Dorbest Ltd. v. United States

Slip-Op. 06-160

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -x
DORBEST LTD.; RUI FENG WOODWORK :
(DONGGUAN) CO. LTD.; RUI FENG :
LUMBER DEV. (SHENZHEN) CO. LTD., :
:
and :
:
AM. FURNITURE MFRS. COMM. FOR :
LEGAL TRADE; VAUGHAN-BASSETT :
FURNITURE CO. INC.; CABINET :
MAKERS, MILLMEN, & INDUS. :
CARPENTERS LOCAL 721; UBC S. :
COUNCIL OF INDUS. WORKERS LOCAL :
2305; UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AM. :
LOCAL 193U; CARPENTERS INDUS. :
UNION LOCAL 2093; TEAMSTERS, :
CHAUFFEURS,WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS :
LOCAL 991; IUE INDUS. DIV. OF CWA :
LOCAL 82472 :
:
Plaintiffs/Defendant- :
Intervenors, :
:
v. : Before: Pogue, Judge
: Consol. Ct. No. 05-00003
UNITED STATES, :
:
Defendant, :
:
DONGGUAN LUNG DONG/DON HE :
ART HERITAGE INT’L, LTD/SUPER ART :
FURNITURE CO./ARTOWRK METAL & :
PLASTIC CO./JIBSON INDUS. LTD./ :
ALWAYS LOYAL INT’L; FORTUNE GLORY :
LTD. (HK LTD.)/ NANHAI JIANTAI :
WOODWORK CO.; FINE FURNITURE :
(SHANGHAI) LTD.; COASTER CO. OF :
AM.; COLLEZIONE EUROPA, USA, :
INC.; FINE FURNITURE DESIGN & :
MKTG. LLC; GLOBAL FURNITURE, INC.,:
HILLSDALE FURNITURE, LLC; :
KLAUSSNER INT’L, LLC; MAGNUSSEN :
HOME FURNISHINGS INC.; :
L. POWELL CO.; RIVERSEDGE :
FURNITURE CO.; WOODSTUFF MFG. :
INC., D/B/A SAMUEL LAWRENCE; :
SCHNADIG CORP.; GOOD COS.; :
STANDARD FURNITURE MFG. CO. :
:
Defendant-Intervenors. :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----x

[Commerce’s determination sustained in part and remanded in
part].
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 2

Kaye Scholer, LLP (Jeffrey S. Grimson, Donald B. Cameron, Julie
C. Mendoza, R. Will Planert, Brady W. Mills, Jahna M. Hartwig) for
Dorbest Limited et al.;

King & Spalding, LLP (Joseph W. Dorn, Stephen A. Jones, Jeffrey
M. Telep, J. Michael Taylor) for the American Furniture
Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade et al.;

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen,
Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, Commercial
Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Brian
A. Mizoguchi, Michael D. Panzera); Rachel Wenthold and Carrie L.
Owens, Attorneys, Of Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel for Import
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, for the United States
Department of Commerce;

Mowry International Group, LLC (Jill Cramer and Kristin H.
Mowry) on behalf of Art Heritage International, Limited et al.; and

Trade Pacific, PLLC (Robert G. Gosselink) on behalf of Dongguan
Lung Dong/Dong He et al.

OPINION

Decided: October 31, 2006

POGUE, Judge: This matter arises from an affirmative antidumping

duty determination by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) in its

investigation of wooden bedroom furniture from the People’s Republic

of China (“PRC”). Plaintiffs challenge numerous aspects of that

determination here. Before the court are USCIT R. 56.2 Motions for

Judgment on the Agency Record filed by the parties, specifically by

Dorbest Limited et al (“Dorbest” also known as “Respondents”), the

American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade et al.

(“AFMC” also the “Petitioners” in the investigation), and Commerce.

For the reasons set forth below, the court grants in part each of
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 3

these motions and denies in part each of these motions; the court

also reserves decision on several issues pending the results on

remand.

BACKGROUND
A.

On December 17, 2003, Commerce commenced an antidumping

investigation of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC in response

to a petition filed by the domestic industry. See Wooden Bedroom

Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, 68 Fed. Reg. 70,228

(Dep’t Commerce Dec. 17, 2003) (initiation of antidumping duty

investigation).1 The investigation covered more than 211 Chinese

1
In investigations of merchandise produced in non-market
economies (“NMEs”), if the “prices of the goods produced in an
NME are subject to discrepancies which distort their value,”
Magnesium Corp. of Am. v. United States, 20 CIT 1092, 1095, 938
F. Supp. 885, 890 (1996), the antidumping statute authorizes
Commerce to approximate normal value based on the cost of
producing the foreign merchandise (with a margin of profit
factored in), see 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(2000). To value these
factors of production and profit, Commerce must use the “best
available” pricing and cost data for the factors of production
taken from “surrogate” economies/companies. Id.
Antidumping investigations are bifurcated between Commerce
and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”). The ITC makes
injury determinations and Commerce makes less-than-fair value
("LTFV") determinations. If the ITC determines that a domestic
industry is materially injured or is threatened with material
injury and Commerce determines that the merchandise is being
sold at LTFV, Commerce issues an antidumping order directing the
United States Customs Service to collect antidumping duties
“equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export
price (or the constructed export price) for the merchandise.” 19
U.S.C. § 1673 (2000). The “export price” or “constructed export
price” is the price at which the subject merchandise is sold in
(continued...)
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 4

exporters/producers of wooden bedroom furniture making this one of

the largest investigations involving PRC companies. See Wooden

Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 69 Fed. Reg.

35,312, 35,313 (Dep’t Commerce June 24, 2004) (notice of preliminary

determination and postponement of final determination) (“Preliminary

Determination”). The period of investigation (“Period of

Investigation” or “POI”) encompassed imports of the subject

merchandise from April 1, 2003 through September 30, 2003. Commerce

rendered an affirmative less than fair value determination for the

subject merchandise and imposed the antidumping duty order and

dumping margins that are at issue here. Wooden Bedroom Furniture

from the People's Republic of China, 69 Fed. Reg. 67,313, 67,317

(Dep't Commerce Nov. 17, 2004)(notice of final determination of

sales at less than fair value) (“Final Determination”) amended by

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, 70

Fed. Reg. 329, 330 (Dep't Commerce Jan. 4, 2005) (notice of amended

final determination of sales at less than fair market value and

antidumping duty order) (“Amended Final Determination”).

More specifically, Commerce determined that the PRC is an NME

country and that available information did not permit the foreign

market value of the merchandise to be determined as it would in a

1
(...continued)
the United States market. 19 U.S.C. § 1677a. “Normal value” is
the price of the foreign merchandise in its country of origin, in
an appropriate third country, or the foreign product’s cost of
production. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 5

market economy. See Preliminary Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at

35,318. Consequently, Commerce derived the respondent’s normal

value through aggregating the surrogate costs of the factors of

production required to produce the product. See id. at 35,324.

Because of the large number of companies under investigation,

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(2)(B), Commerce limited its

investigation to the seven largest manufacturers of wooden bedroom

furniture from the PRC.2 Among these seven was Respondent Dorbest.

See Preliminary Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 35,318.

In the investigation, Commerce chose India as the surrogate

country and chiefly relied on a data set referred to as the Monthly

Statistics of Foreign Trade in India (“MSFTI”) to value the factors

of production (numbering over 500). Id.; Id. at 35,324; Memorandum

from James H. Jochum to Jeffrey A. May, Issues and Decision

Memorandum for the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Wooden

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, at 41 (Cmt.

2), Dep’t of Commerce (November 8, 2004), P. R. Doc. 1933, available

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/04-25507-1.pdf (“Issues &

Decision Mem.”). Likewise, Commerce used nine financial statements

from Indian companies to calculate profit, overhead, and general

expenses. Id. at 23. For its calculation of the wage rate,

2
Other aspects of Commerce’s final determination here were
challenged in Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United
States, 29 CIT ___, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1298(2005) and Guangzhou
Maria Yee Furnishings, Ltd. v. United States, 29 CIT ___,___, 412
F. Supp. 2d 1301 (2005).
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 6

Commerce ran a regression to determine the relationship between

nations’ per capita Gross National Product and their wage rates;

Commerce then multiplied the resulting coefficient by the PRC’s per

capita gross national product to derive China’s wage rate. See

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China: Final

Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand Orders (Dep’t

Commerce Aug. 1, 2005) (“Remand Determination”).

B.

The court must sustain a final determination in an antidumping

duty investigation if that determination is supported by substantial

evidence on the record and is otherwise in accordance with law. 19

U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i) (2000); Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe,

Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

The parties here have collectively alleged more than a score

of issues requiring review, some with multiple subparts. To issue

a coherent opinion, the court has grouped the issues as follows: (1)

Commerce’s selection of data sets, specifically, (a) Commerce’s use

of Indian surrogate data to value the factors of production,

(b)Commerce’s use of the MSFTI, (c) Commerce’s calculation of the

wage rate, and (d) Commerce’s selection of surrogate companies for

the calculation of profit, overhead, and selling, general and

administrative expenses (collectively “financial ratios”); (2)

Commerce’s valuation of certain specific factors of production; (3)
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 7

other individual company-specific protests; and (4) the application

(or lack thereof) of adverse inferences in Commerce’s selection of

facts otherwise available.

For ease of reference, the discussion is organized as follows:

I. DATA SETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

A. Selection of Surrogate Countries . . . . . . . . . . 15

(1) Evaluation of Indonesian Data . . . . . . . . . 19

(2) Commerce’s finding that India was a producer of the

comparable merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

(4) Weighing the choice between Indonesia and India

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

B. Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade in India . 29

(1) In general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

(2) MSFTI as a primary data set . . . . . . . . . 31

(3) MSFTI as applied to individual factors. . . . . 34

a) Mirrors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

(i) Imported Mirrors As Inputs . . . . . 38

(ii) Glass Yug . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

(iii)Tarun Vadehra, Highland House and

Goldfindo . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

(iv) The MSFTI data is either non-inclusive or

distortive of mirror inputs . . . . 46
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 8

(v) Infodrive India . . . . . . . . . . . 47

(vi) Commerce’s evaluation . . . . . . . 54

(b) Paints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

(c) Cardboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

C. Wage rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

(1) Facial Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

(2) As Applied Invalidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

(a) Creation of the Regression Model . . . . . 71

(i) Notice and Comment Rulemaking . . . . 74

(ii) Deadlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

(b) Distortion of Regression Model . . . . . . 77

(3) Proper Data Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

D. Financial Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

II. VALUING SPECIFIC FACTORS OF PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . 105

(A) Hooks and Connectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

(B) Hinges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

(C) Resin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

(D) Styrofoam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

(E) Cardboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

(F) Iron Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

III. DISCRETE COMPANY-SPECIFIC ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

(A) Voluntary Remand Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 9

(B) Zeroing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

IV. FACTS OTHERWISE AVAILABLE/ADVERSE INFERENCES . . . . . . 128

(A) Factor Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

(B) Wood Scraps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

I. DATA SETS

As noted above, because pricing information in NMEs is largely

unreliable, section 223 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677b(c)(1)3 authorizes Commerce to approximate the cost of

production with pricing information from “surrogate” countries and

companies. The court notes that the antidumping duty statute both

authorizes and requires that "the valuation of the factors of

production shall be based on the best available information

regarding the values of such factors in a market economy country or

countries considered to be appropriate by the administering

authority." 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1) (emphasis added); see also

Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, 28 CIT ___,___, 350 F.

