȱinȱtheȱ comparisonȱmarketȱofȱSweden.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ7–13.ȱȱCommerceȱalsoȱusedȱfactsȱotherwiseȱ availableȱwithȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱforȱwhatȱitȱfoundȱtoȱbeȱaȱfailureȱ“toȱaccuratelyȱ describeȱitsȱpaymentȱprocessȱforȱsalesȱtoȱitsȱcustomersȱinȱbothȱSwedenȱandȱtheȱUnitedȱ States.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ7,ȱ9–11,ȱ13–14.ȱ ToȱcalculateȱU.S.ȱprice,ȱCommerceȱresortedȱtoȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱbecauseȱ theȱforeignȱsellerȱandȱU.S.ȱimporterȱwereȱrelatedȱparties.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ21–22.ȱȱFurther,ȱbecauseȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ12ȱ ȱ individualȱwindȱtowersȱwereȱsoldȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱonlyȱasȱcomponentsȱofȱwindȱ turbineȱprojects,ȱCommerceȱcalculatedȱconstructedȱexportȱpricesȱforȱtheȱsubjectȱ merchandiseȱbyȱallocating,ȱaccordingȱtoȱrelativeȱcost,ȱtheȱtotalȱrevenueȱrealizedȱfromȱ thoseȱprojectsȱbetweenȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱandȱtheȱotherȱelementsȱ(componentsȱ andȱservices)ȱofȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱprojects.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ21,ȱ44,ȱ46–48.ȱ Commerceȱassignedȱtheȱ28.55%ȱestimatedȱdumpingȱmarginȱtoȱallȱotherȱ producersȱandȱexportersȱpursuantȱtoȱsectionȱ735(c)(5)(A)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ §ȱ1673d(c)(5)(A).ȱȱId.ȱatȱ2,ȱ15.ȱ C.ȱȱDefendantȬIntervenor’sȱObjectionsȱtoȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ ȱ InȱopposingȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱtheȱWindȱTowerȱTradeȱ CoalitionȱtakesȱtheȱpositionȱthatȱCommerce,ȱinsteadȱofȱassigningȱtheȱ28.55%ȱrateȱtoȱtheȱ collapsedȱentity,ȱshouldȱhaveȱ“reinstatedȱWindar’sȱoriginalȱ73.00ȱpercentȱmargin.”ȱȱ Def.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ19.ȱȱTheȱCoalitionȱmaintainsȱthatȱ“Commerce’sȱdecisionȱtoȱ investigateȱSGREȱS.A.,ȱaȱnonȬproducingȱholdingȱcompany,ȱasȱaȱ‘producer’ȱofȱsubjectȱ merchandiseȱisȱinconsistentȱwithȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677fȬ1(c)(1)ȱandȱnotȱsupportedȱbyȱ substantialȱevidence.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ5.ȱȱȱ TheȱCoalitionȱargues,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱ“becauseȱSGREȱS.A.ȱisȱnotȱaȱproducerȱorȱ exporterȱofȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱCommerce’sȱdecisionȱtoȱcontinueȱcollapsingȱSGREȱS.A.ȱ andȱWindarȱisȱinconsistentȱwithȱCommerce’sȱregulations.”ȱȱId.ȱȱAssertingȱthatȱWindar,ȱ asȱaȱproducerȱandȱexporterȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱshouldȱbeȱtheȱrespondentȱinȱtheȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ13ȱ ȱ investigation,ȱtheȱCoalitionȱsubmitsȱthatȱWindar’sȱfailureȱtoȱrespondȱtoȱtheȱQ&Vȱ questionnaireȱinȱtheȱoriginalȱinvestigationȱrequiresȱCommerceȱtoȱreinstateȱtheȱ73.00%ȱ marginȱitȱoriginallyȱassignedȱtoȱWindar,ȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱandȱanȱ adverseȱinference.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ19ȱ(“Inȱlightȱofȱtheȱfullyȱdevelopedȱrecordȱinȱtheȱsecondȱ remand,ȱitȱbecameȱapparentȱthatȱSGREȱS.A.ȱcannotȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱproducerȱforȱtheȱ purposesȱofȱrespondentȱselectionȱorȱcollapsing.ȱȱAtȱthatȱpoint,ȱCommerceȱshouldȱhaveȱ reversedȱitsȱdecisionȱtoȱcollapseȱSGREȱS.A.ȱandȱWindar,ȱreinstatedȱWindar’sȱoriginalȱ 73.00ȱpercentȱmargin,ȱandȱfoundȱthatȱitȱcannotȱinvestigateȱSGREȱS.A.”).ȱ Inȱtheȱalternative,ȱtheȱCoalitionȱcontestsȱtheȱ28.55%ȱmarginȱbyȱopposingȱtheȱ Department’sȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱforȱindividualȱwindȱtowers,ȱarguingȱthatȱ“[t]oȱ theȱextentȱthatȱtheȱCourtȱfindsȱCommerce’sȱdecisionȱtoȱcalculateȱaȱmarginȱforȱtheȱSGREȱ S.A./Windarȱcollapsedȱentityȱisȱappropriate,ȱCommerce’sȱselectionȱofȱtheȱrevenueȱfigureȱ usedȱtoȱallocateȱtheȱgrossȱunitȱpricesȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱisȱnotȱsupportedȱbyȱ substantialȱevidence.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ5.ȱ RejectingȱeachȱofȱdefendantȬintervenor’sȱarguments,ȱdefendantȱadvocatesȱthatȱ theȱcourtȱsustainȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱ1,ȱ6–18.ȱ D.ȱȱRefusalȱtoȱRescindȱtheȱInvestigationȱofȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ ȱ DefendantȬintervenorȱarguesȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱS.A.ȱ(toȱ whichȱitȱhasȱreferredȱasȱ“SGREȱS.A”ȱandȱCommerceȱhasȱreferredȱasȱ“SGRE”),ȱwhichȱisȱ “theȱsoleȱplaintiffȱinȱthisȱinvestigation”ȱandȱ“theȱentityȱthatȱCommerceȱwasȱinstructedȱtoȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ14ȱ ȱ investigateȱinȱtheȱsecondȱremand,”ȱwasȱnotȱlawfullyȱinvestigated.ȱȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱ Commentsȱ6ȱ(“Commerce’sȱdecisionȱtoȱselectȱthisȱcompanyȱasȱaȱrespondentȱisȱbasedȱonȱ theȱagency’sȱmisreadingȱofȱtheȱrecordȱandȱincorrectȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱstatute’sȱ requirementȱtoȱinvestigateȱproducersȱofȱsubjectȱmerchandise.”).ȱȱTheȱCoalitionȱ maintainsȱthatȱthisȱcompanyȱ“isȱaȱholdingȱcompany,ȱsupervisingȱtheȱequityȱofȱotherȱ entities,”ȱandȱthatȱitȱ“hasȱnoȱproductionȱfacilitiesȱandȱdoesȱnotȱparticipateȱinȱtheȱdayȬtoȬ dayȱoperationsȱorȱsalesȱdecisionsȱofȱtheȱentitiesȱforȱwhichȱitȱsupervises.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ11.ȱȱ AccordingȱtoȱdefendantȬintervenor,ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ“cannotȱreasonablyȱbeȱconsideredȱ aȱproducerȱorȱexporter,ȱandȱtherefore,ȱisȱnotȱqualifiedȱtoȱbeȱaȱrespondentȱunderȱ 19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677fȬ1(c)(1).”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ10ȱ(footnoteȱomitted).ȱ Inȱsupportȱofȱitsȱargument,ȱdefendantȬintervenorȱstatesȱthatȱ“[p]laintiff’sȱextremeȱ lackȱofȱprecisionȱwhenȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱindividualȱSiemensȱGamesaȱentitiesȱmuddlesȱ whichȱentityȱisȱsubjectȱtoȱthisȱinvestigation.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ6.ȱȱItȱaddsȱthatȱ“[t]hroughoutȱtheȱ variousȱremands,ȱplaintiffȱhasȱusedȱtheȱ‘SGRE’ȱinitialismȱtoȱreferȱtoȱvariousȱentitiesȱandȱ groupsȱofȱentitiesȱrelevantȱtoȱthisȱproceeding,”ȱincludingȱinȱitsȱquestionnaireȱresponses.