Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. v. United States, No. 20-00153 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Slip Op. 21-161 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE COLAKOGLU METALURJI A.S. AND COLAKOGLU DIS TICARET A.S., Plaintiffs, v. Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge UNITED STATES, Court No. 20-00153 Defendant, and REBAR TRADE ACTION COALITION, Defendant-Intervenor. OPINION [Denying plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the agency record and sustaining Commerce’s final results of its fourth administrative review of its countervailing duty order covering steel concrete reinforcing bar from the Republic of Turkey.] Dated: December 2, 2021 Jessica R. DiPietro, Arent Fox, LLP, of Washington, D.C. argued for Plaintiffs. Also on the brief was Matthew M. Nolan. Ann C. Motto, Trial Attorney, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C. argued for Defendant. Also on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and L. Misha Preheim, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Reza Karamloo, Senior Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C. Maureen E. Thorson, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, D.C. argued for DefendantIntervenor. Also on the brief were Alan H. Price and John R. Shane. Court No. 20-00153 Page 2 Kelly, Judge: %HIRUH WKH FRXUW LV SODLQWLIIV dRODNRùOX 0HWDOXUML $ 6 ·V DQG dRODNRùOX 'LV 7LFDUHW $ 6 ·V FROOHFWLYHO\ ´dRODNRùOX”) motion for judgment on the agency record pursuant to U.S. Court of International Trade Rule 56.2. >dRODNRùOX·V@ Mot. for J. on Agency R., Jan. 26, 2021, ECF No. 22- ´3O 0RW µ ; see also [Pl. Mot.] and Memo. of Law in Supp. of [Pl. Mot.], Jan. 26, 20 (&) 1R ´3O %U µ . dRODNRùOX DVNV WKH FRXUW WR UHMHFW WKH 8 6 'HSDUWPHQW RI &RPPHUFH·V ´&RPPHUFHµ LPSRVLWLRQ RI D FRXQWHUYDLOLQJ GXW\ ´&9'µ RQ dRODNRùOX SXUVXDQW WR &RPPHUFH·V final results of its fourth administrative review of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey, 79 Fed. Reg. 65, 'HS·W RI &RPPHUFH 1RY >&9'@ RUGHU ´Rebar from Turkey”). Pl. Br. at 2, 10; see also Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey )HG 5HJ , 'HS·W RI Commerce -XO\ ILQDO UHVXOWV DQG SDUWLDO UHVFLVVLRQ RI >&9'@ DGPLQ. review; 2017), PD138, 1 ECF No. 19- ´Final Results”), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo., C- -819 -XO\ , PD135, ECF No. 19- ´Final Decision Memo”). SpecifiFDOO\ dRODNRùOX argues that Commerce’s decision to pull forward dRODNRùOX·V &9' UDWH IURP &RPPHUFH·V SULRU DGPLQLVWUDWLYH UHYLHZ ZDV FRQWUDU\ WR ODZ LQ WKDW DFFRUGLQJ WR dRODNRùOX &RPPHUFH ZDV REOLJDWHG WR FDOFXODWH dRODNRùOX·V rate by averaging the de minimis rates of the two mandatory respondents. Pl. Br. at On October 21, 2020, Defendant filed indices to the public and confidential administrative records underlying Commerce’s final determination. See ECF No. 191–2. Citations to administrative record documents in this opinion are to the numbers Commerce assigned to such documents in the indices, and all references to such documents are preceded b\ ´3'µ or ´&'µ WR GHQRWH SXEOLF RU FRQILGHQWLDO GRFXPHQWV 1 Court No. 20-00153 Page 3 5–8; see also 5HSO\ %U RI >dRODNRùOX@ – -XQH (&) 1R ´5HSO\ %U µ dRODNRùOX IXUWKHU DVVHUWV WKDW its rate is unsupported by substantial evidence because the record lacks any information that would support the imposition of its rate. Pl. Br. at 8–10; Reply Br. at 6–9. Defendant United States and Defendant-Intervenor Rebar Trade Action &RDOLWLRQ ´57$&µ oppose the motion on the grounds that Commerce could use any reasonablH