Supp. 2d 1148, 1156-57 (2004).

3
Hereinafter cited as 19 U.S.C. § 1677 et. seq. 2000 ed.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 10

The term “best available” is one of comparison, i.e., the

statute requires Commerce to select, from the information before it,

the best data for calculating an accurate dumping margin. The term

“best” means “excelling all others.” II Oxford English Dictionary

139(2d 1989); Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 168

(1988) (“[e]xceeding all others in excellence, achievement, or

quality”). This “best” choice is ascertained by examining and

comparing the advantages and disadvantages of using certain data as

opposed to other data. See Guangdong Chemicals Imp. & Exp. Corp.

v. United States, 30 CIT __, Slip Op. 06-142, at 8 (Sept. 18, 2006).

In calculating factors of production, Commerce typically

employs data sets. Court review of whether Commerce’s data set

selection is the “best available information” addresses whether the

particular selection is supported by substantial evidence and

whether it is in accordance with law. Whether a data set selection

issue is factual or legal, i.e., reviewed for substantial evidence

or for its accordance with law, depends on the question presented.

If the question is whether Commerce may use a particular piece of

data, whether Commerce may use a factor in weighing the choice

between two data sources, or what weight Commerce may attach to such

a factor, the question is legal. Cf. Writing Instrument Mfrs. Ass’n

v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 21 CIT 1185, 1187-88, 984 F. Supp. 629,

634 (1997); Lasko Metal Prods., Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442,

1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States, 166
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 11

F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999). If the question is whether

Commerce should have used a particular piece of data, when viewed

among alternative available data, or what weight Commerce should

attach to a price or data, the question is factual. Cf. Shandong

Haurong Machinery Co., v. United States, 29 CIT __,__, Slip Op 05-54

at 10 (2005); Yantai v. United States, 26 CIT 605, 607, 610-612

(2002).

In reviewing legal issues presented here, the court applies the

two-step inquiry of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def.

Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-843 (1984). Accordingly, Commerce

has considerable discretion in selecting a data source. See Nation

Ford Chem. Co. v. United States, 166 F.3d at 1377. Commerce’s

exercise of its discretion, however, must still have fidelity to its

statutory mandate. Statutorily, Commerce has a duty to ensure that

dumping margins are calculated as accurately as possible.

See, e.g., Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d

1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States,

899 F.2d 1185, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This rule applies with equal

force to imports from an NME. S. Rep. No. 100-71 at 106 (1987)

(Committee on Finance)(“[t]he Committee is particularly concerned

that imports from certain nonmarket economy countries, such as the

Peoples Republic of China, not be unfairly disadvantaged by use of

the new methodology where price differences can be accounted for in

whole or in part by quality differences in the imported
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 12

merchandise.”).

On factual issues, the court's role “is not to evaluate whether

the information Commerce used was the best available, but rather

whether a reasonable mind could conclude that Commerce chose the

best available information.” Goldlink Indus. Co. v. United States,

30 CIT , , 431 F. Supp. 2d, 1323, 1327 (2006); see also CITIC

Trading Co. v. United States, 27 CIT , , Slip Op. 03-23 at 16

(Mar. 4, 2003) (“while the standard of review precludes the court

from determining whether Department’s [sic] choice of surrogate

values was the best available on an absolute scale, the court may

determine the reasonableness of Commerce’s selection of surrogate

prices.”); cf. Klein v. Peterson, 866 F.2d 412, 414 (Fed. Cir.

1989) (reconciling an agency’s duty to find clear and convincing

evidence of misconduct with the court’s substantial evidence

standard of review as “a reasonable mind could have found the

evidence of misconduct clear and convincing”).

For the court to conclude that a reasonable mind would support

Commerce’s selection of the best available information, Commerce

needs to justify its selection of data with a reasoned explanation.

Cf. Lasko Metal Prods. v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed.

Cir. 1994); see Olympia Indus., Inc. v. United States, 22 CIT 387,

390, 7 F. Supp. 2d 997, 1001 (1998) (“Commerce has an obligation to

review all data and then determine what constitutes the best

information available or, alternatively, to explain why a particular
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 13

data set is not methodologically reliable”). In doing so, Commerce

must “conduct a fair comparison of the data sets on the record” with

regard to its announced method or criteria. Allied Pac. Food

(Dalian) Co. v. United States, 30 CIT __, __, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1295,

1313-14 (2006).

The court must also recognize that Commerce has limited

resources and is under time constraints and, therefore, a certain

level of imprecision is not unreasonable. See Geum Poong Corp. v.

United States, 26 CIT 991, 995 (2002). In addition, choosing the

best data requires expertise and, on occasion, judgment. See Lasko

Metal Prods., 43 F.3d at 1446; cf. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of

U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Aut. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 52 (1983)

("It is not infrequent that the available data do not settle a

regulatory issue, and the agency must then exercise its judgment in

moving from the facts and probabilities on the record to a policy

conclusion."). Accordingly, parties and courts may aspire to, but

cannot demand, perfection. Moreover, “the court may not substitute

its judgment for that of the [agency] when the choice ‘is between

two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would

justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before

it de novo.’” Goldlink Ind. Co. v. United States, 30 CIT at __, 431

F. Supp. 2d at 1326 (quoting Am. Spring. Wire Corp. v. United

States, 8 CIT 20, 22 (1984).

Another related principle that may seem obvious, but is
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 14

relevant here, is that Commerce’s findings or conclusions rendered

in equations or numeric form are not beyond scrutiny. Id.; accord

Geum Poong, 26 CIT at 995. Scrutiny of surrogate values is

important because they are proxies -- they are not actual costs but

estimates based on the best available information. If the proxy

values selected prove unrepresentative, reliance on them defeats

their purpose, namely, to derive a dumping margin that is as

accurate as possible. See, e.g., Goldlink Indus., 30 CIT at __,

Slip Op. 06-65 at 27-28. Hence, if Commerce selects a particular

data set that is demonstrably unrepresentative or distortional, a

reasonable mind may rightly question how such a selection could be

the “best.” It may in fact be the best available information, but

affirming Commerce’s choice requires a reasoned explanation from

Commerce that is supported by the administrative record.

In considering Commerce’s announced criteria, an additional

consideration is that merely enlarging the size of an

unrepresentative data set does not necessarily mean that a

reasonable mind can conclude that the data set is the best available

on the administrative record. Data sets need not be large

(proportional to all possible data points) if the means of selecting

the data points is statistically sound, e.g., statistical sampling.

Similarly, a large but biased data set is of limited (if any)

probative value. Cf. Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 400 (1986).

For example, a researcher attempting to assess the literacy rate in
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 15

the United States who surveys every college graduate in the country

would create a large data set that has absolutely no probative

value; however, a researcher who randomly samples a few thousand

people, chosen from the population at large, would create a valuable

data set.

With these considerations in mind, the court’s review of

Commerce’s compilation of data sets will focus on the soundness of

Commerce’s announced method or criteria in selecting data points,

and its adherence thereto. Cf. Shanghai Foreign Trade Enters. Co.

v. United States, 28 CIT ___, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1351-52 (2004).

A. Selection of Surrogate Countries
As noted above, “the valuation of the factors of production

shall be based on the best available information regarding the

values of such factors in a market economy country or countries

considered to be appropriate.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1)(emphases

added). The statute further specifies that an “appropriate” market

economy country is one “(A) at a level of economic development

comparable to that of the nonmarket economy country, and (B) [a]

significant producer[] of comparable merchandise.” 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677b(c)(4).

Pursuant to this statutory direction, Commerce’s regulations

specify that, other than for valuing labor costs, it “normally will

use publicly available information to value factors” and that it
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 16

“normally will value all factors in a single surrogate country.”

19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(1)&(2)4 (emphases added). As emphasized,

Commerce “normally” will use pricing data from the surrogate country

selected. The use of the word “normally” means that Commerce may

select other data as warranted under the circumstances. Though

Commerce, as is true of all agencies, is due deference for its

reasonable interpretation of its own regulations, NSK Ltd. v. Koyo

Seiko Co., 190 F. 3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“we accord

substantial deference to Commerce’s interpretations of its own

regulations.”), the use of “normally” indicates that Commerce

intends to give itself leeway in the selection of surrogate

countries. However, Commerce cannot use this language to allow

itself flexibility while simultaneously using the language to

disallow consideration of data from other countries without regard

for its own stated criteria. Cf. Shanghai Foreign Trade Enters. Co.

v. United States, 28 CIT __, __, 318 F. 2d 1339, 1351-52

(2004)(“Commerce’s decision to use Indian Import Statistics suffers

from the same flaw that Commerce alleges as a basis for rejecting

plaintiff’s alternatives.”).

For example, Commerce’s regulations acknowledge that “where a

factor is purchased from a market economy supplier and paid for in

a market economy currency, [Commerce] normally will use the price

paid to the market economy supplier.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(1).

4
All references to the Code of Federal Regulations are to
the 2003 edition.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 17

As such, the selection of a surrogate country does not require that

the particular data that is used to value a specific factor of

production also come from that surrogate country; rather, it appears

that Commerce’s selection of a surrogate country creates, at most,

a rebuttable presumption in favor of data from that surrogate

country.

In selecting the surrogate country, Commerce employs a four

step process. First, Commerce compiles a list of countries that are

at a level of economic development comparable to the country being

investigated. Department of Commerce, Import Administration Policy

Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection

Process at 2 (March 1, 2004), available at

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html. (“Policy Bulletin”).

Commerce then ascertains which, if any, of those cited countries

produce comparable merchandise. Id. Next, from the resulting list

of countries, Commerce determines, which, if any, of the countries

are significant producers of said comparable merchandise. Finally,

Commerce evaluates the quality, e.g., the reliability and

availability, of the data from those countries. Id. at 3. Upon

review of these criteria, Commerce chooses the country most

appropriate for use as a surrogate for the investigation.