ȱȱ Id.ȱatȱ6–7.ȱȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱCoalition,ȱ“SGREȱS.A.’sȱlackȱofȱspecificityȱhasȱmadeȱitȱ difficultȱtoȱunderstandȱwhichȱentitiesȱwereȱperformingȱeachȱfunction—aȱkeyȱfactȱinȱ determiningȱwhetherȱtheȱplaintiffȱisȱaȱ‘producer’”ȱand,ȱinȱturn,ȱaȱviableȱmandatoryȱ respondent.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ6–9.ȱȱDefendantȬintervenorȱsubmitsȱthatȱthisȱ“extremeȱlackȱofȱ precision”ȱhasȱ“causedȱCommerceȱtoȱfallȱintoȱtheȱsameȱtrap”ȱofȱconflatingȱmultipleȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ15ȱ ȱ SiemensȱGamesaȱaffiliatesȱinȱitsȱinvestigation,ȱcontraryȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱinstructionsȱinȱ SiemensȱGamesaȱIIȱtoȱinvestigateȱSiemensȱGamesaȱindividually.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ8–9.ȱ InȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱrejectedȱtheȱCoalition’sȱ argumentȱthatȱitȱmustȱrescindȱtheȱinvestigationȱofȱSiemensȱGamesa.ȱȱSecondȱRemandȱ Redeterminationȱ32ȱ(“BecauseȱweȱcontinueȱtoȱexamineȱtheȱsingleȱentityȱofȱSGRE/Windarȱ which,ȱcollectively,ȱproducesȱandȱexportsȱwindȱtowersȱfromȱSpain,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱbasisȱtoȱ rescindȱtheȱinvestigationȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱSGRE.”).ȱȱInȱsupportȱofȱitsȱdecisionȱnotȱtoȱ rescindȱtheȱinvestigationȱandȱalsoȱtoȱcollapseȱSiemensȱGamesaȱwithȱWindarȱandȱitsȱfiveȱ whollyȬownedȱmanufacturingȱsubsidiaries,ȱCommerceȱcited,ȱinterȱalia,ȱrecordȱevidenceȱ ofȱ“SGRE’sȱownershipȱofȱ32ȱpercentȱofȱWindarȱandȱindirectȱownershipȱofȱWindar’sȱ manufacturingȱsubsidiaries,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱcompanies’ȱoverlappingȱboardsȱofȱdirectorsȱ andȱmanagersȱandȱtheirȱintertwinedȱoperations.”ȱȱId.ȱȱReferringȱtoȱitsȱearlierȱ“decisionȱtoȱ considerȱSGRE,ȱWindar,ȱandȱWindar’sȱmanufacturingȱsubsidiariesȱasȱaȱsingleȱentity”ȱ basedȱonȱtheȱrecordȱasȱitȱexistedȱatȱthatȱtime,ȱCommerceȱconcludedȱthatȱ“noneȱofȱtheȱ informationȱsubmittedȱsinceȱthatȱdecisionȱunderminesȱthatȱfinding.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ33.ȱ DefendantȬintervenorȱdoesȱnotȱdisputeȱtheȱDepartment’sȱfindings,ȱid.ȱatȱ32,ȱthatȱ SiemensȱGamesaȱownedȱ32%ȱofȱWindarȱand,ȱindirectly,ȱWindar’sȱwhollyȬownedȱ manufacturingȱsubsidiariesȱandȱthatȱthereȱwereȱoverlappingȱboardsȱofȱdirectors.ȱȱWhileȱ noȱpartyȱdisputesȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱisȱaȱholdingȱcompany,ȱdefendantȬintervenorȱ makesȱtheȱblanketȱassertionȱthatȱ“SGREȱS.A.ȱisȱaȱholdingȱcompanyȱthatȱisȱnotȱinvolvedȱinȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ16ȱ ȱ theȱproduction,ȱsales,ȱorȱexportȱofȱsubjectȱmerchandise.”ȱȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ10ȱ(emphasisȱ added).ȱ InȱsupportȱofȱitsȱargumentȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱwasȱimproperlyȱinvestigated,ȱ theȱCoalitionȱdirectsȱtheȱcourt’sȱattentionȱtoȱaȱcommonȱdefinitionȱofȱtheȱtermȱ“holdingȱ company.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ11ȱ(quotingȱBlack’sȱLawȱDictionaryȱ(12thȱed.ȱ2024)ȱ(“Aȱcompanyȱformedȱ toȱcontrolȱotherȱcompanies,ȱusu.ȱconfiningȱitsȱroleȱtoȱowningȱstockȱandȱsupervisingȱ management.ȱȱItȱdoesȱnotȱparticipateȱinȱmakingȱdayȬtoȬdayȱbusinessȱdecisionsȱinȱthoseȱ companies.”)).ȱȱThisȱargumentȱisȱnotȱpersuasive.ȱȱEvenȱwereȱitȱassumed,ȱarguendo,ȱthatȱ SiemensȱGamesaȱdidȱnotȱparticipateȱinȱtheȱ“dayȬtoȬday”ȱproduction,ȱsales,ȱorȱexportȱ decisionsȱofȱWindarȱandȱtheȱWindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiaries,ȱitȱwouldȱnotȱ necessarilyȱfollowȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱhadȱnoȱinvolvementȱinȱtheȱproduction,ȱsales,ȱorȱ exportȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱsuchȱthatȱCommerceȱwasȱrequiredȱtoȱrescindȱtheȱ investigationȱofȱSiemensȱGamesa.ȱȱByȱbroadlyȱdefiningȱtheȱtermȱ“exporterȱorȱproducer”ȱ asȱ“theȱexporterȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱtheȱproducerȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱorȱ both,”ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(28),ȱtheȱTariffȱActȱlargelyȱleftȱitȱupȱtoȱCommerceȱtoȱdecideȱ whetherȱaȱforeignȱentity’sȱactivitiesȱareȱsufficientȱtoȱqualifyȱitȱasȱanȱexporter,ȱproducer,ȱ orȱbothȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱconductingȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱinvestigation.ȱȱCommerceȱ reasonablyȱlookedȱatȱSiemensȱGamesa’sȱrelationshipsȱwithȱtheȱWindarȱcompaniesȱandȱ theȱrecordȱevidenceȱasȱaȱwholeȱinȱrejectingȱtheȱCoalition’sȱpositionȱthatȱitȱmustȱrescindȱ theȱinvestigationȱofȱSiemensȱGamesa.ȱȱDefendantȬintervenorȱpointsȱtoȱnothingȱinȱtheȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ17ȱ ȱ statuteȱorȱtheȱDepartment’sȱregulationsȱthatȱwouldȱhaveȱcompelledȱCommerceȱtoȱ accedeȱtoȱtheȱCoalition’sȱpositionȱinȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱ DefendantȬintervenorȱcitesȱaȱdecisionȱofȱthisȱCourt,ȱHyundaiȱSteelȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱ States,ȱ45ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ518ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1309,ȱ1332ȱ(2021),ȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ16,ȱbutȱthatȱ caseȱlendsȱnoȱsupportȱtoȱitsȱposition.ȱȱTheȱissueȱinȱtheȱcaseȱwasȱwhetherȱCommerceȱ erredȱinȱdenyingȱanȱuntimelyȱrequestȱofȱtheȱpetitionerȱtoȱrescindȱtheȱreviewȱofȱaȱfreightȱ companyȱthatȱwasȱaffiliatedȱwithȱaȱmandatoryȱrespondentȱandȱthatȱCommerceȱitselfȱ found,ȱonȱrecordȱevidence,ȱnotȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱaȱproducerȱorȱexporterȱbutȱinsteadȱtoȱhaveȱ transportedȱrawȱmaterialsȱtoȱtheȱmandatoryȱrespondent’sȱproductionȱfacilityȱandȱ finishedȱproductȱtoȱcustomers.ȱȱHyundaiȱSteelȱCo.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ518ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1312,ȱ 1329.ȱȱCommerceȱalsoȱconcludedȱthatȱcollapsingȱtheȱaffiliateȱwithȱtheȱmandatoryȱ respondentȱwasȱinappropriate.ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ518ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1329–30.ȱȱReasoningȱ thatȱtheȱuntimelinessȱofȱtheȱpetitioner’sȱrequestȱwasȱnotȱaȱsufficientȱjustificationȱforȱtheȱ refusalȱtoȱrescindȱtheȱreview,ȱthisȱCourtȱheldȱthatȱCommerce,ȱuponȱdeterminingȱthatȱtheȱ freightȱcompanyȱwasȱneitherȱanȱexporterȱnorȱaȱproducer,ȱshouldȱhaveȱrescindedȱtheȱ reviewȱofȱtheȱfreightȱcompanyȱ“onȱitsȱownȱinitiative.”