PHWKRG WR FDOFXODWH dRODNRùOX·V UDWH DYHUDJLQJ WKH PDQGDWRU\ respondents’ de minimis rates would not have been reasonably reflective of dRODNRùOX·V DFWXDO UDWH and Commerce followed its past practice in pulling dRODNRùOX·V UDWH IRUZDUG IURP WKH SULRU Ddministrative review. See Def.’s Resp. to [Pl. Mot.], 5– 0D\ (&) 1R ´'HI %U µ ; [RTAC’s] Resp. Br., 7–11, May (&) 1R ´57AC Br.”). Defendant further argues that dRODNRùOX·V rate is supported by substantial evidence becausH dRODNRùOX previously availed itself of a subsidy program in the prior administrative review and offers no evidence that it has stopped using that program. Def. Br. at 12–13; see also RTAC Br. at 11–13. For the following reasons, Commerce’s Final Results are sustained. BACKGROUND &RPPHUFH SXEOLVKHG D &9' RUGHU FRYHULQJ VWHHO FRQFUHWH UHLQIRUFLQJ EDU ´UHEDU” IURP WKH 5HSXEOLF RI 7XUNH\ ´7XUNH\µ RQ 1RYHPEHU See Rebar from Turkey. Commerce administratively reviewed Rebar from Turkey on an annual basis IRU WKH \HDUV DQG SULRU WR LQLWLDWLQJ WKH IRXUWK DGPLQLVWUDWLYH Court No. 20-00153 Page review, which is the subject of this action. See [Rebar] from [Turkey], 82 Fed. Reg. 26, 'HS·W RI &RPPHUFH -XQH ILQDO UHVXOWV DQG SDUWLDO Uescission of >&9'@ DGPLQ rHYLHZ ´ )LQDO 5HVXOWV”) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo., C- -819, bar code 3578880-01 ´ ,'0µ ; [Rebar] from [Turkey], 83 Fed. Reg. 16,051 'HS·W RI &RPPHUFH April 13, 2018) final results and partial UHVFLVVLRQ RI >&9'@ DGPLQ UHYLHZ ´2015 Final Results”) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo., C- -819, bar code 3692588-01 ´ IDM”); [Rebar] from [Turkey] )HG 5HJ , 'HS·W RI &RPPHUFH -XO\ ) final results and partiaO UHVFLVVLRQ RI >&9'@ DGPLQ UHYLHZ ´2016 Final Results”) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo., C- -819, bar code 3866067-01 ´ 6 IDM”); see also Final Results. In two of three prior administrative reviews, Commerce selected dRODNRùOX as a mandatory respondent, but did not select it as a mandatory respondent in the fourth administrative review. See )LQDO 5HVXOWV, 82 Fed. Reg. at 26, dRODNRùOX QRW selected as mandatory respondent); 2015 Final Results, 83 Fed. Reg. at 16,051–52 dRODNRùOX VHOHFWHG DV PDQGDWRU\ UHVSRQGHQW ; 2016 Final Results, 8 Fed. Reg. at 36,051 dRODNRùOX VHOHFWHG DV PDQGDWRU\ UHVSRQGHQW Memo. from C. Monks to E. <DQJ UH >5HEDU@ IURP >7XUNH\@ 5HVSRQGHQW 6HOHFWLRQ LQ >&9'@ $GPLQ 5HYLHZ IRU 2017, 1–3, PD2 &' EDU FRGHV -01, 3830691-01 0D\ ´5HVSRQGHQW Selection Memo”). ,Q ERWK WKH DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLYH UHYLHZV RI Rebar from Turkey dRODNRùOX UHFHLYHG GH PLQLPLV UDWHV See )LQDO 5HVXOWV, 82 Fed. Reg. Court No. 20-00153 Page 5 at 26,908; 2015 Final Results, 83 Fed. Reg. at 16,051–53. ,Q WKH DGPLQVLWUDWLYH review, Commerce assigned all non-selected respondents de minimis rates because all mandatory respondents received de minimis rates. )LQDO 5HVXOWV, 82 Fed. Reg. at 26,908–09. In the 2015 administrative review, Commerce determined that dRODNRùOX purchased natural gas from Born Hatlan Ile Petrol Tasima A.S. ´%27$6µ D VWDWH-run company through which the Turkish government provides subsidies to Turkish companies by selling natural gas for less than adequate UHPXQHUDWLRQ ´/7$5µ . 2015 Final Results; 2015 IDM at 5; see also Final Decision Memo at 13, 35. However, Commerce determined that dRODNRùOX SDLG PDUNHW UDWHV and thus was not subject to countervailing duties. 