Here, Commerce listed five countries as economically comparable

to the PRC: India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and the

Philippines. Memorandum from Jon Freed, Case Analyst, to File,
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 18

through Edward C. Yang, Office Director & Robert Bolling, Program

Manager, Re: Antidumping Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture

from the People’s Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate

Country, Dep’t of Commerce (March 8, 2004), P. R. Doc. 619. at 1

(“Surrogate Country Selection Mem.”). No party contests this

finding. Id. at 5. Next, Commerce found that both India and

Indonesia produced comparable merchandise. Commerce found that both

countries are significant producers of comparable merchandise.

Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 38, 40 (Cmt. 2); but see

id. at 41. Last, Commerce evaluated and compared the quality of

Indian and Indonesian data. Although Respondents placed domestic

Indonesian pricing data on the record, Commerce rejected this data

in favor of Indonesian import statistics. Focusing then on

Indonesian import statistics, Commerce found that Indian import

statistics were preferable to its Indonesian counterpart because:

(1) Indonesian data had been unsatisfactory in other investigations;

(2) Indonesian “information was either unreliable or the Indonesian

import statistics were reported in units for which the Department

was unable to obtain a comparable value . . .”; and (3) there

existed gaps in the Indonesian data which required the use of gap-

filler data that Commerce “prefers not to use unless there are clear

distortions in the surrogate price import statistics . . . .”

Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 42 (Cmt. 2). Therefore,

Commerce selected India as its surrogate country for this
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 19

investigation.

Respondents challenge Commerce’s approach in several respects:

(1) that Commerce erred in rejecting Indonesian data -- both its

domestic and import statistics; (2) that India is not a producer of

products identical to the subject merchandise; (3) that Indian

production of the subject merchandise is not significant; and (4)

Commerce erred in weighing the evidence, in the aggregate, that

India was preferable to Indonesia. Though the weighing of the data

is considered to be the fourth step of Commerce’s process of

selecting a surrogate country, the court will address the issues

regarding Indian and Indonesian data first, as the data issues are

intertwined with all aspects of selecting a surrogate country.

(1) Evaluation of Indonesian Data
Commerce has indicated that it does not have sufficient data

from Indonesia, that the data it does have is suspect, and that it

has had data problems with Indonesia in the past. Issues & Decision

Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 42 (Cmt. 2). These comments seem to be

directed primarily towards the use of Indonesian import data, rather

than Indonesian domestic data. However, a closer examination of the

record indicates that Commerce also considered the domestic

Indonesian data in its evaluation.

Under established case-law, “[t]he decision on which price to

use -domestic or import- is based on which value will result in a
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 20

more accurate normal value.” Rhodia, Inc. v. United States, 25 CIT

1278, 1286, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1343, 1352 (2001); Hebei Metals &

Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 28 CIT __, __, Slip Op.

04-88 at 15 (July 19, 2004)(“Hebei I”). Commerce may prefer one to

the other so long as a reasonable mind could find that the one

preferred is more accurate than the other. See Goldlink Indus.,

30 CIT at __, Slip Op. 06-65 at 27-28; cf. Yantai Oriental Juice

Co. v. United States, 26 CIT 605, 617 (2002).

Here, Commerce found that respondent-selected domestic

Indonesian data price lists are not more reliable than import

statistics because “single prices from a narrow source are not

necessarily representative of an entire industry during the entire

period of investigation.” Def.’s Resp. Pls.’ Surrogate Value

Related Rule 56.2 Mots. J. Agency R. 26 (“Def.’s Br.”); Issues &

Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 42 (Cmt. 2); Polyethylene Retail

Carrier Bags from the People’s Republic of China, 69 Fed. Reg.

34,125 (Dep’t Commerce June 18, 2004) (notice of final determination

of sales at less than fair value) and accompanying Issues and

Decision Memorandum at 47 (Cmt. 9) available at

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/04-13815-1.pdf (“the

experience of a single producer is less representative of the cost

of an input in a surrogate country.”). In contrast, import

statistics encompass a broader range of pricing data that are more

representative of an entire industry during the entire period of
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 21

investigation. Commerce was also “unable to find substantial

information or directories for Indonesian furniture manufactures

[sic].” Surrogate Country Selection Mem., P.R. Doc. 619 at 5.

In addition to finding that Indonesian domestic data or price

lists were wanting, Commerce found that Indonesian import data (1)

had been unsatisfactory in other investigations; (2) that

“information was either unreliable or the Indonesian import

statistics were reported in units for which the Department was

unable to obtain a comparable value . . .”; and (3) “because of the

inadequacies of the Indonesian import statistics [Respondents]

submitted gap-filler data from various sources that the Department

prefers not to use unless there are clear distortions in the

surrogate price import statistics . . . .” Issues & Decision Mem.,

P.R. Doc. 1933 at 42 (Cmt. 2). Admittedly, there is some

circularity to Commerce’s explanation. Commerce rejected Indonesian

domestic data due to its lack of completeness, and then rejected

Indonesian import data due to the need to use “gap-filler” data

which it will not use without finding distortion in import data.

However, Commerce’s finding on the whole that Indonesian data

is unreliable and insufficent is supported by substantial evidence.

Respondents do admit that some of the Indonesian data is unreliable

or unusable. Id. Though respondents do point to gap-filler data

(such as “Indonesian domestic prices for woods and processed woods

for the period of investigation published by the International
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 22

Tropical Timber Organization (‘ITTO’)),” Mem. P. & A. Support Pls.’

& Pl.-Intervenors’ Rule 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R. 10 (“Pls.’ Br.”),

this represents but one set of various inputs required for valuing

the factors of production. Assuming without deciding, that the ITTO

data is reliable, accurate, and contemporaneous, it is still

reasonable for Commerce to find, on the record here, that in toto

the combination of domestic and import data from Indonesia was not

of a sufficient quality or amount to allow for the valuation of all

the necessary factors of production, and for the calculation of

financial ratios. Therefore, Commerce’s determination that the

Indonesian data was unreliable is supported by substantial evidence.

(2) Commerce’s finding that India was a producer of the
comparable merchandise

Commerce’s determination that India is a producer of comparable

merchandise is also supported by substantial evidence. Commerce

found evidence on the record to indicate that India produces

comparable furniture. Surrogate Country Selection Mem., P.R. Doc.

619 at 5; Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 39 (Cmt. 2)

(“Respondents do not argue that India does not produce wooden

bedroom furniture.”). In particular, Commerce found that

International Furniture Producers, an Indian company, as well as

other companies were significant producers of wooden bedroom

furniture. Surrogate Country Selection Mem., P.R. Doc. 619 at 5.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 23

Respondents, contend, however, that the finding that India

produces comparable merchandise is irrelevant in the face of the

fact that Indonesia produces identical merchandise. Pls.’ Br. 13-

14, 16. As Respondents noted in their brief, Commerce automatically

considers a producer of identical merchandise to be a producer of

comparable merchandise. Pls.’ Br. 13. Respondents argue that

because Indonesia produces identical merchandise, and they contend

India does not, Indonesia should automatically be selected as the

surrogate country.

Commerce, however, does not always choose the producer of

identical merchandise, if there is one. Commerce explains in its

Policy Bulletin that “[if] considering a producer of identical

merchandise leads to data difficulties, the operations team may

consider countries that produce a broader category of reasonably

comparable merchandise.” Policy Bulletin at n. 6. It appears to the

court that this analysis is in accordance with the legislative

history of the governing statute:

Because the Commerce Department may have difficulties in
getting detailed data from countries not subject to
investigation, the bill gives the Commerce Department
authority to use “comparable merchandise” as the basis
for foreign market value. Comparable merchandise is a
broader category than the “such or similar” merchandise
comparison which is usually used in antidumping
investigations.

S. Rep. No. 100-71 at 106 (1987) (Committee on Finance).
Given that Commerce chooses the surrogate country and
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 24

identifies comparable merchandise on a case-by-case basis, it is

reasonable for Commerce to decline to make the producer of identical

merchandise the automatic choice. The process of constructing an

export price is a necessarily laborious and data-intensive process,

and it is reasonable, and necessary, for Commerce to feel assured

that the data it is employing is sufficient and reliable.

Therefore, assuming that Indonesia is a producer of identical

merchandise, that identity does not upset Commerce’s determination

that India produces comparable merchandise. The statute does not

require Commerce to find a producer of identical merchandise, but

rather a producer of comparable merchandise. Though Commerce has

indicated a preference for identical goods, that preference must

sometimes take second-seat if the use of identical goods leads to

data selection problems. Given Commerce’s finding that Indonesian

data was unreliable, Commerce’s decision to look to comparable

producers of subject merchandise was supported by substantial

evidence, as was its determination that India is a producer of

comparable merchandise.

(3) Commerce’s finding that India was a significant
producer of subject merchandise

In addition to determining that a country produces comparable

merchandise, the statute requires that the surrogate country be a

“significant producer” of the comparable subject merchandise.

Here, Commerce found that both India and Indonesia were significant
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 25

producers of comparable merchandise. Issues & Decision Mem., P.R.

Doc. 1933 at 39 (Cmt. 2) (“it would be illogical to conclude, as

argued by Respondents . . . , that Indonesia is a significant

producer of furniture while India is not.”). Respondents contest

this finding asserting that India is not a significant producer of

wooden bedroom furniture.

Commerce identifies a significant producer based on a totality

of the circumstances, and makes its decision concerning significance

on a case-by-case basis. Policy Bulletin at 3. Commerce

ascertained that “fixed standards such as ‘one of the top five

producers’” are not helpful as the meaning can differ significantly

from case to case.5 Id. Commerce further explained that the

selection of a surrogate country is, of course, highly dependent on

the available data.

Here, Commerce determined that India was a significant producer

of comparable merchandise. In particular, Commerce determined that

there was at least one major Indian manufacturer of wooden bedroom

furniture, IFP, and that there were other producers of comparable

merchandise. Surrogate Country Selection Mem., P.R. Doc. 619 at 5-
5
According to the legislative history of the governing
statute, “[t]he term “significant producer” includes any country
that is a significant net exporter and, if appropriate, Commerce
may use a significant net exporting country in valuing factors.”
Conference Report to the 1988 Omnibus Trade & Competitiveness
Act, H.R. Rep. No. 100-576, at 590 (1988) (“Conf. Rep.”)at 590.
This, however, does not, preclude Commerce from finding that a
country who is a producer of the subject merchandise but not a
net exporter is a significant producer of the subject merchandise
based on other criteria.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 26

6. Commerce has also indicated that it was able to find additional

companies that produce comparable merchandise, in addition to

further information and directories with regard to 416 Indian

furniture manufacturers. Id. at Attachs. II & III, fr. 11, 14.