ȱȱId.,ȱ45ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ518ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ atȱ1332.ȱ TheȱcourtȱagreesȱwithȱtheȱCoalitionȱthatȱquestionnaireȱresponsesȱbyȱplaintiffȱinȱ theȱfirstȱremandȱproceedingȱpresentȱinconsistenciesȱasȱtoȱtheȱintendedȱmeaningȱofȱ variousȱreferencesȱthereinȱtoȱ“SGRE.”ȱȱCommerceȱsentȱSiemensȱGamesaȱitsȱ“SectionȱAȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ18ȱ ȱ Questionnaire,”ȱdatedȱFebruaryȱ17,ȱ2023,ȱfollowingȱtheȱFebruaryȱ16,ȱ2023ȱissuanceȱofȱ theȱcourt’sȱdecisionȱinȱSiemensȱGamesaȱI.ȱȱRequestȱforȱInformation,ȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱ Investigation,ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱFeb.ȱ17,ȱ2023),ȱ P.R.R.ȱ1,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ65Ȭ3.ȱȱPlaintiff’sȱresponse,ȱdatedȱMarchȱ10,ȱ2023,ȱstatesȱasȱfollows:ȱ Contractually,ȱSGREȱisȱresponsibleȱforȱmanufacturingȱtheȱtowerȱsectionsȱ andȱdeliveringȱtheȱtowerȱsectionsȱtoȱtheȱsite.ȱȱTheȱcustomersȱareȱ responsibleȱforȱinstallation,ȱwhileȱSGREȱprovidesȱonȬsiteȱtechnicalȱ assistance.ȱȱSGREȱnegotiatesȱdirectlyȱwithȱrawȱmaterialȱsuppliersȱinȱSpain,ȱ andȱsubȬcontractsȱitsȱaffiliateȱtowerȱproducerȱWindarȱRenovablesȱ (“Windar”)ȱtoȱmanufactureȱtheȱtowerȱsections,ȱwithȱcoordination,ȱ consultation,ȱandȱsupervisionȱbyȱSGRE.ȱ ȱ AntidumpingȱDutyȱInvestigationȱofȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpain:ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ RenewableȱEnergyȱSectionȱAȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱ2ȱ(Mar.ȱ10,ȱ2023),ȱP.R.R.ȱ8–40,ȱECFȱ No.ȱ65Ȭ4ȱ(“SectionȱAȱQuestionnaireȱResponse”).ȱȱTheȱ“CertificationȱinȱAccordanceȱwithȱ 19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.303(g)(l),”ȱincludedȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱthatȱquestionnaireȱresponse,ȱ statesȱasȱfollows:ȱ I,ȱDomenicoȱBarger,ȱcurrentlyȱemployedȱbyȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱ Energy,ȱInc.ȱ(SGRE),ȱcertifyȱthatȱIȱpreparedȱorȱotherwiseȱsupervised,ȱonȱ behalfȱofȱSGREȱandȱitsȱaffiliatesȱ(collectively,ȱ”SGRE”),ȱtheȱpreparationȱofȱ theȱattachedȱsubmissionȱofȱSGRE’sȱSectionȱAȱresponseȱconcerningȱUtilityȱ WindȱTowersȱfromȱSpain,ȱdatedȱMarchȱ10,ȱ2023,ȱpursuantȱtoȱtheȱ AntidumpingȱOrdersȱonȱUtilityȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpainȱ(AȬ469Ȭ823).ȱ ȱ Id.ȱatȱCertification.ȱȱAsȱshownȱinȱthisȱexcerpt,ȱtheȱcertificationȱusesȱtheȱabbreviationȱ “SGRE”ȱtoȱreferȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱtheȱU.S.ȱaffiliate,ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergy,ȱInc.,ȱ butȱalsoȱtoȱ“SGREȱandȱitsȱaffiliatesȱ(collectively,ȱ‘SGRE’),”ȱwhichȱwouldȱincludeȱ SiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱS.A.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ19ȱ ȱ Theȱquestionnaireȱresponseȱalsoȱusesȱtheȱabbreviationȱ“SGRE”ȱtoȱreferȱsolelyȱtoȱ SiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱS.A.,ȱsee,ȱe.g.,ȱid.ȱatȱ9ȱ(describingȱ“SGRE”ȱasȱ“aȱ publiclyȱtradedȱcompany”ȱwithȱsharesȱlistedȱonȱSpanishȱstockȱexchanges),ȱbutȱitȱusesȱ theȱsameȱabbreviationȱtoȱreferȱmoreȱbroadlyȱtoȱaȱgroupȱofȱcompaniesȱthatȱincludesȱtheȱ producerȱ“Windar/SGRE”ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱU.S.ȱimporter,ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱ Energy,ȱInc.:ȱ“Duringȱtheȱperiodȱofȱinvestigation,ȱSGREȱimportedȱWindar/SGREȱ producedȱwindȱtowerȱsectionsȱintoȱtheȱUnitedȱStates,ȱthenȱincorporatedȱthoseȱwindȱ towersȱintoȱsalesȱofȱwindȱturbines.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ4.ȱȱTheȱquestionnaireȱresponseȱstates:ȱ“SGREȱ isȱpartȱofȱtheȱSiemensȱGamesaȱgroupȱofȱcompaniesȱownedȱbyȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ RenewableȱEnergy,ȱSA.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ6.ȱȱOnȱtheȱsameȱpage,ȱitȱstatesȱthat:ȱ Inȱaȱfewȱregions,ȱSGREȱisȱalsoȱengagedȱinȱprojectȱdevelopment.ȱȱSGREȱisȱ presentȱinȱmoreȱthanȱ90ȱcountriesȱaroundȱtheȱworld,ȱandȱitsȱturbinesȱareȱ installedȱinȱmoreȱthanȱ70ȱcountries.ȱȱItȱoperatesȱmoreȱthanȱ15ȱ manufacturingȱplantsȱinȱoverȱ10ȱcountriesȱandȱhasȱapproximatelyȱ40ȱsalesȱ officesȱ(asȱofȱJuneȱ30,ȱ2020).ȱ ȱ Id.5ȱ Despiteȱtheȱconfusingȱreferencesȱinȱtheȱquestionnaireȱresponse,ȱtheȱcourtȱdoesȱ notȱviewȱtheȱrecordȱevidence,ȱconsideredȱonȱtheȱwhole,ȱasȱsufficientȱtoȱhaveȱcompelledȱ ȱ ȱThereȱareȱsimilarlyȱconfusingȱreferencesȱinȱSiemensȱGamesa’sȱquestionnaireȱ responsesȱfromȱtheȱsecondȱremandȱproceeding,ȱfollowingȱtheȱcourt’sȱdecisionȱinȱSiemensȱ GamesaȱRenewableȱEnergyȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ47ȱCITȱ__,ȱ659ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1343ȱ(2023).ȱȱSee,ȱe.g.,ȱ AntidumpingȱDutyȱInvestigationȱofȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱfromȱSpain:ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ RenewableȱEnergyȱSectionsȱB–EȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱCȬ17ȱ(Oct.ȱ16,ȱ2023),ȱ2P.R.R.ȱ5–6,ȱ ECFȱNo.ȱ88Ȭ3ȱ(referringȱtoȱ“windȱtowerȱsectionsȱexportedȱandȱimportedȱbyȱSGRE”ȱ withoutȱdefiningȱ“SGRE”).ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ20ȱ ȱ Commerceȱtoȱreachȱaȱfinding,ȱasȱtheȱCoalitionȱadvocates,ȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ10,ȱthatȱ SiemensȱGamesaȱhadȱnoȱroleȱwhatsoeverȱinȱtheȱproduction,ȱsale,ȱorȱexportȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱ merchandise.ȱȱInȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱevidenceȱofȱSiemensȱGamesa’sȱownershipȱinterestsȱinȱ theȱWindarȱcompaniesȱandȱtheȱoverlappingȱboardsȱofȱdirectors,ȱCommerceȱnotedȱ evidenceȱofȱintertwinedȱoperations.ȱȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ32ȱ&ȱn.91ȱ(citingȱ CollapsingȱMemorandumȱ7);ȱSectionȱAȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱ13,ȱ15,ȱ16ȱ&ȱExhibitȱAȬ4S.ȱȱ Commerceȱfoundȱalsoȱthatȱ“SGREȱperformsȱanȱessentialȱroleȱinȱtheȱproductionȱofȱtheȱ windȱtowers”ȱinȱthatȱ“itȱdesignsȱtheȱtowersȱandȱprovidesȱtheȱtechnicalȱdrawingsȱandȱ specificationsȱtoȱWindarȱandȱitsȱmanufacturingȱsubsidiariesȱtoȱfabricateȱthem.”ȱȱSecondȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱ34ȱ(citingȱSectionȱAȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱ28ȱ(“Windarȱgenerallyȱ fabricatesȱtowersȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱtheȱdesignsȱprovidedȱbyȱtheȱcustomerȱ(OEMs).ȱȱ Specifically,ȱWindarȱreceivesȱaȱcompleteȱdocumentationȱpackageȱwhichȱincludesȱtheȱ detailȱdrawingsȱandȱspecificationsȱandȱtheȱfabrication.”)).6ȱȱDefendantȬintervenorȱ contestsȱthisȱfinding,ȱarguingȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱrevealsȱthatȱ“SGREȱS.A.ȱisȱnotȱinvolvedȱinȱ theȱrelevantȱsalesȱorȱproductionȱdecisions,”ȱandȱthatȱtheseȱfunctionsȱinsteadȱwereȱ performedȱbyȱaffiliatesȱofȱSiemensȱGamesaȱthatȱareȱnotȱcompaniesȱinȱSpain.ȱȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱ Commentsȱ12–13.ȱȱCommerceȱpermissiblyȱfoundȱtoȱtheȱcontrary.ȱȱSee,ȱe.g.,ȱSecondȱ