2015 Final Results; 2015 IDM at 5, 15. ,Q WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH UHYLHZ &RPPHUFH DJDLQ IRXQG WKDW dRODNRùOX SXUFKDVHG QDWXUDO JDV IURP %27$6 EXW DOVR GHWHUPLQHG WKDW dRODNRùOX SXUFKDVHG the gas for LTAR. 2016 Final Results; 2016 IDM at 8. Therefore, Commerce assigned dRODNRùOX D &9' UDWH IRU WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH UHYLHZ 2016 Final Results, )HG 5HJ at 36,052. dRODNRùOX QRZ EULQJV WKLV FKDOOHQJH WR WKH Final Results of the fourth administrative review of Rebar from Turkey, which covers the period of January 1, WKURXJK 'HFHPEHU WKH ´325µ . Pl. Br. at 1; see also Final Results, 85 )HG 5HJ DW ,353. dRODNRùOX, which was not selected as a mandatory respondent, VSHFLILFDOO\ FKDOOHQJHV &RPPHUFH·V GHFLVLRQ WR DVVLJQ WR dRODNRùOX D VXEVLG\ rate when both examined respondents received de minimis rates. Pl. Br. at 3– – Court No. 20-00153 Page 6 9; Final Results, 85 Fed Reg. at ,355. &RPPHUFH FDOFXODWHG dRODNRùOX·V rate by SXOOLQJ IRUZDUG dRODNRùOX·V UDWH IURP WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH UHYLHZ )LQDO 'HFLVLRQ 0HPR DW +RZHYHU dRODNRùOX DUJXHV WKDW the statutory scheme precludes &RPPHUFH IURP SXOOLQJ IRUZDUG dRODNRùOX·V SULRU UDWH DQG that there is no record evideQFH WR VXSSRUW WKH UDWH EHFDXVH dRODNRùOX ZDV QRW VHOHFWHG DV D mandatory respondent and thus the record is devoid of any company-specific LQIRUPDWLRQ WR VXSSRUW dRODNRùOX·V UDWH. Pl. Br. at 8–10; Reply Br. at 6–7. For the following reasons, CommerFH·V GHFLVLRQ WR DVVLJQ dRODNRùOX D &9' UDWH LV sustained. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW This court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, DV DPHQGHG 8 6 & D D % LLL 8), 2 and 28 U.S.C. § F 8), which grant the court authority to review actions contesting the final determination in an administrative review of a &9' order. The court will uphold Commerce’s GHWHUPLQDWLRQ XQOHVV LW LV ´XQVXSSRUWHG E\ VXEVWDQWLDO HYLGHQFH RQ WKH UHFRUG or RWKHUZLVH QRW LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK ODZ µ 8 6 & D E % L DISCUSSION 7KHUH DUH WZR LVVXHV EHIRUH WKH FRXUW )LUVW dRODNRùOX FRQWHQGV WKDW Commerce acted contrary to ODZ E\ DVVLJQLQJ dRODNRùOX D &9' UDWH EHFDXVH Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant provisions of Title 19 of the U.S. Code, 2018 edition. 2 Court No. 20-00153 Page 7 Commerce was obligated to calculate its rate pursuant to the so-FDOOHG ´H[SHFWHG method” set forth in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103- YRO , DW UHSULQWHG LQ 8 6 & & $ 1 ´6$$µ . See PO %U DW 6HFRQG dRODNRùOX DVVHUWV WKDW even if Commerce did not err as a matter of law, the &9' UDWH LV QRW VXSSRUWHG by substantial evidence on the record. Id. at 9. Defendant and RTAC each argue that dRODNRùOX PLVLQWHUSUHWV WKH UHOHYDQW ODZ, that the expected method is only presumed LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI DQWLGXPSLQJ GXW\ ´$''µ LQYHVWLJDWLRQV and that the statute empowers &RPPHUFH WR XVH DQ\ UHDVRQDEOH PHWKRG WR FDOFXODWH dRODNRùOX·V UDWH Def. Br. at 6–12; RTAC Br. at 7–11. Defendant and RTAC further argue that Commerce reasonably chose not to use the ADD expected method in calculating dRODNRùOX·V UDWH EHFDXVH WKH PDQGDWRU\ UHVSRQGHQWV· UDWHV ZHUH QRW UHDVRQDEO\ UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI dRODNRùOX’s experience LQ OLJKW RI dRODNRùOX·V KLVWRU\ RI SXUFhasing gas from BOTAS for LTAR. Def. Br. at 11; RTAC Br. at 11. Finally, Defendant and 57$& DUJXH WKDW &RPPHUFH·V UDWH IRU dRODNRùOX LV VXSSRUWHG E\ VXEVWDQWLDO HYLGHQFH because it is based on the 2016 Final Results. Def. Br. at 12–13; RTAC Br. at 11–13. I. Commerce’s Methodology ,Q D &9' DGPLQLVWUDWLYH UHYLHZ &RPPHUFH JHQHUDOO\ FDOFXODWHV WKH UDWH IRU companies that are not