Commerce found that there are upwards of 11,000 producers of

furniture in India, and a furniture industry output of $1.7 billion

(compared with Indonesia’s output of $1.9 billion). Issues &

Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 39 (Cmt. 2). Commerce also

indicated that it was able to find nine Indian surrogate financial

statements. Id. at 67 (Cmt. 3). Consequently, Commerce’s finding

that India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise is

supported by substantial record evidence.

(4) Weighing the choice between Indonesia and India

As the discussion above indicates, Commerce’s decision to opt

for India as the surrogate country in this investigation, as opposed

to Indonesia (or any of the other economically comparable countries)

was driven in large part by data concerns and considerations.

Commerce had access to and was apprised of numerous sources of

information from India. Commerce was also able to locate Indian

company directories, Surrogate Country Selection Mem., P.R. Doc. 619

at 5 & Attach. III fr. 14, and Commerce had experience utilizing the

Indian import statistic data base, the Monthly Statistics of Foreign

Trade in India (“MSFTI”).
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 27

Respondents point to various criteria, including the fact that

Indonesia is a net exporter of wooden bedroom furniture while India

is not, Pls.’ Br. 17, and the size of the industry, to indicate that

Commerce should have chosen Indonesia instead of India as the

surrogate country. Id. at 14-15 (claiming that the portion of

India’s furniture production that is wooden furniture is 60 percent

and the proportion that is bedroom furniture is 20 percent); Id. at

17 (“the values of [India’s] exports were 38 million and 30 million

rupees (about $875 thousand and $690 thousand)” in 2002 and 2003

respectively). However, just as previous case law has established

that Commerce need not pick the “most comparable economy”,

Tehnoimportexport v. United States, 15 CIT 250, 256, 766 F. Supp.

1169, 1175 (1991)(emphasis in original), Commerce need not pick the

most significant producer.

Despite the fact that the Indian data may or may not be a

perfect fit for every surrogate value, this court has noted time

and again that the estimation of a normal value using surrogate

values is an inexact science. See, e.g., Nation Ford Chem. Co. v.

United States, 166 F. 3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“the process

of constructing foreign market value for a producer in a nonmarket

economy country is difficult and necessarily imprecise”) (citing

Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

While accuracy is a touchstone, Commerce often finds that it has to

choose between two (or more) sub-optimal data sources. In such a
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 28

scenario, where Commerce is choosing between two less-than-ideal

data sources, its decision must be upheld provided it is supported

by substantial evidence. Here, Commerce has demonstrated, through

substantial evidence, that it was able to locate data from India

that it knew to be reliable having previously worked with the data.

Surrogate Country Selection Mem., P.R. Doc. 619 at 3. Therefore,

based on the preceding analysis, Commerce’s determination to use

India as the surrogate country for this investigation was

appropriate; as a factual matter that decision was also supported

by substantial evidence.

The legislative history of the governing statute does indicate

that “if possible,” Commerce should utilize data based on production

of “the same general class or kind of merchandise using similar

levels of technology and at similar levels of volume as the

producers subject to investigation.” Conf. Rep. at 591. Though

the desire for comparability of technology is clear, and one could

argue, optimal, this desire is qualified by the phrase “if

possible.” Here, Commerce reasonably determined that the quality

of Indonesian data would be a hindrance in calculating surrogate

values; therefore it would not be possible to utilize Indonesian

data, whether or not the Indonesian furniture industry proved to be

a closer match in production process to the Chinese furniture

industry. Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 42. The

statute requires Commerce to look to the comparability of
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 29

merchandise, and Commerce acted in accordance with law in

determining that comparability of merchandise does not necessarily

require comparability of industry. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4).

Ultimately Commerce can, and does, mix and match the data that

it chooses in its surrogate value selection, for instance through

the use of gap-filling data. See Lasko Metal Prods. v. United

States, 43 F. 3d 1442, 1445-46 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Nation Ford, 166

F. 3d. at 1378. Because Commerce can mix and match data when it

finds data from its primary source to be wanting, the surrogate

country selection amounts to a nod or a presumption as to what will

be Commerce’s “go-to” country. In this investigation, the choice

of India had a direct bearing on the choice of the main data set

employed by Commerce in its surrogate value selection, namely in

Commerce’s selection of MSFTI as its main data set in valuing the

factor inputs.

B. Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade in India

(1) In general
The valuation of factors of production in a nonmarket economy

is governed by 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c). As noted previously, this

section of the statute instructs Commerce to value factors of

production “based on the best available information regarding the

values of such factors in a market economy country or countries

considered to be appropriate by the [Secretary].” 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677b(c)(1). In addition, Commerce has promulgated regulations
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 30

specifying that the information utilized is “normally” to be

“publicly available” and that, except to value labor, the Department

will normally value all factors using data from a single surrogate

country. 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c).6 While Commerce has not

promulgated additional regulations to govern its selection of data

for the valuation of factors of production, it has developed policy

preferences relating to its data choices.

Specifically, Commerce prefers data that is (1) a non-export

average value; (2) most contemporaneous with the period of

investigation (“POI”); (3) product-specific; and (4) tax-exclusive.

Memorandum to File, From Michael Holton, Subject: Preliminary

Determination Factors Valuation Memorandum: Wooden Bedroom Furniture

from the People’s Republic of China, Dep’t of Commerce (June 17

2004), P.R. Doc. 1329 at 2 (“Factors Valuation Mem.”). See, e.g.,

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Comm. v. United States, 29 CIT __,

Slip Op. 05-157 at 31-32, 42-25 (Dec. 13, 2005).

6
19 C.F.R. § 351.408 (c)(1)-(2) reads:
(c) Valuation of factors of production. For purposes of
valuing the factors of production . . . under section
773(c)(1) of the Act the following rules will apply:
(1) Information used to value factors. The Secretary
normally will use publicly available information to value
factors. . . .
(2) Valuation in a single country. Except for labor, as
provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the Secretary
normally will value all factors in a single surrogate country.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 31

(2) MSFTI as a primary data set

In this investigation, the application of the factors outlined

above led Commerce to rely on the Monthly Statistics of Foreign

Trade in India data for the valuation of raw materials. Factors

Valuation Mem. at 4. MSFTI, published by the Government of India

and available through the World Trade Atlas, provides the quantity

and value of all Indian imports, reported by Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of India (“HTS[I]”) headings and subheadings. Commerce

argues that MSFTI data represents the best available information for

the valuation of raw material inputs because MFSTI data were

publicly available, contemporaneous and representative of all Indian

imports, ‘representative of the inputs in question,’ and tax-

exclusive. Def.’s Resp. Br. Pls.’ Surrogate Value Related Mot. J.

Agency Record 36 (“Def.’s Br.”); see also Issues & Decision Mem.,

P.R. Doc. 1933 Cmts. 10, 17, 25 & 27. Commerce also notes that it

has utilized MSFTI in previous investigations. Id. at 137 (Cmt.

10) & 206 (Cmt. 25)(Commerce has a long-standing preference for

MSFTI unless it is unreliable or distorted).

Respondents challenge Commerce’s use of MSFTI, arguing that

MSFTI data is overbroad; that better import data is available from

Infodrive India and IBIS7; that MSFTI does not always capture the
7
Respondents describe Infodrive and IBIS data as using
“customs data to identify inter alia, the specific type of
merchandise being imported, quantity of the imports and their
customs value, the origin of the merchandise and the importer.”
Pls.’ Br. 25. Shing Mark contends that Infodrive India and IBIS
(continued...)
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 32

inputs that are used by the Indian wooden furniture industry; that

MSFTI data is inaccurate and unreliable and that there are other

sources of data that provide specific and accurate domestic data.

Pls.’ Br. 32-46.

As a threshold matter, Commerce has determined that when it

selects import statistics as a means of valuing factors of

production for a non-market economy, it would rather choose a

broader range of statistics stating that “[a] broad, average price

from import statistics is reliable is [sic] because the average

includes a range of prices.” Def.’s Br. 52; see also Issues &

Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 137 & 206. Commerce further

elaborated that, “[a]n average price representing a subset of

imports is not more accurate than an average price of all imports

into India . . . .” Def.’s Br. 52; see also Issues & Decision Mem.

P.R. Doc. 1933, at 206 (Cmt. 25) & 214-217 (Cmt. 26). Respondents

propose Infodrive India and IBIS as alternative sources of import

data, rather than MSFTI, arguing that Infodrive India and IBIS

provide a detailed breakdown of Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”)

subheadings. This line-by-line information, Respondents claim,

would allow Commerce to make a more precise match between the input

used by the Chinese manufacturers and the surrogate Indian import.

7
(...continued)
report “the date of entry, the Indian HTS, the importer of
record, the import description, the quantity, the value, the unit
measure, foreign port, foreign country, Indian port, and method
of shipment.” Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 131
(Cmt. 10).
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 33

Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 131 (Cmt. 10); Pls.’ Br.

36. All parties agree that Infodrive India and IBIS do not provide

data on all imports into India.8

The court finds that, in general, Commerce’s preference for a

broader data set is reasonable and supported by substantial

evidence. In essence, Commerce is arguing that where it has a

choice between underinclusive data (which does not capture all the

inputs used by wooden furniture manufacturers) or overinclusive data

(which includes some data which is not used as an input, but

captures all the inputs because of its broad range), it will choose

overinclusive data. As Commerce is faced with a choice between two

imperfect options, it is within Commerce’s discretion to determine

which choice represents the best available information. Commerce’s

decision to rely on the MSFTI data, as a general database, to value

raw material factors of production, instead of Infodrive India or

IBIS data, is supported by substantial evidence in that the record

supports Commerce’s conclusion that the MSFTI data is more inclusive

than the Respondents’ alternatives.

8
The parties do not seem to agree as to the exact percentage
of imports captured by these two different databases. Commerce
claims that Infodrive India only accounts for 60 percent of
Indian imports, and within that percentage, not all of that is
usable, so the amount is actually less. Issues & Decision Mem.,
P. R. Doc. 1933 at 139-40 (Cmt. 10). Respondents claim that
“Infodrive India reports commercially significant quantities of
roughly 73 percent of imports.” Id. Regardless of which
percentage is the actual percentage, it is uncontroverted that
these two databases do not capture the full universe of imports
into India.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 34

(3) MSFTI as applied to individual factors.

However, while Commerce’s choice of MSFTI data, as a general

database, rather than Respondents’ alternatives, is appropriate,

Commerce’s individual determinations, on a factor input by factor

input basis, must also be supported by substantial evidence. If

Commerce’s specific data choices do not actually include or capture

the factor or input it is estimating, or a reasonably comparable

item, such a choice is not supported by the record; for example, if

Commerce were estimating the cost of hard-cover law casebooks by

relying on the average cost of paperback legal thrillers, while

another data set provides the cost of hard-cover textbooks, its

choice could not be sustained. Cf. Hebei Metals & Minerals Imp.