ȱ 6ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱisȱaȱcustomerȱofȱWindarȱbecauseȱitȱmakesȱ“purchasesȱfromȱ WindarȱRenovables.”ȱȱSeeȱLessȬThanȬFairȬValueȱInvestigationȱofȱUtilityȱScaleȱWindȱTowersȱ fromȱSpain:ȱResponseȱtoȱQuantityȱandȱValueȱQuestionnaireȱAttachmentȱ1ȱ(Dec.ȱ7,ȱ2020),ȱ P.R.ȱ84,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ41.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ21ȱ ȱ RemandȱRedeterminationȱ37ȱn.117ȱ(“Insofarȱasȱtheȱpetitioner’sȱargumentsȱareȱthatȱ agreementsȱbetweenȱpartiesȱinvolveȱSGREȱaffiliatesȱnotȱlocatedȱinȱSpain,ȱtheȱ agreementsȱcoverȱSGREȱandȱareȱapplicableȱtoȱit.”).ȱȱTheȱpossibilityȱthatȱtwoȱoppositeȱ findingsȱcouldȱbeȱdrawnȱfromȱtheȱsameȱrecordȱevidenceȱdoesȱnotȱcompelȱtheȱconclusionȱ thatȱtheȱagency’sȱdecisionȱwasȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidence.ȱȱConsoloȱv.ȱFed.ȱ Mar.ȱComm’n,ȱ383ȱU.S.ȱ607,ȱ620ȱ(1966).ȱ Inȱsummary,ȱCommerceȱactedȱonȱtheȱuncontestedȱfindingsȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ ownedȱ32%ȱofȱWindarȱand,ȱindirectly,ȱtheȱWindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiariesȱandȱthatȱ thereȱwereȱoverlappingȱboardsȱofȱdirectors.ȱȱWhileȱdefendantȬintervenorȱcontestsȱtheȱ Department’sȱfindingsȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱhadȱaȱroleȱinȱtheȱproductionȱofȱwindȱ towers,ȱCommerceȱreasonablyȱconsideredȱtheȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱwholeȱinȱrejectingȱtheȱ Coalition’sȱpositionȱthatȱCommerceȱhadȱnoȱalternativeȱtoȱrescindingȱtheȱinvestigationȱasȱ toȱSiemensȱGamesa.7ȱ

ȱ ȱDefendantȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱCoalitionȱhasȱwaivedȱitsȱobjectionȱtoȱtheȱ Department’sȱinvestigatingȱSiemensȱGamesaȱandȱitsȱrelatedȱobjectionȱtoȱtheȱ Department’sȱincludingȱSiemensȱGamesaȱinȱtheȱcollapsedȱentity.ȱȱDefendant’sȱ CommentsȱinȱSupportȱofȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ6–7ȱ(Aug.ȱ21,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ85ȱ (citingȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱWindȱTowerȱTradeȱCoalition’sȱCommentsȱonȱRemandȱ Redeterminationȱ(Julyȱ17,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ59,ȱinȱwhichȱdefendantȬintervenorȱcommentedȱ inȱsupportȱofȱtheȱinvestigationȱofȱSiemensȱGamesaȱandȱtheȱcollapsingȱdetermination).ȱȱ BecauseȱCommerceȱaddressedȱbothȱissuesȱonȱtheȱmeritsȱinȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱ Redetermination,ȱtheȱcourtȱdoesȱnotȱdecideȱeitherȱissueȱonȱtheȱgroundȱofȱwaiver.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ22ȱ ȱ E.ȱȱTheȱDecisionȱtoȱCollapseȱSiemensȱGamesaȱwithȱWindarȱandȱtheȱWindarȱ ManufacturingȱSubsidiariesȱ ȱ TheȱCoalitionȱarguesȱthatȱcollapsingȱSiemensȱGamesaȱwithȱWindarȱandȱtheȱ WindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiariesȱwasȱimpermissibleȱbecauseȱSiemensȱGamesa,ȱinȱitsȱ view,ȱdoesȱnotȱqualifyȱasȱaȱ“producer.”ȱȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ16–19.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱrejectsȱ thisȱargumentȱforȱtheȱreasonsȱdiscussedȱpreviously.ȱȱItȱnowȱconsidersȱtheȱCoalition’sȱ separateȱargumentȱthat,ȱtheȱinvestigationȱissueȱaside,ȱcollapsingȱwasȱimproperȱunderȱ theȱDepartment’sȱregulation,ȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.401(f),ȱbecauseȱSiemensȱGamesaȱdoesȱnotȱ exerciseȱ“significantȱleverageȱoverȱWindar’sȱoperations,”ȱbecauseȱitȱ“hasȱnoȱfacilitiesȱ thatȱcouldȱbeȱretooledȱforȱproduction,”ȱandȱbecauseȱitȱ“doesȱnotȱsetȱtheȱpricesȱorȱ overseeȱdayȬtoȬdayȱoperationsȱofȱtheȱcompaniesȱinȱwhichȱitȱholdsȱequityȱasȱaȱminorityȱ shareholder.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ17–18.ȱ Inȱparagraphȱ(1)ȱofȱsectionȱ351.401(f),ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱregulationȱcontainsȱaȱ “general”ȱprovisionȱasȱfollows:ȱȱȱ Inȱgeneral.ȱȱInȱanȱantidumpingȱproceedingȱunderȱthisȱpart,ȱtheȱSecretaryȱ[ofȱ Commerce]ȱwillȱtreatȱtwoȱorȱmoreȱaffiliatedȱproducersȱasȱaȱsingleȱentityȱ whereȱthoseȱproducersȱhaveȱproductionȱfacilitiesȱforȱsimilarȱorȱidenticalȱ productsȱthatȱwouldȱnotȱrequireȱsubstantialȱretoolingȱofȱeitherȱfacilityȱinȱ orderȱtoȱrestructureȱmanufacturingȱprioritiesȱandȱtheȱSecretaryȱconcludesȱ thatȱthereȱisȱaȱsignificantȱpotentialȱforȱtheȱmanipulationȱofȱpriceȱorȱ production.ȱ ȱ 19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.401(f)(1).ȱȱThisȱ“general”ȱprovisionȱisȱnotableȱforȱwhatȱitȱdoesȱnotȱsay:ȱitȱ doesȱnotȱprovideȱthatȱtheȱsituationȱdescribedȱinȱparagraphȱ(1)ȱisȱtheȱonlyȱsituationȱinȱ whichȱtheȱSecretaryȱwillȱcollapseȱtwoȱorȱmoreȱaffiliatedȱproducers.ȱȱCommerceȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ23ȱ ȱ permissiblyȱhasȱinterpretedȱ§ȱ351.401(f)ȱtoȱallowȱforȱcollapsingȱevenȱwhenȱanȱentityȱ lacksȱproductionȱfacilities,ȱstatingȱinȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱthatȱ “Commerceȱcan,ȱandȱfrequentlyȱdoes,ȱcollapseȱresellersȱandȱotherȱnonȬproducingȱ entitiesȱ(i.e.,ȱthoseȱwithoutȱproductionȱfacilities)ȱintoȱsingleȱentitiesȱthatȱareȱsubjectȱtoȱ individualȱexamination.”ȱȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ35ȱ(footnoteȱomitted).ȱȱȱ Paragraphȱ(2)ȱofȱsectionȱ351.401(f)ȱprovidesȱasȱfollows:ȱ Significantȱpotentialȱforȱmanipulation.