individually examined by calculaWLQJ WKH ´ZHLJKWHG DYHUDJH countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and Court No. 20-00153 any rates entirely determined [using facts otherwise available].” Page 8 19 U.S.C. § 1671d F $ L +RZHYHU Zhen all mandatory respondents in an administrative UHYLHZ RI D &9' RUGHU DUH DVVLJQHG GH PLQLPLV UDWHV &RPPHUFH ´PD\ XVH DQ\ reasonable method to establish [rates] for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.” Id. § G F $ LL The SAA reiterates that ´>Z@KHUH WKH FRXQWHUYDLODEOH VXEVLG\ rates for all exporters and producers examined are zero or de minimis . . . [19 U.S.C. G F $ LL @ DXWKRUL]HV &RPPHUFH WR XVH DQ\ UHDVRQDEOH PHWKRGµ WR FDOFXODWH rates for non-examined companies. 3 6$$ DW Despite the apparently broad discretion the statute grants to Commerce in calculating non-examined companies’ rates when all examined respondents are DVVLJQHG GH PLQLPLV UDWHV DV LV WKH FDVH KHUH dRODNRùOX SRLQWV WR WKH VLPLODU provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 which cover antidumping investigations to argue that Congress also imposed a reqXLUHPHQW WKDW &RPPHUFH XVH DQ ´H[SHFWHG PHWKRGµ in such situations LQ &9' LQYHVWLJDWLRQV DQG UHYLHZV. See Pl. Br. at 6–7 FLWLQJ 8 6 & G F A) and SAA at 873); see also Reply Br. at 3–5. Although 7KH 6$$ ´VKDOO EH UHJDUGHG DV DQ DXWKRULWDWLYH H[SUHVVLRQ E\ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV concerning the interpretation and application of the Uruguay Round Agreements and this Act in any judicial proceeding in which a question arises concerning such interpretation RU DSSOLFDWLRQ µ 8 6 & G dRODNRùOX FLWHV 8 6 & G F $ EXW WKH UHOHYDQW VXEVHFWLRQ LV 8 6 & G F % 3 Court No. 20-00153 Page 9 dRODNRùOX is correct that the sections of the Tariff Act of 1930 applicable to Commerce’s calculations of non-VHOHFWHG UHVSRQGHQWV· $'' DQG &9' UDWHV ZKHQ DOO mandatory respondents receive de minimis rates are nearly identical, the corresponding explanations of those sections in the SAA are not. Compare 19 U.S.C. G F $ LL &9'V with id. G F % $''V compare 6$$ DW &9'V with id. DW $''V Both sections of the U.S. Code state that when all mandatory respondents receive de minimis UDWHV &RPPHUFH ´PD\ XVH DQ\ UHDVRQDEOH PHWKRG WR HVWDEOLVK the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually examined, LQFOXGLQJ DYHUDJLQJ WKH HVWLPDWHG ZHLJKWHG DYHUDJH >&9' $''@ PDUJLQV determined for the exporters and producers individually examined.” Id. G F $ LL DQG G F % However, the SAA provides that, in the antidumping context, when all mandatory respondents receive a de minimis rate, [t]he expected method [for calculating an all-others rate] will be to weight-average the zero and de minimis margins and margins determined pursuant to the facts available, provided that volume data is available. However, if this [expected] method is not feasible, or if it results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or producers, Commerce may use other reasonable methods. SAA at 873. Although the SAA does not contain any similar language regarding an expected method for calculating all otKHUV UDWHV LQ WKH &9' FRQWH[W dRODNRùOX nonetheless contends that because the sections of the U.S. Code governing Commerce’s role in calculating an all-others rate when all mandatory respondents Court No. 20-00153 Page 10 receive de minimis rates are so similar, the court should read into the SAA’s section on all-RWKHUV &9' UDWHV WKH VDPH H[SHFWHG PHWKRG LQFOXGHG LQ WKH $'' FRQWH[W 3O Br. at 6–7; Reply Br. at 3–5. &RQWUDU\ WR dRODNRùOX·V DUJXPHQW WKDW WKH 6$$ FRQWDLQV DQ H[SHFWHG