& Exp. Corp. v. United States, 29 CIT __, __ , 366 F. Supp. 2d 1264,

1272-73 (2005) (“Hebei II”) (Commerce cannot assume that the

“others” category includes the coal at issue, without establishing

what category of coal was used by the respondents, and without

establishing that the category did “cover the type of coal used in

Hebei’s production process.”); Guangdong Chems. Imp. & Exp. Corp.

v. United States, 30 CIT __, __, 414 F. Supp. 2d 1300, 1311 (2006)

(“Even if the court were to conclude that Commerce produced

substantial evidence demonstrating that azelaic and sebacic acid are

priced similarly, that would not justify Commerce’s decision to

abandon a more product-specific data source.”).

Additionally, if the data is heavily weighted by a
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 35

disproportionate inclusion of higher priced or lower priced data,

such that Commerce is systematically overvaluing or undervaluing the

factors of production, the broad range of the statistics would not,

in and of itself, render the data reliable. See Goldlink Indus., 30

CIT at , Slip Op. 06-65 at 27-28 (“Since the presumption is that

NME data is distorted, Commerce must find a reasonable surrogate

value. Logically then, Commerce cannot use a surrogate value if it

is also distorted, otherwise defeating the purpose of using a

surrogate value rather than the actual export value.”).

In addition, although the court has, in specific instances,

approved the use of import data, and the use of MSFTI data in

particular, the court has always emphasized that in order for import

data to be used, there must be reason to believe that the industry

in question would use imported inputs.9 See Hebei I, 28 CIT at __,

9
Respondents also argue that the use of import data is
contrary to the clear intent of the statute which requires that
factors of production be valued “in” a comparable market economy
country. In addition to the fact that this court, and the
Federal Circuit have affirmed the use of import statistics to
value factors of production (in certain circumstances),
see, e.g., Nation Ford, 166 F. 3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999); China
First Pencil Co. v. United States, 30 CIT __, Slip Op. 06-34
(Mar. 7, 2006); Wuhan Bee Healthy Co. v. United States, 29 CIT
, Slip Op. 05-142 (Nov. 2, 2005), the fact that Commerce is using
import data to value the factors of production does not mean that
they are not valuing those factors of production “in” the
comparable market economy country. The prices that producers pay
for the imported inputs are not created in a vacuum; they are
created by market forces, and indicate the value that producers
are willing to associate with those imported prices. Therefore,
the use of import prices in and of itself is not contrary to the
statute. The use of the import statistics, however, still has to
be supported by substantial evidence on a case-by-case basis.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 36

Slip Op. 04-88 at 22 (“Commerce here did not explain why an Indian

manufacturer would pay for imported coal”); Yantai Oriental Juice

Co. v. United States, 26 CIT 605, 617 (2002) (“Here, Commerce has

produced no evidence tending to lead to the conclusion that India's

domestic AJC producers would use imported as against domestic

coal.”); Wuhan Bee Healthy Co. v. United States, 29 CIT , , 374

F. Supp. 2d 1299, 1310 (2005) (Commerce gives “no reason[] as to why

imported coal provides the best surrogate value.”). If it is

unlikely that the domestic industry would use imported inputs, and

there is domestic data available, then Commerce’s choice of import

data to value factor inputs may not be reasonable. One example of

when the domestic industry would choose to source its factor inputs

domestically would be when the price of the imported good is

markedly higher than the price of the domestic good. Hebei II, 29

CIT at __, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1274 (“[T]he preference for domestic

data is most appropriate where the circumstances indicate that a

producer in a hypothetical market would be unlikely to use an

imported factor in its production process. The most obvious

circumstance occurs where the import price is significantly greater

than the domestic price.”). Another example would be when the

import statistics themselves demonstrate that the specific input is

not imported into the country. While Commerce may establish

criteria in order to guide its data selection process, this does not

relieve Commerce of the obligation to evaluate the relative accuracy
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 37

of domestic and import data in valuing factors of production. See

Yantai, 26 CIT at 617 (“Commerce nowhere explains how the use of

seemingly more expensive imported coal data is the best available

information establishing the actual costs incurred by Indian AJC

producers.”). Commerce itself, when noting potential price

discrepancies in import data, has employed benchmarks in order to

evaluate the reliability of MSFTI data. China First Pencil, 30 CIT

___, Slip Op. 06-34 (on voluntary remand, Commerce examined MSFTI

data for the price of pencil cores by comparing it with price quotes

from the United States, since Commerce was unable to obtain price

quotes from India).

(a) Mirrors
The court turns to Respondents’ challenge of the use of

specific MSFTI data for the valuation of mirrors, paints, and

cardboard. Respondents claim that the MSFTI data is demonstrably

inaccurate for valuing these specific factors of production. Pls.’

Br. 27, & 40-46. Respondents attempt to demonstrate that MSFTI is

inaccurate in valuing mirrors by alleging that (1) there is evidence

that Indian furniture manufacturers do not use imported mirrors in

their manufacturing process; (2) in this instance MSFTI is not

inclusive of the mirrors utilized; and (3) the MSFTI data utilized

was overly distorted by the inclusion of specialty mirrors.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 38

(i) Imported Mirrors As Inputs

Respondents provide a range of data to demonstrate that the

import prices for mirrors selected by Commerce are considerably

higher than domestic prices, suggesting either that the import

prices are distorted or that Indian producers would not use imported

mirrors as an input for wooden bedroom furniture. See, e.g., Hebei

II, 29 CIT at __, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1274 (companies are less

likely to use imported inputs when the prices of imported inputs are

higher than domestic inputs). Respondents argue that the actual

price for 5mm mirrors used in wooden furniture production in India

is within a range of between $9.35/m2 and $13.13/m2 instead of the

Final Determination value of $60.13/m2 for mirror imports (a range

of 4.6 to 6.4 times greater than the alternate prices). Pls.’ Br.

27. Repondents refer to: (a) record data from an Indian glass

industry publication (“Glass Yug”); (b) actual average period of

investigation prices paid for mirrors used by two Indian wooden

furniture producers (Tarun Vadehra and Highland House);10 (c) and

actual average prices paid for mirrors by a large Indonesian wooden

bedroom furniture producer, Goldfindo. Id.

Additionally, there is evidence on the record that at least one

furniture producer in India only sourced mirrors domestically during

the period of investigation. See Ernst & Young Private Ltd., Report

10
According to respondents, the “Highland House data were
compiled and verified as complete and accurate by the independent
accounting firm of Ernst & Young.” Pls.’ Br. 24.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 39

on the Agreed Upon Procedures on the Purchases Ledger of Highland

House Private Ltd. (Apr. 1, 2004), Attach. to Letter from John D.

Greenwald, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr, LLP., on behalf

of Lacquer Craft Mfg. Inc. & Markor International Furniture

(Tianjin) Manufacture Co., Ltd., to The Honorable Donald L. Evans,

Secretary of Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the

People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Country Submissions (Apr. 20,

2004), P. R. Doc. 770 at 56 (fr. 13) (“As per the list provided by

Lacquer Craft, Ernst & Young was required to compile prices of

standard 5/6mm thickness type plain mirrors purchased by Highland

House during the period. During the period, Highland House

purchased plain mirrors from domestic suppliers only.”). Commerce

did not address the assertion that imported mirrors were not used

by Indian furniture manufacturers.

Instead of addressing the Respondents’ concerns with the MSFTI

data, Commerce chose to attack the quality of the data proffered by

Respondents, claiming that the unreliability of the data negated its

ability to serve even as a means of evaluating the MSFTI data.

The court finds that Commerce’s determination that the MSFTI

data was accurate with respect to mirrors is not supported by

substantial evidence, because Commerce did not evaluate the

inaccuracies of the MSFTI data set. See Shanghai Foreign Trade

Enters. Co. v. United States, 28 CIT __,__, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1339,

1352 (2004)(Commerce’s determination was not supported by
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 40

substantial evidence when “Commerce summarily discarded the

alternatives as flawed but did not evaluate the reliability of its

own choice.”). Commerce argues that Yantai, Hebei II, and Shanghai

Foreign Trade are inapplicable here as “Commerce did not summarily

discard the alternatives as flawed without evaluating the

reliability of its own choice.” Def.’s Br. 47. However, as

explained below, here Commerce’s reasons for rejecting other data

were either applied on an inconsistent basis, or did not actually

provide a rational reason for rejecting the data.

(ii) Glass Yug

Commerce provided three reasons for dismissing the Glass Yug

data: (1) the data do not cover the entire POI;11 (2) the Glass Yug

11
In making this comment, Commerce also emphasized that
“among Indian mirror manufacturers there was intense competition
that resulted in the downward prices for mirrors.” Issues &
Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 207 (Cmt. 25). The article in
which the mirror data appears provides the data that illustrates
the effects of said price war. Glass Yug 9 (Apr.-June 2003),
Exh. 48 to Steptoe & Johnson, LLP Submission of Surrogate Values
for the Factors of Production for Shing Mark Co. Enterprise, Ltd.
(Apr. 16, 2004) Attach. to Letter from Thomas L. Trendl, Steptoe
& Johnson, LLP on behalf of Shing Mark Co. Enterprise, Ltd. to
the Honorable Donald L. Evans, Secretary of Commerce, Re: Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Rebublic of China: Submission
of Surrogate Values for the Factors of Production, (Apr. 16,
2004), P. R. Doc. 761, fr. 446 (“Shing Mark April 16
Submission”). However, as Commerce noted, intense competition is
not in and of itself a reason to reject mirror prices. Issues &
Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 207 (Cmt. 25). Indeed, one of
the reasons that Commerce engages in a factor valuation process
for non-market economy countries is in order to have factor input
prices that are determined by the interaction of competitive
(continued...)
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 41

data are very specific and Commerce does not know whether or not

Respondents use the same type of mirrors; and (3) the Glass Yug data

are not specific enough because it does not contain information on

the sizes of the mirrors and whether or not the mirrors are beveled.

Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 204-206 (Cmt. 25). First,

regarding the POI, Commerce may not always elevate contemporaneity,

or its desire to have data covering an entire POI, over the need for

accuracy. See Hebei II, 29 CIT at __, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1275

(finding that contemporaneity is but one factor to be considered in

looking at data and noting that “the Court has previously found

contemporaneity to be insufficient to explain why an import price

is the best available information for establishing the actual costs

incurred by a producer.” (citing Yantai, Slip Op. 02-56 at 23)).

If the domestic data proves to be otherwise accurate, then it may

well be preferable to use accurate data, compiled over a shorter

period of time, then inaccurate or unreliable data that covers the

entire POI.