ȱȱInȱidentifyingȱaȱsignificantȱpotentialȱ forȱtheȱmanipulationȱofȱpriceȱorȱproduction,ȱtheȱfactorsȱtheȱSecretaryȱmayȱ considerȱinclude:ȱ(i)ȱTheȱlevelȱofȱcommonȱownership;ȱ(ii)ȱTheȱextentȱtoȱ whichȱmanagerialȱemployeesȱorȱboardȱmembersȱofȱoneȱfirmȱsitȱonȱtheȱ boardȱofȱdirectorsȱofȱanȱaffiliatedȱfirm;ȱandȱ(iii)ȱWhetherȱoperationsȱareȱ intertwined,ȱsuchȱasȱthroughȱtheȱsharingȱofȱsalesȱinformation,ȱ involvementȱinȱproductionȱandȱpricingȱdecisions,ȱtheȱsharingȱofȱfacilitiesȱ orȱemployees,ȱorȱsignificantȱtransactionsȱbetweenȱtheȱaffiliatedȱproducers.ȱ ȱ 19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.401(f)(2).ȱ TheȱCoalitionȱacknowledgesȱthatȱCommerceȱhasȱaȱpracticeȱofȱcollapsingȱ producersȱwithȱ“nonȬproducers,”ȱbutȱitȱdoesȱnotȱchallengeȱthisȱpracticeȱperȱse.ȱȱSeeȱ Def.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ16–17.ȱȱInstead,ȱitȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱpractice,ȱasȱtheȱCoalitionȱ interpretsȱit,ȱshouldȱnotȱhaveȱbeenȱappliedȱinȱtheȱsituationȱpresented.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ17.ȱȱ AccordingȱtoȱitsȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱDepartment’sȱpractice,ȱ“[t]heȱcircumstancesȱinȱ whichȱCommerceȱwillȱcollapseȱproducersȱwithȱnonȬproducersȱisȱlimitedȱtoȱinstancesȱ whereȱtheȱcompaniesȱunquestionablyȱhaveȱsufficientlyȱintertwinedȱoperationsȱ presentingȱaȱconcernȱthatȱthereȱmayȱbeȱaȱ‘significantȱpotentialȱforȱtheȱmanipulationȱofȱ priceȱorȱproduction’ȱandȱinȱsituationsȱwhereȱ‘theȱnonȬproducerȱcouldȱnonethelessȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ24ȱ ȱ behaveȱlikeȱaȱproducer.’”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ17ȱn.4ȱ(citingȱRebarȱTradeȱActionȱCoal.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ 43ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ398ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3d.ȱ1359,ȱ1369ȱ(2019)ȱ(inȱturnȱcitingȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ §ȱ351.401(f)(2)(i)–(ii))).ȱȱInȱtheȱCoalition’sȱview,ȱ“[s]uchȱconcernsȱareȱnotȱapparentȱinȱtheȱ instantȱcaseȱasȱSGREȱS.A.ȱisȱdemonstrablyȱuninvolvedȱinȱtheȱproductionȱandȱsaleȱofȱtheȱ windȱtowersȱatȱissue,ȱandȱnoȱrecordȱevidenceȱdemonstratesȱaȱdesireȱonȱtheȱbehalfȱofȱ SGREȱS.A.ȱforȱfutureȱinvolvementȱinȱsuchȱendeavors.”ȱȱId.ȱ TheȱcourtȱrejectsȱdefendantȬintervenor’sȱargumentȱthatȱCommerceȱexceededȱtheȱ boundsȱofȱitsȱownȱpractice.ȱȱAsȱtheȱcourtȱexplainedȱpreviously,ȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱdidȱ notȱcompelȱCommerceȱtoȱfind,ȱasȱtheȱCoalitionȱadvocates,ȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ10,ȱthatȱ SiemensȱGamesaȱhadȱnoȱroleȱwhatsoeverȱinȱtheȱproduction,ȱsaleȱorȱexportȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱ merchandise.ȱȱCommerceȱdisagreedȱwithȱtheȱCoalition’sȱpositionȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ wasȱ“demonstrablyȱuninvolvedȱinȱtheȱproductionȱandȱsaleȱofȱtheȱwindȱtowersȱatȱissue,”ȱ id.ȱatȱ17ȱn.4,ȱandȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱsupportsȱCommerceȱinȱthatȱregard.ȱȱCommerceȱ foundȱaȱ“significantȱpotentialȱforȱtheȱmanipulationȱofȱpriceȱorȱproduction,”ȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ §ȱ351.401(f),ȱbasedȱinȱpartȱonȱtheȱuncontestedȱfindingsȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱownedȱ32%ȱ ofȱWindarȱduringȱtheȱPOI,ȱthatȱ“theȱcompaniesȱhadȱoverlappingȱmanagersȱandȱboardsȱ ofȱdirectors,”ȱthatȱthereȱwasȱ“significantȱrepresentationȱofȱSGREȱonȱWindar’sȱboard,”ȱ andȱthatȱtheȱWindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiariesȱareȱ“governedȱbyȱtopȱmanagementȱ withinȱtheȱWindarȱgroup.”ȱȱCollapsingȱMemorandumȱ7–8,ȱ7ȱn.37.ȱȱCommerceȱreachedȱaȱ generalȱconclusionȱthatȱ“theȱoperationsȱofȱSGREȱandȱWindarȱwereȱintertwined.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ25ȱ ȱ 7,ȱ8.ȱȱWhileȱdefendantȬintervenorȱmaintainsȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ“wouldȱhaveȱtoȱ overcomeȱsignificantȱbarriersȱ(i.e.,ȱsetȱupȱproductionȱfacilities,ȱhireȱaȱworkȱforce,ȱretainȱaȱ customerȱbase,ȱandȱprocureȱmachinery,ȱrawȱmaterials,ȱandȱotherȱsupplies)ȱtoȱestablishȱ itselfȱasȱaȱproducer,”ȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ17ȱn.4,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱcriteriaȱareȱ addressedȱtoȱtheȱ“significantȱpotentialȱforȱtheȱmanipulationȱofȱpriceȱorȱproduction,”ȱ 19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.401(f)ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱBasedȱonȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱconsideredȱonȱ theȱwhole,ȱCommerceȱconcludedȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesa,ȱWindar,ȱandȱtheȱWindarȱ ManufacturingȱSubsidiariesȱshouldȱbeȱtreatedȱ“asȱaȱsingleȱentityȱforȱpurposesȱofȱ[its]ȱ analysisȱinȱthisȱproceeding.”ȱȱCollapsingȱMemorandumȱ9.ȱ F.ȱȱDeterminationȱofȱConstructedȱExportȱPriceȱ Underȱsectionȱ731ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1673,ȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱisȱ imposedȱ“inȱanȱamountȱequalȱtoȱtheȱamountȱbyȱwhichȱtheȱnormalȱvalueȱexceedsȱtheȱ exportȱpriceȱ(orȱtheȱconstructedȱexportȱprice)ȱforȱtheȱmerchandise.”ȱȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1673.ȱȱ Sectionȱ773(a)ȱrequiresȱthatȱCommerceȱmakeȱaȱ“fairȱcomparison”ȱbetweenȱtheȱU.S.ȱ price,ȱi.e.,ȱtheȱexportȱpriceȱorȱconstructedȱexportȱprice,ȱandȱtheȱnormalȱvalueȱofȱtheȱ subjectȱmerchandise.ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677b(a).ȱ TheȱTariffȱActȱdefinesȱ“exportȱprice”ȱasȱ“theȱpriceȱatȱwhichȱtheȱsubjectȱ merchandiseȱisȱfirstȱsoldȱ(orȱagreedȱtoȱbeȱsold)ȱbeforeȱtheȱdateȱofȱimportationȱbyȱtheȱ producerȱorȱexporterȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱoutsideȱofȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱtoȱanȱ unaffiliatedȱpurchaserȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱorȱtoȱanȱunaffiliatedȱpurchaserȱforȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ26ȱ ȱ exportationȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱStates,ȱasȱadjustedȱunderȱsubsectionȱ(c).”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677a(a).ȱȱ Constructedȱexportȱpriceȱisȱ“theȱpriceȱatȱwhichȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱisȱfirstȱsoldȱ(orȱ agreedȱtoȱbeȱsold)ȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱbeforeȱorȱafterȱtheȱdateȱofȱimportationȱbyȱorȱforȱ theȱaccountȱofȱtheȱproducerȱorȱexporterȱofȱsuchȱmerchandiseȱorȱbyȱaȱsellerȱaffiliatedȱ withȱtheȱproducerȱorȱexporter,ȱtoȱaȱpurchaserȱnotȱaffiliatedȱwithȱtheȱproducerȱorȱ exporter,ȱasȱadjustedȱunderȱsubsectionsȱ(c)ȱandȱ(d).”