PHWKRG in the ADD context and not in WKH &9' FRQWH[W GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW WKHUH LV QR H[SHFWHG PHWKRG LQ WKH &9' FRQWH[W &RQJUHVV FRXOG KDYH HDVLO\ LQFOXGHG WKH VDPH language in both sections or even combined the sections into one if it had intended to place the exact same restrictions on Commerce in both contexts. Instead, Congress chose to elucidate an expected method of calculating an all-others rate when all mandatory respondents receive de minimis rates only in the ADD context. Compare SAA at 873 with id. DW :KHUH &Rngress chooses to include certain language in one section of a statute and not in another similar section, courts must interpret that choice as intentionally excluding the wording where it is absent. See, e.g., I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca 8 6 . Although the relevant sections of the U.S. Code are quite similar, the SAA is the authoritative interpretation of those sections of Code, and there is an explicit difference in the SAA’s description of how Commerce may calculate all-RWKHUV UDWHV LQ WKH &9' FRQWext as opposed to the ADD context. Compare 8 6 & G F $ LL &9'V with id. G F % $''V compare 6$$ DW &9'V with id. DW $''V Even though the SAA is not a statute, it is reasonable to interpret the explicit difference between the ADD Court No. 20-00153 Page 11 DQG &9' VHFWLRQV RI WKH 6$$ LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH WUDGLWLRQDO FDQRQ RI statutory construction that the difference is intentional. Cardoza-Fonseca 8 6 DW Such an interpretation reflects the GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ $'' DQG &9' investigations. As Commerce explains, as opposed to an ADD investigation in which &RPPHUFH DQDO\]HV FRPSDQLHV· ´SULFLQJ EHKDYLRU µ LQ D &9' LQYHVWLJDWLRQ, ´&RPPHUFH·V FRQFHUQ LV ZLWK JRYHUQPHQW VXEVLGL]DWLRQ DQG WKH H[WHQW to which different companies may use or benefit from subsidy programs.” Final Decision 0HPR DW 7KXV &9' UDWHV GHSHQG RQ LQGLYLGXDO FRPSDQLHV’ use of specific subsidy programs. In the ADD context, on the other hand, Commerce must assess pricing behavior based on a comparison between U.S. prices and the respondent’s home country prices. Id.; see also 8 6 & E D 7KH GLIIHUHQW LQTXLULHV &RPPHUFH PXVW PDNH LQ WKH $'' DQG &9' FRQWH[WV VXSSRUW &RPPHUFH·V LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH SAA’s differing explanations for how to calculate rates for non-selected respondents. dRODNRùOX DUJXHs that the relevant provisions of the U.S. Code and the SAA are ambiguous. Pl. Br. at 5–8. However, even if that were true, unless Commerce’s interpretation of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the SAA is unreasonable, the court will defer to Commerce. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Def. Council 8 6 – To the extent any ambiguity exists as a result of the differing explanations in the SAA, Commerce’s interpretation of Congress’ decision not to include the requirement to first consider using the ADD expected method in WKH &9' SURYLVLRQ WR PHDQ WKDW &RPPHUFH ZDV QRW UHTXLUHG WR XVH WKH ADD expected Court No. 20-00153 Page 12 method is reasonable. That Congress wrote the two sections differently is reason enough to interpret the sections as imposing different requirements on Commerce. 