Commerce’s second and third contentions rely on Commerce’s

desire not to have underinclusive data. Essentially, Commerce is

arguing that since it cannot match Glass Yug data with Respondent

data, either because the Glass Yug data are not specific enough or

because the data are too specific, use of the Glass Yug data would

11
(...continued)
forces in a market economy context.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 42

lead to an underinclusive data set.12

Respondents have asserted that they have placed evidence on

the record that shows the width of their mirrors. Respondents note

that Shing Mark has reported its mirrors to be 3mm, 5mm, and 6mm in

depth, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Case Brief on Behalf of Shing Mark

Co., Ltd., (Oct. 6, 2004) Attach. to Letter from Jack R. Hayes,

Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, on behalf of Shing Mark Co., Ltd. to the

Honorable Donald L. Evans, Secretary of Commerce, Re: Antidumping

Duty Investigation on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s

Republic of China: Submission of Case Brief on Behalf of Shing Mark

Enterprise Co., Ltd., (Oct. 7, 2004), P. R. Doc. 1854, fr. 58

(“Shing Mark Case Brief”), while there is evidence on the record

indicating that Dorbest’s mirrors are 5mm in thickness, Dorbest

Ltd., Second Supplemental Sections C & D Response (June 15, 2004),

Attach. to Letter from Jeffrey S. Grimson, Kaye Sholer, LLP, on

behalf of Dorbest Ltd., to the Honorable Donald L. Evans, Secretary

12
Commerce stated specifically, in its Issues & Decision
Memorandum:

the Department will consider domestic prices where
sufficient record evidence demonstrates that the range
of grades exist in the reported inputs and a difference
of the domestic and import price appear to be caused by
the breadth of category. Additionally, the Department
determines that Glass Yug is not the best available
information due to a lack of detail put on record by
the respondents for their factor inputs of mirror and
glass and the lack of specific information for the
prices reported in Glass Yug.

Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 206 (Cmt. 25).
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 43

of Commerce, Re: Response to DOC’s June 8, 2004, Second Supplemental

Sections C-D Questionnaire in Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China,

(Inv. No. A-570-890), (June 15, 2004), Prop. Doc. 599, fr. 314 & 318

(“Dorbest June 15 Submission”); See Pls.’ Br. 42. Respondents

maintain that this is sufficient information for Commerce to match

Glass Yug data with Respondents’ inputs, because Glass Yug data

provided prices for mirrors with thickness of 2.5, 3.5, 4.0, 5.0 and

6.0 millimeters.13 Pls.’ Br. 42; Shing Mark Apr. 16 Submission, P.

R. Doc. 761, fr. 446.

13
If Commerce required more specific information than this
in order to properly ascertain the most accurate and appropriate
surrogate value, such as whether or not mirrors are cut down to a
smaller size, or if they are beveled, Issues & Decision Mem. P.R.
Doc. 1933 at 207 (Cmt. 25), Commerce could request such
information, see Hebei II 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1273, (“During its
investigation or upon remand, Commerce should have established
the category of coal used by Hebei or at least established the
category or categories of coal normally used to produce the
subject merchandise.”).
The court notes that, as Respondents point out in their
brief, “[t]he thickness range of the Indian import data is, of
course, completely unknown.” Pls.’ Br. 42. Commerce relies upon
MSFTI data in order to ensure that it captures within its range
of data the inputs actually used, and so is operating on the
assumption that the broader data will somehow capture the correct
factor input whereas if a narrower category is chosen, there is a
chance that it will be valuing the wrong factor of production.
This position, however, is only reasonable if (1) Commerce does
not have evidence in the record that the narrower data set is of
the same inputs as used by Respondents; and (2) the larger data
set captures the factor of production in question. Respondents
have asserted that the thickness of the mirrors they use is of
the same thickness as the Glass Yug data. Pls.’ Br 42. Shing
Mark Apr 16 Submission, P. R. Doc. 761, fr. 446; Shing Mark Case
Brief, P. R. Doc. 1854 at 36 (fr. 58); Lacquer Craft May 26
Submission, P. R. Doc. 1135 at fr. 9-10; Dorbest June 15
Submission, Prop. Doc. 599, fr. 314 & 318. Respondents also
assert that there is nothing on the record reflecting any
consumption of mirrors outside the range. Pls.’ Br. 42.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 44

Additionally, it appears inconsistent for Commerce to require

specificity for one data set, while allowing for a broader data set

that has no indication either as to whether it includes mirrors with

“beveling” or etching, as is the case with MSFTI. See Hebei II, 366

F. Supp. 2d at 1273 (“A broad and unsupported coal value falls short

of a substantial evidentiary basis just as a narrow and unsupported

coal value does.”); Guangdong, 318 F. Supp. 2d at 1352 (Commerce

must apply its standards as consistently to its selected data set

as to other data sets). At the very least, none of Commerce’s

arguments with respect to Glass Yug address why this data should not

be viewed as probative towards a view that Commerce’s chosen

valuation is too high and/or inaccurate.

(iii) Tarun Vadehra, Highland House and Goldfindo

Commerce rejected the Tarun Vadehra and Highland House

information because it found that the information was not “publicly

available” insofar as it was not information that could “be

duplicated by the Department, the Petitioners, or anyone else that

lack[] access to the confidential records from which they were

derived.” Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 162-63. (Cmt.

17). Respondents argue that this is not how Commerce has generally

defined publicly available. Pls.’ Br. 34. The court does not have

to reach this issue with regard to the Tarun Vadehra and Highland

House data, because Commerce also explained that it found that this
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 45

data was not representative of all Indian prices. Though Commerce

considers several issues in evaluating the merits of various data,

see supra, p. 30, Commerce’s determination is supported by

substantial evidence in that the data from two Indian producers is

not representative of the country as a whole. See Retail Carrier

Bags, 29 CIT at __, Slip Op. 05-157 at 38 (finding that the

selection of import statistics in valuing black inks on the basis

of the import data being “country-wide” data was supported by

substantial evidence, as evidence submitted to demonstrate that

Indian import statistics counted as an even smaller percentage of

sales of the relevant inks was not provided during the

administrative review.). Commerce also implicitly rejected the data

provided by Respondents from the Indonesian company, Goldfindo

stating that “the Department has not considered the factor values

derived form [sic] Goldfindo because Goldfindo is an Indonesian

company and the Department has determined to use India as the

surrogate country in this investigation.” Issues & Decision Mem.,

P.R. Doc. 1933 at 163 (Cmt. 17). The court notes that though

Commerce is not obligated to value its factors of production from

just one surrogate country, see, e.g., 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1);

Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1373, 1378 n.5

(Fed. Cir. 1999) (the antidumping duty statute "does not preclude

consideration of pricing or costs beyond the surrogate country if

necessary"), Commerce has also noted that the same argument against
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 46

using Tarun Vadehra and Highland House data – namely that the data

do not cover country-wide prices and are too narrow to be considered

for surrogate valuation – applies as well to Goldfindo data.

Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 163 (Cmt. 17) (“the

Department’s practice is to not use price quotes to value factors

when other usable, reliable information is available.”).

(iv) The MSFTI data is either non-inclusive or distortive of
mirror inputs
Respondents also argue that the Infodrive India and IBIS data

indicate that the mirrors reported as being imported under

subheading 7009.91.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of India

(“HTS[I]”) included Taiwanese exports of rearview mirrors for

automobiles to an Indian company by the name of “Enginetech” or

mirrors from Germany including a “chiara” bathroom mirror and a

telescopic mirror. Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 194

(Cmt. 25) & 183 (Cmt. 24); see also Pls.’ Br. 26. According to

Respondents, these are higher-priced specialty mirrors, the

inclusion of which has a distortive effect on the valuation of the

mirror inputs used in furniture production.

Respondents also claim that, in addition to examining the line-

by-line data available from Infodrive India to ascertain what

precise goods were listed under HTS[I] subheading 7009.91.00

(“mirrors, other, unframed”), they examined Taiwan’s corresponding

export data for “mirrors, other, unframed” and that the Taiwanese
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 47

export data show a low volume of exports to India under this HTS

subheading. Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 191 (Cmt.

24). Respondents further claim that the Taiwan export data show a

correspondingly larger volume of exports under the HTS subheading

for rearview mirrors for automobiles. Id. Respondents theorize

that the Indian government’s updating of the Tariff Classification

to the eight-digit subheading level on February 1, 2003 (immediately

prior to the POI) led to problems in the classification of entries.

Id. at 182 (Cmt. 24). Respondent Shing Mark argues that the

“reclassification of the Tariff Schedule resulted in the creation,

renaming, moving, or deletion of various headings and subheadings

which, in turn, resulted in the misclassification of entries in this

new tariff system.” Id.

Commerce does not directly address this allegation, nor the

apparent discrepancy between Taiwanese export data and Indian import

data. Commerce rather points to the existence of an HTS[I]

subheading for rearview mirrors which, Commerce argues, would negate

the possibility of rearview mirrors being classified under

subheading 7009.91.00. Id. at 205 (Cmt. 25). This does not

address the issue of potential misclassification – if rearview

mirrors are miclassified under “mirrors, other, unframed” the

existence of a subheading for rearview mirrors proves nothing.

(v) Infodrive India
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 48

Rather than directly addressing Respondents arguments, Commerce

rejected any attempt to use Infodrive India data to show that the

MSFTI data was inaccurate on three bases: (1) Commerce could not use

the more specific data provided in Infodrive India because

Respondents’ description of their inputs was not specific enough to

allow Commerce to make an exact match between Infodrive India and

the Respondents’ inputs; (2) the data in Infodrive consisted of

“non-quantifiable unit measurement[s]”; and (3) Commerce found

Infodrive India’s data to be unreliable. Issues & Decision Mem.,

P.R. Doc. 1933 at 139 (Cmt. 10)& 203 (Cmt. 25). The court will

address each point in turn.14

With respect to the first point, Commerce found that the input

descriptions provided by Respondents did “not provide sufficient

descriptions or distinguishable characteristics that would allow the

Department to search the voluminous Infodrive India data and IBIS

data to obtain accurate surrogate-value information.” Issues &

Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 138 (Cmt. 10).

Regardless of whether such a search is possible, this point

does not render the Infodrive India or IBIS data ineffective as a

14
Commerce also points to the “lack of contemporaneous data
for the entire POI” as another reason for rejecting such data.
Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 204 (Cmt. 25). Again,
this argument does not address why this data cannot be used as a
reference point to evaluate other data. Also, as noted in the
courts previous discussion, contemporaneity, in and of itself
should not be viewed as the sole reason to discard data; rather
the quality of the data needs to be viewed in its totality. See
supra p. 41.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 49

benchmark or other means of testing the MSFTI data. If Infodrive

India does, as contended by the Respondents, provide a line-by-line

item breakdown of imported inputs into India, then a claim that

there is no way to match inputs with the Infodrive India data is not

responsive to whether or not Infodrive India casts light on

potential inaccuracies in the MSFTI data set.