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677a(b).ȱȱStatedȱgenerally,ȱ subsectionsȱ(c)ȱandȱ(d),ȱreadȱtogether,ȱrequireȱtheȱdeductionȱfromȱtheȱstartingȱpriceȱof,ȱ interȱalia,ȱfreight,ȱsellingȱexpenses,ȱcostȱofȱfurtherȱmanufactureȱorȱassembly,ȱandȱprofit.ȱȱ Id.ȱ§ȱ1677a(c)–(d).ȱ Theȱdecisionȱwhetherȱtoȱuseȱanȱexportȱpriceȱorȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱasȱtheȱ U.S.ȱpriceȱdependsȱonȱwhetherȱtheȱsaleȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStates,ȱbyȱorȱforȱtheȱaccountȱofȱtheȱ foreignȱexporterȱorȱproducer,ȱwasȱaȱsaleȱtoȱanȱunaffiliatedȱpurchaser.ȱȱIfȱitȱwasȱnot,ȱthenȱ CommerceȱmustȱdetermineȱU.S.ȱpriceȱbyȱtheȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱmethod.ȱȱBecauseȱ theȱU.S.ȱsalesȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱtoȱunaffiliatedȱpartiesȱwereȱmadeȱbyȱaȱU.S.ȱ affiliateȱofȱtheȱcombinedȱSGRE/Windarȱentityȱ(SiemensȱGamesaȱRenewableȱEnergy,ȱ Inc.),ȱCommerceȱusedȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱinȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱ SecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ21–22,ȱ35.ȱ ThereȱisȱnoȱdisputeȱthatȱCommerceȱwasȱrequiredȱtoȱuseȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱ inȱtheȱinvestigation.ȱȱTheȱdisputeȱpertainsȱinsteadȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱmethodȱofȱ determiningȱtheȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱwindȱtowers.ȱȱThisȱdisputeȱaroseȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ27ȱ ȱ becauseȱofȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱindividualȱpricesȱforȱtheȱresaleȱofȱsubjectȱwindȱtowersȱtoȱ unaffiliatedȱU.S.ȱpurchasers,ȱtheȱwindȱtowersȱhavingȱbeenȱsuppliedȱonlyȱasȱcomponentsȱ inȱcompleteȱwindȱturbineȱprojects.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ22.ȱȱToȱaddressȱthisȱproblem,ȱCommerceȱ performedȱaȱcomplexȱsetȱofȱcalculations,ȱwhichȱtheȱcourtȱdescribesȱbelow.ȱ Duringȱtheȱremandȱproceeding,ȱCommerceȱdirectedȱplaintiff,ȱusingȱwhatȱ Commerceȱtermedȱ“granularȱprojectȱworksheets”ȱ(theȱ“Worksheets”)ȱtoȱallocateȱtheȱ totalȱrevenueȱreceivedȱbyȱtheȱU.S.ȱaffiliateȱforȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱprojectsȱ“toȱtheȱ individualȱcomponentsȱofȱtheȱwindȱturbines”ȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱcost.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ47–48.ȱȱAsȱ Commerceȱdescribedȱitsȱquestionnaire:ȱ“BecauseȱSGRE/Windarȱsellsȱcompleteȱprojectsȱ (i.e.,ȱmultipleȱassembledȱwindȱturbines)ȱtoȱunaffiliatedȱU.S.ȱcustomers,ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ[w]eȱ instructedȱSGRE/Windarȱtoȱuseȱtheȱgranularȱprojectȱworksheets,ȱwhichȱcontainȱprojectȱ costsȱbyȱcomponentȱ(someȱofȱwhichȱareȱbasedȱonȱtransferȱprice)ȱandȱprojectȱrevenue”ȱtoȱ performȱtheȱallocation.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ48.ȱȱCommerceȱinstructedȱthatȱtheȱtotalȱ“projectȱcost”ȱforȱ eachȱwindȱturbineȱprojectȱshouldȱbeȱallocatedȱ“toȱbothȱ‘theȱrelevantȱcomponentsȱ(e.g.,ȱ tower,ȱblades,ȱnacelle)ȱandȱservicesȱ(e.g.,ȱdelivery,ȱcommissioning)’”ȱandȱ“didȱnotȱ instructȱSGRE/Windarȱtoȱspecificallyȱexcludeȱanyȱitemsȱfromȱtheȱallocation.”ȱȱId.ȱ (quotingȱSecondȱSectionsȱABCȱSupplementalȱQuestionnaireȱ5ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱDec.ȱ29,ȱ 2023)).8ȱ

ȱ ȱTheȱquestionnaireȱisȱmissingȱfromȱtheȱrecordȱtheȱpartiesȱsubmittedȱtoȱtheȱcourt.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ28ȱ ȱ Commerceȱexplainedȱthatȱtoȱavoidȱtheȱuseȱofȱtransferȱpricesȱforȱwindȱtowersȱthatȱ wereȱsuppliedȱbyȱtheȱSGRE/Windarȱentity,ȱi.e.,ȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱitȱdidȱnotȱuseȱtheȱ costsȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱsubjectȱwindȱtowersȱasȱreportedȱonȱtheȱWorksheets.ȱȱId.ȱ atȱ46–47.ȱȱInstead,ȱCommerceȱusedȱcostȱofȱproductionȱ(“COP”)ȱdataȱforȱtheȱindividualȱ windȱtowerȱ“sections”ȱidentifiedȱbyȱcontrolȱnumberȱ(“CONNUM”),ȱeachȱofȱwhichȱhadȱ itsȱownȱindividualȱcostȱofȱproduction,ȱstatingȱthatȱitȱ“revisedȱtheȱgrossȱunitȱpriceȱusedȱ inȱourȱmarginȱcalculationsȱtoȱbeȱbasedȱonȱaȱCONNUMȬspecific,ȱCOPȬbasedȱratio.”ȱȱId.ȱ atȱ47.ȱȱItȱdidȱsoȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱCoalition’sȱcommentsȱonȱaȱdraftȱversionȱofȱtheȱresultsȱ ofȱtheȱsecondȱremand.ȱȱId.ȱȱCommerceȱexplained,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱitȱusedȱtransferȱpricesȱforȱ “windȱtowersȱandȱwindȱtowerȱaccessories”ȱthatȱtheȱU.S.ȱaffiliate,ȱSiemensȱGamesaȱ RenewableȱEnergy,ȱInc.ȱ(“SGREȱInc.”),ȱpurchasedȱfromȱ“unaffiliatedȱsuppliers,”ȱwhichȱ itȱ“combinedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱwithȱitsȱpurchasesȱofȱSGRE/Windar’sȱwindȱtowers/accessoriesȱforȱsomeȱ ofȱtheȱcostȱelementsȱinȱitsȱprojectȱsheets.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ48ȱn.150.ȱȱCommerceȱaddedȱthatȱ“[i]nȱ suchȱcases,ȱweȱacceptedȱSGREȱInc.’sȱdata,ȱasȱreported.”ȱȱId.ȱȱForȱtheȱsubjectȱwindȱtowerȱ componentsȱsuppliedȱbyȱtheȱSGRE/Windarȱentity,ȱCommerceȱindicatedȱthatȱitȱusedȱaȱ “revisedȱCOPȱcalculatedȱinȱtheȱcomparisonȱmarketȱprogram.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ47ȱn.147.ȱȱ Commerceȱstatedȱthatȱitsȱ“revisedȱmethodologyȱallowsȱCommerceȱtoȱdifferentiateȱtheȱ pricesȱforȱeachȱwindȱtowerȱsectionȱtype,ȱbyȱassigningȱaȱhigherȱpercentageȱofȱtheȱpriceȱtoȱ thoseȱproductsȱforȱwhichȱSGRE/Windarȱincursȱgreaterȱcosts.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ47.ȱȱCommerceȱ describedȱitsȱcalculationȱmethodȱasȱfollows:ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ29ȱ ȱ Toȱdoȱthis,ȱweȱsummedȱtheȱreportedȱtotalȱCOPȱforȱeachȱofȱtheȱsectionȱ typesȱforȱeachȱU.S.ȱprojectȱtoȱobtainȱaȱtotalȱCOPȱforȱtheȱentireȱwindȱtowerȱ (i.e.,ȱtheȱcompleteȱmultiȬsectionȱwindȱtowerȱasȱsoldȱtoȱtheȱunaffiliatedȱU.S.ȱ customer).ȱȱWeȱthenȱdeterminedȱtheȱratioȱthatȱeachȱsectionȱtypeȱwasȱofȱtheȱ totalȱwindȱtowerȱCOP.ȱȱUsingȱtheȱtotalȱrevenueȱattributableȱtoȱtheȱwindȱ towersȱforȱeachȱU.S.ȱprojectȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ,ȱweȱappliedȱtheȱindividualȱCONNUMȱcostȱ ratiosȱforȱtheȱsectionȱtypeȱcategoriesȱtoȱtheȱtotalȱtowerȱrevenue.