7KH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ $'' DQG &9' LQYHVWLJDWLRQV further support Commerce’s interpretation. Moreover, Congress provided in both the Tariff Act of 1930 and the SAA that Commerce may ´XVH DQ\ UHDVRQDEOH PHWKRGµ LQ WKH &9' FRQWH[W ZLWKRXW any reference to a specific method. See 19 U.S.C. § G F $ LL 6$$ DW Thus, absent a specific indication to the contrary, as there is in the ADD context, it is reasonable to conclude that Commerce is not bound to use any particular PHWKRGRORJ\ LQ WKH &9' FRQWH[W RQO\ WKDW WKH FKRVHQ PHWKRGRORJ\ EH UHDVRQDEOH Neither of the cases that dRODNRùOX FLWHV FKDQJH WKLV DQDO\VLV EHFDXVH each FDVH dRODNRùOX FLWHV LQ VXSSRUW RI UHVWULFWLQJ &RPPHUFH WR WKH ADD expected method LQ WKH &9' FRQWH[W relates to $''V QRW &9'V See Albemarle Corp. v. United States, ) G )HG &LU Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States ) G )HG &LU dRODNRùOX KDV QRW LGHQWLILHG DQ\ FDVH ZKHUH &RPPHUFH has been required to follow the ADD H[SHFWHG PHWKRG LQ WKH &9' FRQWH[W 7KHUHIRUH Commerce’s interpretation that it is not obligated to use or consider using the ADD expected method LQ WKH &9' FRQWH[W LV UHDVRQDEOH. Furthermore, that Commerce used the ADD expected method in the )LQDO Results does not require Commerce to do so now. See Final Decision Memo at 31. Commerce’s reliance here on the 2016 Final Results for a rate renders it reasonably GLVFHUQLEOH WKDW &RPPHUFH GLVWLQJXLVKHG LWV FKRLFH LQ WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH UHYLHZ Court No. 20-00153 Page 13 EHFDXVH LQ WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH UHYLHZ WKHUH ZDV QR SUHYLRXVO\ FDOFXODWHG QRQ-de PLQLPLV UDWH IURP dRODNRùOX WR SXOO IRUZDUG Compare )LQDO 5HVXOWV, 82 Fed. Reg. at 26,908–09, with Rebar from Turkey )HG 5HJ DW – 7R EH VXUH the ADD expected method may be a reasonable way to calculate an all-others rate, as it was for the )LQDO 5HVXOWV. But the reasonableness of Commerce’s methodology LQ WKH UHYLHZ GRHV QRW UHQGHU LWV PHWKRGRORJ\ XQUHDVRQDEOH in this review, nor does it constrain Commerce where Commerce encounters a new context supporting a different approach. See 8 6 & G F $ LL 6$$ DW Moreover, even if the statute obligated Commerce to consider using the ADD expected method for calculation of all-others rates in the &9' context, Commerce VXIILFLHQWO\ H[SODLQHG WKDW FDOFXODWLQJ dRODNRùOX·V UDWH XVLQJ WKH ADD expected method of averaging the mandatory respondents’ de minimis rates would not be UHDVRQDEO\ UHIOHFWLYH RI dRODNRùOX·V DFWXDO &9' UDWH )LQDO 'HFLVLRQ 0HPR DW –35. Commerce found that neither mandatory respondent purchased natural gas for LTAR from the BOTAS program during the POR or in the prior review. Id. Yet there is no dispute that the BOTAS program to sell natural gas for LTAR still exists. See id. DW dRODNRùOX GLG QRW SURYLGH DQ\ HYLGHQFH WKDW LW QR ORQJHU SXUFKDVHV QDWXUDO gas from BOTAS for LTAR. Id. DW –35; see 49' )RRG &R Y 8QLWHG 6WDWHV, 658 ) G )HG &LU LW LV WKH SDUWLHV· REOLJDWLRQ WR GHYHORS WKe record, not &RPPHUFH·V %HFDXVH &9' UDWHV GHSHQG XSRQ WKH VSHFLILF VXEVLG\ SURJUDPV XVHG and dRODNRùOX KDG D KLVWRU\ RI SXUFKDVLQJ QDWXUDO JDV IURP %27$6 GXULQJ WKH WZR Court No. 20-00153 Page prior reviews, both for market rates and for LTAR, Commerce concluded that the mandDWRU\ UHVSRQGHQWV· UDWHV ZRXOG QRW UHDVRQDEO\ UHIOHFW dRODNRùOX·V UDWH Final 'HFLVLRQ 0HPR DW –35. Thus, even if Commerce was obligated to consider using the ADD expected method, it adequately explained why using the ADD expected method was not UHDVRQDEO\ UHIOHFWLYH RI dRODNRùOX·V UDWH in this case. See SAA at 873. Not being bound to use the ADD expected method and, in any case, having sufficiently explained why the ADD expected method would not lead to a rate UHDVRQDEO\ UHIOHFWLYH RI dRODNRùOX·s actual rate, Commerce was entitled to use any UHDVRQDEOH PHWKRG WR FDOFXODWH dRODNRùOX·V UDWH 8 6 & 1671d F $ LL 6$$ DW &RPPHUFH H[SODLQHG WKDW LW GHWHUPLQHG WKDW ´D UHDVRQDEOH PHWKRGµ WR calculate all-RWKHUV UDWHV LQ WKH &9' FRQWH[W where all mandatory respondents UHFHLYH GH PLQLPLV UDWHV ´LV WR DVVLJQ WR WKH QRQ-selected respondents the average of the most recently determined rates that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.” 