Turning to the second aspect of Commerce’s analysis, Commerce

concluded that Infodrive India information is not usable because the

unit measurements vary and are non-quantifiable. Respondents note,

however, that “[i]f anything, the fact that the units of measure

differ greatly [in Infodrive India] supports Dorbest’s argument that

the import statistics incorporate a hodgepodge of product (much of

which was misclassified) and therefore is not suitable for use as

a surrogate value.” Reply Br. Pls. Dorbest Ltd., Rui Feng Woodwork

(Dongguan) Co., & Rui Feng Lumber Supp. Rule 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R.

Relating to Issues Surrogate Country, Surrogate Values & Financial

Ratios (“Dorbest Reply Br.”) 6, fn.9. The court finds merit in

Respondents’ argument. Given that Respondents offered the Infodrive

India data to demonstrate alleged inaccuracies and

misclassifications in the MSFTI data for India, Commerce’s reason

for rejecting the data set only buttresses Respondents’ argument,

and does not provide a reason for not using Infodrive India to

ascertain if there are problems with MSFTI’s data set with respect

to mirrors.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 50

Finally, Commerce determined that it was Infodrive India data,

and not MSFTI data, that was unreliable. In its Issues and

Decision Memorandum that accompanied Commerce’s final determination,

Commerce stated:

The only information on the record that India’s HTS
reclassification resulted in any misclassifications
under the Indian Tariff Schedule is from the
Infordrive [sic] India data. In fact, we found that
the MSFTI information from the World Trade Atlas
does not contain the same misclassification as
those contained in Infodrive India. Therefore, we
find that, if India’s reclassification of the Tariff
Schedule resulted in any misclassifications of
import items, it is Infodrive India’s data that is
unreliable because these data are the only data that
report such misclassification. The Department
observes further that the World Trade Atlas reports
the official MSFTI data which may account for
Infodrive India’s misclassifications.

Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 138-39 (Cmt. 10).

It appears to the court that, in essence, Commerce is making

two points: (1) the MSFTI data is correct because it is corroborated

in the World Trade Atlas even though the World Trade Atlas simply

compiles the MSFTI data reported to it by the Indian government; (2)

because MSFTI and the World Trade Atlas report the official data,

they are presumed to be accurate and if only one source contradicts

this data, it is the contradictory source that must be unreliable

and inaccurate.

Respondents argued before Commerce that Commerce had utilized

Infodrive India data in a previous investigation: Certain Color
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 51

Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 Fed.

Reg. 20,594 (Dep't Commerce April 16, 2004) (notice of final

determination of sales at less than fair value and negative final

determination of critical circumstances).15 Dorbest Reply Br. 5.

Commerce, in using the Infodrive data in Color Televisions

determined that:

the data on which Infodriveindia [sic] is based is not
private at all, but rather is Indian customs data.
Because we initially shared TCL’s concerns about the
source of this data, early on in this investigation, we
contacted Infodrive India Pvt. Ltd. (Infodrive), the
company responsible for maintaining the Infodriveindia
[sic] website, and inquired about its data collection
methods. According to Infodrive officials, Infodrive: 1)
obtains the information in question from official Indian
customs data; 2) receives daily customs data transmitted
each month from the Indian customs department; and 3)
presents the Indian customs data exactly as it is
received, without additions or deletions.

Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Jeffrey A. May, Issues and

Decision Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Investigation of

Certain Color Television Receivers from the People’s Republic of

China, at 43 (Cmt. 9)(April 16, 2004) available at

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/04-8694-1.pdf.16 Therefore,

15
This decision was recently affirmed in Sichaun Changdong
Electric Co. v. United States, 30 CIT __, Slip Op. 06-141 (Sept.
14, 2006)(upholding Commerce’s use of Infodrive data rather than
MSFTI data where Infodrive was product specific and
contemporaneous).
16
See also Memorandum from Alice Gibbons, Analyst Office of
AD/CVD Enforcement to File, Re: Placing Information on the Record
Regarding Infodriveindia.com in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation on Color Television Receivers from the People’s
(continued...)
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 52

according to Commerce’s own explanation, Infodrive India presents

Indian government import data that it receives on a monthly basis

from the Indian customs department. Moreover, Infodrive India data

appears to be the same data provided by MSFTI (through the World

Trade Atlas) in a disaggregated form, providing descriptions of the

items that are imported and classified under a particular HTS[I]

subheading. The view that this is a subset of the same data set, but

more detailed, is supported by the assertion by Respondents that

“the total Rupee value of imports from Taiwan from Infodrive is

2,665,062.75, while the total imports in the MSFTI from Taiwan is

0.002665 Billion, or 2.665,000 (World Trade Atlas data rounds

figures).” Dorbest Reply Br. 6.

Therefore, if Infodrive India data provides a breakdown of the

import data reported in MSFTI, it is unreasonable for Commerce to

conclude that Infodrive data is unreliable or contains

misclassifications, while simultaneously claiming that MSFTI is both

reliable and contains no inaccuracies. In addition, because the

record suggests that the disaggregated line-item data indicates that

items manufactured by “Enginetech” are potentially rearview

16
(...continued)
Republic of China (PRC) 2 (Nov. 17, 2004), Attach. to Letter from
Eric C. Emerson, Thomas J. Trendl, & Jack R. Hayes, Steptoe &
Johnson LLP, to the Honorable Donald L. Evans, Secretary of
Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic
of China: Additional Comments on “Valuation of the Factors of
Production”, P.R. Doc. 907 at fr. 125-129 (May 14, 2004).
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 53

mirrors17 there is a sufficient reason to further investigate

whether or not rearview mirrors (and other speciality mirrors) are

included in the basket category selected by Commerce to value

mirrors. Regardless of whether or not Commerce finds it appropriate

to use the Infodrive India data to value mirrors, the Infodrive

India data can prove to be illuminating as to the nature of the

product actually being valued within a specific (and in this case

17
Petitioners claim that the information listed in Infodrive
India indicates that the mirrors shipped by Enginetech are
“mirror plates” and do not indicate that these were actually
rearview mirrors. Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 202
(Cmt. 25). Respondents have placed data on the record, however,
that, if correct, demonstrate that Enginetech is an autoparts
company that sells rearview mirrors for automobiles. See Dorbest
Reply Br. 7; Exh. 9 to Letter from John D. Greenwald, Wilmer,
Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr, on behalf of, Lacquer Craft
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. & Markor International Furniture
(Tianjin) Manufacture Co., to the Honorable Donald L. Evans,
Secretary of Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China:
Surrogate Value Submission, P.R. Doc. 1695, fr. 123 (Aug. 17,
2004) (“Lacquer Craft Aug. 17 Submission”) (referencing
www.enginetech-autoparts.com). Respondents also claim that the
Taiwanese imports from Enginetech were described as “6 inch
mirror with housing”, “MB100 Mirror plates with lettering,” “TWM
mirror plate with lettering.” Dorbest Reply Br. 6; Steptoe &
Johnson, LLP, Submission of Factual Information for Valuing
Factors of Production of Shing Mark Enterprise Co., Ltd., (Aug.
17, 2004) Attach. to Letter from Eric C. Emerson, Steptoe &
Johnson, LLP on behalf of Shing Mark Enterprise Co., Ltd., to the
Honorable Donald L. Evans, Secretary of Commerce Re: Antidumping
Duty Investigation on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China: Submission of Factual Information for Valuing
Factors of Production, Pub. 1694 fr. 161-162 (Aug. 17,
2004)(“Shing Mark Aug. 17 Submission”); Lacquer Craft Aug. 17
Submission, Pub. 1695 at fr. 95. The information placed on the
record indicates at least a colorable claim that the surrogate
value selected by Commerce includes data from rearview or other
specialty mirrors.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 54

basket)18 HTS[I] subheading.

(vi) Commerce’s evaluation

Having concluded that Infodrive India data was unreliable,

Commerce examined the MSFTI data in order to ascertain whether or

not there was any distortive effect as a result of imports from

Taiwan and Germany. Commerce employed the MSFTI data for mirrors

from Indonesia as a benchmark19, and calculated the POI average

prices for Indonesia and found that the POI average price from both

Taiwan and Germany were lower than that of Indonesia. Issues &

Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 204 (Cmt. 25). Commerce concluded

that this examination of the data demonstrated that “to the extent

that any imports were misclassified from Taiwan there is no record

evidence that these were distortive as the value comparison

described above clearly indicates.” Id. at 205 (Cmt. 25).

While this attempt at benchmarking may indicate that the

Taiwanese and German data were at least as representative of the

18
Commerce has previously noted the broad aspect of an
HTS[I] subheading. Freshwater Crawfish Tailmeat from the People’s
Republic of China, 64 Fed. Reg. 27,961, 27,962 (Dep't Commerce,
May 24, 1999) (final results of new shipper review) ("[I]mport
data from basket categories can be too broad to be reliable.").

19
Commerce used the Indonesian data to analyze this issue
despite the fact that Commerce considers Indonesia to be a
country with subsidies and therefore excluded those products
originating from Indonesia from its surrogate value calculation
in the Final Determination. Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc.
1933 at 204 (Cmt. 25).
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 55

goods classified in 7009.91.00 as the Indonesian imports, it does

not address the claim that the Taiwanese and German mirrors include

specialty mirrors, and that specialty mirrors lead to a higher

valuation of the mirrors that are used in making wooden furniture

sets. If the distortion alleged by the Respondents is limited to

a problem with the data for imports from Taiwan and Germany, then

this evaluation by Commerce would demonstrate that the problems with

the Taiwanese and German data were not distortive. However, if the

problem with the mirror data is endemic to the subheading chosen by

Commerce to value the mirrors, then the distortions could also exist

within the Indonesian data, and the evaluation does not demonstrate

that the Taiwanese and German data do not have distortions.

Additionally, testing import data against import data does not

answer the broader issue raised by Respondents, i.e., that the

import data suggests higher prices for imported mirrors than

domestic mirrors, which would suggest that furniture manufacturers

would not purchase imported mirrors as inputs.

From this examination of the record and analysis it appears

that Commerce never examined or explained evidence on the record

that would seem to indicate (1) that the Indian furniture industry

does not use imported mirrors as an input; or (2) if the Indian

furniture industry does use imported mirrors as an input, that the

data Commerce is employing actually does not capture the price of

plain mirrors utilized in furniture production in India (i.e.,
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 56

Commerce only reviewed whether the data is indeed overinclusive of

plain mirrors, rather than whether the data was not inclusive at all

or distorted). See, e.g., Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. at 198

(Cmt. 25) (“Respondents [contend] that the core problem is that the

Indian import statistics are shaped by imports of products not used

in furniture production.”). Commerce must reexamine the MSFTI data,

in comparison to other data on the record, and/or determine that the

data does not include specialty mirrors.