ȱȱWeȱthenȱ dividedȱtheȱresultingȱvalueȱbyȱtheȱnumberȱofȱsectionsȱofȱthatȱCONNUMȱ soldȱinȱeachȱU.S.ȱprojectȱtoȱarriveȱatȱaȱpriceȱperȱsection.ȱ ȱ Id.ȱatȱ47–48.ȱȱCommerceȱexplained,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱitȱmadeȱpreȬallocationȱdeductionsȱfromȱ theȱgrossȱrevenueȱshownȱonȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱinvoicesȱonlyȱforȱfreightȱandȱ“logistics.”ȱȱ Id.ȱatȱ49.ȱ DefendantȬintervenorȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱconstructedȱvalueȱ determinationȱisȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidence,ȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ20–28,ȱbutȱ clarifiesȱthatȱitȱisȱnotȱobjectingȱtoȱtheȱgeneralȱcalculationȱmethodȱdescribedȱabove,ȱid.ȱ atȱ20ȱ(“Asȱanȱinitialȱmatter,ȱWTTCȱsupportsȱtheȱgeneralȱcalculationȱmethodologyȱofȱtheȱ grossȱunitȱpriceȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise.”).ȱȱȱ TheȱCoalitionȱobjects,ȱinstead,ȱtoȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱinvoiceȱpricesȱforȱtheȱwindȱ turbineȱprojectsȱtoȱcalculateȱtheȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱwindȱtowers,ȱ arguingȱthatȱ“[d]ueȱtoȱ[the]ȱuseȱofȱtheȱtotalȱrevenueȱreceivedȱbyȱSGREȱInc.ȱforȱtheȱwindȱ turbineȱprojects,ȱtheȱdumpingȱmarginȱcalculatedȱforȱSGREȱS.A./WindarȱforȱtheȱSecondȱ FinalȱRemandȱResultsȱwasȱarbitrarilyȱdeflated.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ20.ȱȱMaintainingȱthatȱ “Commerce’sȱcurrentȱcalculationȱcontainsȱrevenueȱnotȱattributableȱtoȱtheȱsubjectȱ merchandise,”ȱid.ȱatȱ23,ȱtheȱCoalitionȱarguesȱthatȱ“Commerce’sȱuseȱofȱtheȱtotalȱinvoiceȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ30ȱ ȱ priceȱ(whichȱincludesȱservicesȱandȱcomponentsȱthatȱdoȱnotȱrelateȱtoȱwindȱtowerȱ sections)ȱasȱtheȱfigureȱusedȱtoȱallocateȱtheȱCONNUMȬspecificȱgrossȱunitȱpricesȱofȱtheȱ subjectȱmerchandise”ȱshouldȱbeȱheldȱ“toȱbeȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidence,”ȱid.ȱ atȱ27–28.ȱȱȱ TheȱCoalitionȱadvocatesȱthatȱCommerceȱshouldȱhaveȱusedȱanȱalternativeȱmethodȱ toȱdetermineȱconstructedȱexportȱprice,ȱarguingȱthatȱCommerceȱwasȱrequiredȱ“toȱ considerȱrelevantȱevidenceȱwhichȱdemonstratedȱthatȱtheȱappropriateȱrevenueȱfiguresȱ couldȱbeȱascertainedȱfromȱspecificȱlineȱitemsȱtoȱtheȱwindȱturbinesȱonȱtheȱgranularȱ projectȱworksheets.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ21.ȱȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱCoalition’sȱviewȱofȱtheȱrecordȱevidence,ȱ theȱWorksheetsȱidentifiedȱrevenueȱattributedȱtoȱsubjectȱwindȱtowersȱandȱtherebyȱ providedȱ“aȱmoreȱappropriateȱrevenueȱlineȱitemȱforȱcalculatingȱgrossȱunitȱprices,”ȱid.ȱ atȱ22,ȱthatȱisȱ“theȱonlyȱappropriateȱrevenueȱfigureȱonȱtheȱrecordȱtoȱestablishȱtheȱgrossȱ unitȱpricesȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise,”ȱid.ȱatȱ23.ȱ TheȱCoalitionȱdoesȱnotȱmakeȱoutȱaȱprimaȱfacieȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ methodȱofȱdeterminingȱconstructedȱexportȱpricesȱforȱsubjectȱwindȱtowersȱwasȱ impermissible.ȱȱTheȱCoalitionȱisȱcorrectȱthatȱtheȱtotalȱrevenueȱshownȱonȱtheȱinvoicesȱforȱ theȱwindȱturbineȱprojectsȱincludedȱsomeȱrevenueȱrealizedȱfromȱtheȱinclusionȱinȱtheȱ projectsȱofȱvariousȱcomponentsȱandȱservicesȱthatȱwereȱunrelatedȱtoȱtheȱsubjectȱwindȱ towers.ȱȱNevertheless,ȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱinvoicesȱwereȱonlyȱtheȱstartingȱpointȱforȱtheȱ Department’sȱanalysis.ȱȱDescribedȱinȱgeneralȱterms,ȱtheȱsecondȱstepȱinȱtheȱanalysisȱwasȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ31ȱ ȱ theȱallocation,ȱbasedȱonȱrelativeȱcost,ȱofȱrevenueȱbetweenȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱ(onȱaȱ “sectionȬtype”ȱbasis)ȱandȱtheȱotherȱindividualȱelementsȱonȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱinvoices.ȱȱ TheȱCoalitionȱdoesȱnotȱbackȱupȱitsȱclaimȱwithȱaȱdemonstrationȱfromȱrecordȱevidenceȱ thatȱthisȱsecondȱstepȱwasȱaȱmisallocation.ȱȱAbsentȱsuchȱaȱdemonstration,ȱtheȱcourtȱ cannotȱconcludeȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱmethodȱresultedȱinȱaȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱ calculationȱthat,ȱasȱtheȱCoalitionȱargues,ȱid.ȱatȱ23,ȱwasȱunlawfulȱdueȱtoȱ“revenueȱnotȱ attributableȱtoȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise”ȱorȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱmethodȱ“presentsȱaȱ significantȱproblemȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱdiminishedȱaccuracyȱofȱtheȱcalculation,”ȱid.ȱatȱ23–24.ȱ InsteadȱofȱmakingȱpreȬallocationȱdeductionsȱforȱcomponentsȱandȱservicesȱ unrelatedȱtoȱtheȱwindȱtowerȱsections,ȱCommerceȱreliedȱuponȱtheȱWorksheetsȱtoȱallocateȱ revenueȱtoȱtheȱnonȬsubjectȱcomponents,ȱandȱtoȱtheȱservices,ȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱrelativeȱcost.ȱȱ Inȱdoingȱso,ȱCommerceȱmadeȱnoȱpreȬallocationȱdeductionsȱfromȱtheȱrevenueȱshownȱonȱ theȱwindȱturbineȱinvoicesȱotherȱthanȱthoseȱforȱfreightȱandȱotherȱlogisticsȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱ windȱturbinesȱasȱaȱwholeȱ(whichȱdeductionsȱitȱmadeȱtoȱderiveȱ“theȱequivalentȱofȱanȱexȬ worksȱprice”).ȱȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ49ȱ(“Givenȱthatȱtheȱfreightȱexpensesȱ differ,ȱsometimesȱmarkedly,ȱbetweenȱtheȱwindȱtowersȱandȱtheȱotherȱcomponents,ȱweȱ findȱthatȱitȱisȱmoreȱaccurateȱtoȱremoveȱtheȱfreightȱexpensesȱfromȱtheȱprojectȱpriceȱbeforeȱ performingȱtheȱallocation.”).ȱȱRatherȱthanȱshowȱthatȱthisȱmethodȱnecessarilyȱ misallocatedȱtheȱrevenueȱrealizedȱfromȱtheȱwindȱtowerȱprojects,ȱdefendantȬintervenorȱ arguesȱthatȱitsȱalternativeȱmethodȱnotȱonlyȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱsuperiorȱtoȱtheȱmethodȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ32ȱ ȱ Commerceȱemployedȱbutȱalsoȱwasȱtheȱonlyȱpermissibleȱmethodȱavailable.ȱȱTheȱreasonsȱ itȱoffersȱareȱnotȱpersuasive.ȱ TheȱCoalitionȱidentifiesȱvariousȱitemsȱasȱunrelatedȱtoȱtheȱsubjectȱwindȱtowers,ȱ Def.ȬInt.’sȱCommentsȱ21–22,ȱgivingȱasȱexamplesȱ“elevators”ȱandȱcharacterizingȱanotherȱ itemȱ(theȱ“SCADAȱPowerȱManager”)ȱasȱ“notȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱsaleȱofȱtheȱwindȱtowersȱtoȱtheȱ unaffiliatedȱcustomer,”ȱid.ȱatȱ22ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱThisȱobjectionȱisȱunconvincingȱnotȱ onlyȱinȱfailingȱtoȱplaceȱtheȱunrelatedȱitemsȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱsecondȱstepȱinȱtheȱ Department’sȱanalysisȱbutȱalsoȱinȱoverlookingȱthatȱthereȱwasȱnoȱindividualȱsaleȱofȱtheȱ windȱtowersȱtoȱtheȱunaffiliatedȱcustomer.