5 )LQDO 'HFLVLRQ 0HPR DW ComPHUFH IXUWKHU H[SODLQHG WKDW ´LI a non-selected respondent has its own calculated rate that is contemporaneous with or more recent than such previous rates, Commerce has found it appropriate to apply that calculated rate to the non-selected respondent, even when that rate is zero or de minimis.” Id. Commerce calculated the rates for the other non-selected respondents in this review by averaging the non-de minimis rates calculated during the 2016 review. The allRWKHUV UDWH IRU WKRVH FRPSDQLHV LV Id. DW 5 Court No. 20-00153 Page 15 Given that Commerce will generally not have any company-specific information about non-selected respondents and the broad statutory authority to use ´DQ\ UHDVRQDEOH PHWKRGµ WR FDOFXODWH UDWHV ZKHQ WKH PDQGDWRry respondents received de minimis rates, the court concludes that Commerce’s chosen method is reasonable. Only mandatory respondents are required to respond to Commerce’s requests for information. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677f- H & ) 5 F Therefore, unless non-selected respondents voluntarily supply information to Commerce, which Commerce can either accept or decline, the only information on the record would be the information that led Commerce to assign de minimis rates to the mandatory respondents. See id. § 1677f- H 19 C.F.R. § G . Thus, by specifically carving out an exception to the general rule that Commerce should calculate all-others rates by using a weighted average of the mandatory respondents’ rates for situations such as this when all mandatory respondents receive de minimis rates, see 19 U.S.C. G F $ L – LL Congress contemplated Commerce pulling forward previously determined rates. In light of this record, it is reasonable for Commerce to use the most recent company-VSHFLILF LQIRUPDWLRQ WR FDOFXODWH dRODNRùOX·V UDWH See Final 'HFLVLRQ 0HPR DW –35. II. Evidence Supporting Commerce’s Rate dRODNRùOX DUJXHV WKDW HYHQ LI &RPPHUFH·V PHWKRG LQ FDOFXODWLQJ dRODNRùOX·V rate was reasonable, the record does not VXSSRUW D &9' UDWH IRU WKLV 325 Pl. Br. at 8–10. Defendant and RTAC assert that any lack of record evidence stems from Court No. 20-00153 Page 16 dRODNRùOX·V IDLOXUH WR VHHN YROXQWDU\ UHVSRQGHQW VWDWXV RU RWKHUZLVH attempt to populate the record. Def. Br. at 13; RTAC Br. at 12. In any case, Defendant and RTAC contend that Commerce need not have relied on any evidence other than the 2016 Final Results EHFDXVH WKHUH ZDV QR HYLGHQFH LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW dRODNRùOX no longer purchased natural gas from BOTAS for LTAR. Def. Br. at 13; RTAC Br. at 12. For WKH IROORZLQJ UHDVRQV &RPPHUFH·V GHFLVLRQ WR DVVLJQ dRODNRùOX D &9' UDWH LV supported by substantial evidence. &RPPHUFH GHWHUPLQHG WKDW dRODNRùOX XWLOL]HG D subsidy program provided by the Turkish government by purchasing natural gas from BOTAS in both 2015 and 2016. See 2015 IDM at 5, 10; 2016 IDM at 8, 16. Commerce explained that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Commerce will assume that a company continues to avail itself of subsidy programs that it has been found to have previously used. Final Decision Memo at +HUH dRODNRùOX RIIHUHG QR HYLGHQFH WKDW LW GLVFRQWLQXHG its use of the BOTAS subsidy program, or that it continued to purchase natural gas from BOTAS but for adequate remuneration. See id. at –35 dRODNRùOX GRHV QRW dispute that it failed to offer any evidence to contradict Commerce’s rate. Pl. Br. at 9. ,QVWHDG dRODNRùOX claims that it was not obligated to place any information on the record and that in the absence of any company-specific information Commerce was prohibited from looking to past reviews and instead was obligated to use the H[SHFWHG PHWKRG ZKLFK dRODNRùOX asserts is the only reasonable method in the absence of record evidence. Id. at 9–10; Oral Argument, 18:10, October 7, 2021, see Court No. 20-00153 Page 17 (&) 1R ´2UDO $UJ µ . This argument simply re-packages dRODNRùOX·V DUJXPHQW that Commerce’s method was contrary to law and is therefore rejected for the same reasons. Moreover, the obligation to populate the record is the parties’, not Commerce’s. 49' )RRG &R ) G DW dRODNRùOX FRQFHGHG DV PXFK DW RUDO DUJXPHQW Oral Arg. at 21:0 . 1RQHWKHOHVV dRODNRùOX admits that it did not even attempt to place any relevant information on the record. Oral Arg. at 16: . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the availability of voluntarily submitted information of non-selected respondents cautions against pulling forward a rate from a prior review in lieu of adopting the de minimis rate of the examined respondents. See Albemarle, 821 F.3d at 135 GUDZLQJ D GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ D QRQ-cooperating party and a party that volunteered for investigation and tried to submit data but was rejected in both instances by Commerce); Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States ) G – )HG &LU ILQGLQJ WKDW ´HIIRUWV LQ YROXQWHHULQJ IRU investigation [and providing extensive information aimed at enabling such review] offer some reason to think that for those firms, unlike for non-volunteer firms, there is no more need for continuing coverage than there is for individually investigated firms” with de minimis rates). The court need not opine on whether Commerce’s determination would be reasonable had Commerce rejected voluntarily submitted evidence of a de minimis or lower rate. Although Commerce would not have been required to accept or review any such information, WKH IDFW WKDW dRODNRùOX GLG QRW Court No. 20-00153 Page 18 offer any leaves it unable to contest &RPPHUFH·V FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW dRODNRùOX FRQWLQXHV to purchase natural gas from BOTAS for LTAR. Although Commerce may not justify ´WKH DEVHQFH RI HYLGHQFH E\ LQYRNLQJ SURFHGXUDO GLIILFXOWLHV WKDW ZHUH DW OHDVW LQ SDUW a creature of its own making,” Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. United States, ) G )HG &LU WKH DEVHQFH RI HYLGHQFH ZDV entirely due to dRODNRùOX·V IDLOXUH WR SURYLGH DQ\ GDWD In light of the record in this case that Commerce determined that BOTAS FRQWLQXHG WR VXSSO\ QDWXUDO JDV IRU /7$5 GXULQJ WKH 325 dRODNRùOX was found to have utilized that subsidy program in each of the prior two periods of review, and dRODNRùOX IDLOHG WR PDNH DQ\ DWWHPSW WR SODFH DQ\ FRQWUDGLFWRU\ LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH record, Commerce’s decision to pull forward dRODNRùOX·V prior rate is supported by substantial evidence. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons dRODNRùOX·V PRWLRQ IRU MXGJPHQW XSRQ WKH DJHQF\ record is denied, and Commerce’s Final Results are sustained. Judgment for defendant will enter accordingly. V Claire R. Kelly Claire R. Kelly, Judge Dated: December 2, 2021 New York, New York

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.