ȱȱHadȱthereȱbeenȱsuchȱaȱsale,ȱCommerceȱ wouldȱnotȱhaveȱhadȱoccasionȱtoȱresortȱtoȱanȱallocationȱmethod.ȱȱLackingȱactualȱresaleȱ pricesȱtoȱunrelatedȱpurchasersȱforȱtheȱsubjectȱwindȱtowersȱorȱtheȱindividualȱwindȱtowerȱ sections,ȱCommerceȱreasonablyȱbeganȱitsȱcalculationȱusingȱrevenueȱshownȱonȱtheȱwindȱ turbineȱprojectȱinvoices.ȱȱUnlikeȱtheȱlineȱitemsȱonȱtheȱWorksheetsȱlistingȱrevenueȱ associatedȱwithȱsubjectȱwindȱtowers,ȱwhichȱtheȱCoalitionȱarguesȱCommerceȱshouldȱ haveȱused,ȱtheȱrevenueȱshownȱonȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱprojectȱinvoicesȱwasȱfoundȱbyȱ Commerceȱtoȱbeȱrevenueȱthatȱactuallyȱwasȱrealizedȱinȱsalesȱtoȱunrelatedȱpurchasers.ȱȱSeeȱ SecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ47ȱn.147ȱ(rejectingȱtheȱCoalition’sȱalternativeȱmethodȱ becauseȱitȱ“usesȱaȱpriceȱthatȱisȱnotȱtheȱverified,ȱinvoicedȱprojectȱpriceȱtoȱtheȱunaffiliatedȱ U.S.ȱcustomer”);ȱseeȱalsoȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱ16ȱ(contrastingȱactualȱrevenueȱfromȱpaymentsȱtoȱ SGREȱInc.ȱwithȱ“anȱinternalȱprofitȱworksheet”).ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ33ȱ ȱ DefendantȬintervenor’sȱmethodȱandȱtheȱoneȱusedȱbyȱCommerceȱdifferȱinȱtheȱ treatmentȱofȱprofit.ȱȱDefendantȬintervenor’sȱalternativeȱmethodȱwouldȱuseȱtheȱrevenueȱ allocationsȱtoȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱasȱshownȱonȱtheȱWorksheetsȱwhileȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ methodȱwouldȱuseȱaȱuniformȱprofitȱrate.ȱȱTheȱCoalitionȱdoesȱnotȱdemonstrateȱthatȱitsȱ methodȱisȱsuperiorȱinȱthatȱrespect.ȱȱByȱbeginningȱwithȱtheȱtotalȱprojectȱrevenueȱandȱ makingȱallocationsȱofȱthatȱrevenueȱbasedȱonȱrelativeȱcost,ȱCommerceȱmadeȱaȱ methodologicalȱchoiceȱtoȱassumeȱaȱuniformȱprofit.ȱȱSeeȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ48ȱ (statingȱthatȱCommerceȱ“didȱnotȱinstructȱSGRE/Windarȱtoȱspecificallyȱexcludeȱanyȱ itemsȱfromȱtheȱallocation”).ȱȱAsȱdefendantȱdescribesȱthisȱmethod,ȱ“Commerceȱdidȱnotȱ ascertainȱvaryingȱratesȱofȱprofitȱamongȱtheȱdifferentȱcomponents;ȱthatȱis,ȱtheȱallocationȱ assumedȱaȱconsistentȱrateȱofȱprofitȱacrossȱtheȱturbineȱprojects.”ȱȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱ18.ȱȱ Commerceȱstatedȱthatȱuseȱofȱtheȱtotalȱinvoiceȱpriceȱasȱtheȱstartingȱpriceȱforȱtheȱ constructedȱexportȱpriceȱcalculationȱforeclosedȱaȱpossibilityȱthatȱprofitsȱcouldȱbeȱshiftedȱ fromȱsomeȱitemsȱinȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱprojectsȱtoȱothers.ȱȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ 47ȱn.147.ȱ TheȱCoalitionȱarguesȱthatȱ“[i]nȱtheȱinstantȱsituationȱthereȱisȱnoȱevidenceȱthatȱ profitsȱwereȱshiftedȱtoȱattributeȱadditionalȱprofitȱtoȱtheȱwindȱtowers,”ȱDef.ȬInt.’sȱ Commentsȱ27,ȱbutȱthisȱobjectionȱmissesȱtheȱpoint.ȱȱInȱtheȱsituationȱpresented,ȱinȱwhichȱ theȱwindȱtowersȱwereȱnotȱsoldȱindividuallyȱtoȱanȱunrelatedȱpurchaserȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱ States,ȱCommerceȱmadeȱaȱreasonableȱmethodologicalȱchoiceȱtoȱuseȱaȱuniformȱprofitȱrateȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ34ȱ ȱ thatȱwasȱgroundedȱinȱrecordȱevidenceȱofȱactualȱrevenue,ȱi.e.,ȱtheȱwindȱturbineȱinvoices.ȱȱ ThatȱchoiceȱmadeȱitȱunnecessaryȱforȱCommerceȱtoȱconsiderȱwhetherȱtheȱrevenueȱlineȱ itemsȱonȱtheȱWorksheets,ȱwhichȱtheȱCoalitionȱarguesȱCommerceȱshouldȱhaveȱused,ȱ wereȱdistortedȱbyȱmisallocatedȱprofit.ȱȱOnȱaȱrecordȱthatȱdidȱnotȱincludeȱresalesȱofȱ subjectȱmerchandiseȱtoȱunrelatedȱpurchasersȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStates,ȱitȱwasȱreasonableȱforȱ Commerceȱtoȱobtainȱandȱapplyȱaȱuniformȱprofitȱrate.ȱ Inȱsummary,ȱtheȱCoalitionȱpresentsȱanȱalternativeȱmethodȱofȱdeterminingȱ constructedȱexportȱpriceȱwithoutȱdemonstratingȱthatȱtheȱmethodȱCommerceȱchoseȱ insteadȱwasȱunreasonableȱonȱtheȱrecordȱbeforeȱit.ȱȱCourtsȱaffordȱCommerceȱ considerableȱdeferenceȱinȱdeterminationsȱ“involv[ing]ȱcomplexȱeconomicȱandȱ accountingȱdecisionsȱofȱaȱtechnicalȱnature,”ȱFujitsuȱGen.ȱLtd.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ88ȱF.3dȱ 1034,ȱ1039ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ1996),ȱalthoughȱtoȱbeȱaffordedȱjudicialȱdeferenceȱCommerceȱstillȱ mustȱprovideȱanȱadequateȱexplanationȱandȱitsȱultimateȱdeterminationȱmustȱbeȱlawfulȱ andȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidence,ȱseeȱVicentinȱS.A.I.C.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ44ȱCITȱ__,ȱ __,ȱ466ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1227,ȱ1235ȱ(2020).ȱȱTheȱcourtȱconcludesȱthatȱCommerceȱprovidedȱaȱ reasonedȱexplanationȱforȱitsȱmethodȱofȱdeterminingȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱforȱtheȱ subjectȱwindȱtowers.ȱȱInȱcontestingȱthisȱmethod,ȱdefendantȬintervenorȱdoesȱnotȱshowȱ thatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱofȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱwasȱunsupportedȱbyȱ substantialȱrecordȱevidenceȱorȱotherwiseȱcontraryȱtoȱlaw.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00449ȱ ȱ Pageȱ35ȱ ȱ III.ȱȱCONCLUSIONȱ TheȱcourtȱsustainsȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱinȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱ Redeterminationȱassigningȱaȱdumpingȱmarginȱofȱ28.55%ȱtoȱtheȱentityȱcomprisedȱofȱ SiemensȱGamesa,ȱWindar,ȱandȱtheȱWindarȱManufacturingȱSubsidiaries.ȱ TheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱremediedȱtheȱdeficienciesȱtheȱcourtȱ identifiedȱinȱSiemensȱGamesaȱIȱandȱSiemensȱGamesaȱII.ȱȱForȱtheȱreasonsȱdiscussedȱabove,ȱ theȱcourtȱrejectsȱdefendantȬintervenor’sȱclaimsȱthatȱSiemensȱGamesaȱshouldȱnotȱhaveȱ beenȱinvestigated,ȱthatȱitȱunlawfullyȱwasȱcollapsedȱwithȱWindarȱandȱtheȱWindarȱ ManufacturingȱSubsidiaries,ȱandȱthatȱCommerceȱunlawfullyȱdeterminedȱtheȱ constructedȱexportȱpriceȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise.ȱ TheȱcourtȱwillȱenterȱjudgmentȱsustainingȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ /s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ TimothyȱC.ȱStanceuȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Judgeȱ ȱ Dated:ȱJanuaryȱ28,ȱ2025ȱ ȱ ȱNewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