In sum, on this issue, Respondents have placed on the record

data from four different sources indicating prices that are

significantly lower than the import-data-based values selected by

Commerce, yet Commerce has not evaluated the MSFTI mirror data vis-

a-vis the benchmarks offered by the Respondents, or vis-a-vis any

other non-MSFTI source.20 Commerce has rendered it impossible to

20
Commerce does try to explain, post-hoc, the differences
between the import prices and the prices provided by Respondents:

. . . all of the values to which [sic] respondent
claims are “mutually reinforcing” were championed by
respondent companies that had a keen interest in
selecting low values. It is hardly shocking that the
values they propose as “more accurate” are at the lower
end of the spectrum. Conversely, Indian import values
are more representative of prices from all of India
because they are not derived from the few values hand
picked by respondents. Therefore, it is perfectly
logical that they are higher; however, higher values do
not equate to inaccurate values, as respondents
erroneously assert.”

Def.’s Br. 64. This explanation, however, merely relies on the
blanket statement that import prices are more representative of
prices from all of India. As explained above, this rationale
(continued...)
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 57

demonstrate any inaccuracies or distortions in the data it has

selected, by requiring data sets being offered for comparisons to

be faultless. This is a standard that even Commerce’s data set

cannot meet. Respondents have also placed on the record a colorable

claim that the data set includes data that is either not

representative of the factor input or has a highly distortive effect

on the factor valuation. Because Commerce has not analyzed these

factors, or Respondents’ claims, the court cannot conclude that

Commerce’s conclusions with regard to mirrors are supported by the

record.

(b) Paints

Respondents allege that using MSFTI to provide a surrogate

value for paints is not in accordance with law or supported by

substantial evidence, because it leads to an inaccurate valuation

of paint inputs. Respondents allege that they have placed evidence

on the record that indicates that the surrogate value chosen by

Commerce is higher than the price paid by wooden bedroom furniture

manufacturers, and that the HTS[I] heading chosen to value paint is

overly broad, insofar as it also captures paint allegedly used for

automobiles and shipbuilding. Pls.’ Br. 26 - 27. Respondents

submitted information from (1) a major Indian paints supplier, Asia

20
(...continued)
only holds true if the import prices used capture the actual
inputs in question. Accordingly, Commerce’s rationale does not
constitute a reasonable examination or explanation as to what may
be driving the difference in prices.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 58

Paints; (2) Infodrive and IBIS; and (3) Highland House and Tarun

Vadhera, that they claim provides better and more accurate

information for valuing the paint factor input, in addition to

demonstrating that the value selected by Commerce is inaccurate.

Id. 26 - 27, 32 - 34; Commerce rejected all surrogate values

proffered by Respondents, and chose to value paint under a four

digit heading for paint, HTS 3208. Issues & Decision Mem., P.R.

Doc. 1933 at 214 (Cmt. 26).

Respondents specifically allege that the surrogate value chosen

by Commerce for paint is overvalued, pointing to information they

have placed on the record that their price range for paint extends

from $2.18 to $4.03 a kilogram, while the surrogate value selected

by Commerce was $4.48/kg.21 They suggest that the very fact that

the values they have culled from various data sources are lower than

Commerce’s chosen values is in and of itself sufficient reason for

Commerce’s valuation to be doubted. However, it appears to the

court that this is not the test suggested by Hebei I, 28 CIT __,

Slip Op. 04-88 and Hebei II, 29 CIT __, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1264.

21
Respondents have divided their paints usage into five
categories: thinner, lacquer, sealer, stain and glaze. For
thinner, respondents provided values of between $1.18/kg -
$1.36/kg with a final determination valuation of $2.83/kg. The
final determination valuation for laquer, sealer, stain and glaze
was $4.48/kg each. For laquer, the respondents provided values
of between $2.11/kg - $3.89/kg; for sealer $2.42/kg - $3.89/ kg;
for stain $2.18/kg - $3.89/kg; and for glaze $2.99/kg - $4.03/kg.
Pls.’ Br. 27. Respondents also provided a per liter price for
the paint, but the court could not ascertain from the record
before it the conversion factor for liters to kilograms for the
various types of paint.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 59

Hebei I & II stand for the proposition that import prices should not

be used when an industry uses domestic inputs, and that one means

of ascertaining whether or not domestic inputs are used is by

comparing domestic to imported prices. Hebei II 366 F. Supp. 2d

at 1274. However, in the case at bar, in the table comparing

various paint values provided by Respondents, Respondents provide

information from Infodrive India from two companies, “Advance Paints

and Linea Coats PVT, that were exhibitors at ‘Indiawood 2004' and,

unlike the other importers, import the types of paint . . . that are

used to finish wooden bedroom furniture.” Pls.’ Br. 26.

Respondents have also, therefore, indicated that the value that

Commerce selected includes the types of paint used in wooden

furniture production. Id.

The court’s analysis for mirrors found that the selection of

MSFTI as a data source for the valuation of mirrors was not

supported by substantial evidence in the face of evidence that (1)

companies do not source their mirrors internationally; (2) the MSFTI

data selected was either not inclusive of the type of mirror used

in wooden furniture production or was distorted by the inclusion of

specialty mirrors when the factor input was plain mirrors. For

paint, there is evidence on the record that the right type of paint

is imported. Additionally, though Respondents have placed evidence

on the record that the major paint importers as listed in Infodrive

India are companies that “purchase or supply paints used by the
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 60

automobile, computer, chemical and shipbuilding industries” and that

“none of these importers have anything to do with furniture

production,” Pls.’ Br. 26, they have not alleged or demonstrated

that these paints are distortive of the final surrogate value.

Therefore, Respondents have not alleged a sufficiently colorable

claim that the surrogate value chosen by Commerce is either not

inclusive of the factor input, or that it is overly distortive of

the value of the factor input.

Thus, Respondents’ argument becomes an allegation that

Commerce’s choice for surrogate value is overinclusive and that

instead Commerce should use, inter alia, Asian Paints (India)

Dealers Price List. Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 217-

223 (Cmt. 27). Respondents assert that this list is publicly

available, tax-exclusive and contemporaneous with the POI.

Additionally, Respondents contend that this list “describes the

maximum retail prices to be charged by all Indian dealers, is

representative of a large sample of domestic prices because Asian

Paints is a major producer of paint products that are sold and

distributed throughout India, [and] is not aberrational. . . .” Id.

at 218. Respondents contend that for at least Shing Mark, the Asian

Paints price list includes products that are comparable to the

reported factors of production, such as Asian Paints “Melamyne

Sealer” and “Melamyne Glossy.” Id.

Commerce rejected the use of the Asian Paints price list,
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 61

stating that it does not “best represent the respondents’ paint

inputs.” Id. at 222. Given that Shing Mark listed over 100

different paint inputs and Lacquer Craft listed over 230 paint

inputs, Commerce found that a single product list from a single

producer would not represent the “broad” multitude of factors

employed by the various respondents. Id. Commerce also determined

that “a single price list from a domestic Indian producer is not a

representative sample of the domestic prices charged for the

respondents’ finishing factors.” Id. at 223. Finally, after

examining the differences in retail prices reported on the Asian

Paints website, Commerce found that the Asian Paints price list was

not indicative of the prices paid by end-users, but rather was a

list of prices paid by dealers, and was therefore not indicative of

the prices paid by furniture manufacturers. Id. Effectively,

Commerce found that the prices from the Asian Paints price list were

both underinclusive, and at the wrong level of trade to use for

surrogate valuation.

As stated in our analysis above, supra at 32-33, when Commerce

is faced with a choice between two sub-optimal data sources, i.e.,

underinclusive vs. overinclusive data, Commerce’s choice between the

two is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. Chia Far

Indus. Factory Co. v. United States, 28 CIT __, __, 343 F. Supp. 2d

1344, 1352 (2004) Because Commerce’s choice of MSFTI data to value
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 62

paint inputs22 in light of its alternatives was a reasonable

determination of the best available data, Commerce’s selection of

MSFTI data is appropriate.23,24 See Goldlink, 30 CIT at __, Slip

Op. 06-65 at 8. (“The Court’s role in the case at bar is not to

evaluate whether the information Commerce used was the best

available, but rather whether a reasonable mind could conclude that

Commerce chose the best available information.”)(citation omitted).

(c) Cardboard

22
The court’s holding here is limited to finding that
Commerce may reasonably determine that MSFTI represents the best
available information for valuing paint. This holding, however,
is not preclusive of Commerce finding a more narrow subheading
(to the six or eight digit level) or a series of subheadings, to
value paints, instead of the broad 4 digit heading of HTS[I]
chosen in the final determination.
23
AFMC avers that Commerce’s selection of a separate HTS[I]
subheading for thinner was unsupported by substantial evidence
and not in accordance with law, alleging that the aggregation of
products into “thinner” when the thinner was not an independent
factor of production, but rather was added to other finishes, was
not appropriate. The court finds this argument to be without
merit. Commerce was able to find a more specific match for the
product reported to be “thinner,” and therefore it was reasonable
for Commerce to use that valuation for that input. Cf.
Guangdong Chems.,30 CIT at __,414 F. Supp. 2d at 1311.
Therefore, Commerce’s selection of a separate valuation for
“thinner” is appropriate.
24
It is not clear whether or not Respondents are also
advocating for the valuation of paint using either Infodrive
India or Tarun Vadehra and Highland House data. To the extent
Respondents are, the court finds that its analysis above, with
respect to overinclusive or underinclusive data and the select
nature of Infodrive India, Tarun Vadehra and Highland House data,
see supra at 32-33,44-46, applies equally here.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 63

Respondents also challenge Commerce’s valuation of packing

cardboard, which it assigned a value of $1.10/kg based on HTS[I]

subheading 4808.9000 (“[p]aper and paperboard, corrugated (with or

without glued flat surface sheets), creped, crinkled, embossed or

perforated, in rolls or sheets, other than paper of the kind

described in heading 4803 - other.”). Pls.’ Br. 27. Respondents

assert that this valuation is too high, basing their assertion on

data gathered from Tarun Vadehra and Highland House in India and

Goldfindo in Indonesia. According to Respondents, the cardboard

prices paid by these wooden furniture manufactures ranged from

$0.31/kg to $0.65/kg. Id. Respondents object to the utilization

of MSFTI data in this instance because these values are not specific

to the type of cardboard used by the Respondents. Respondents

suggest that Highland House and Tarun Vadehra provide a better, more

specific valuation for packing materials, as the packing materials

employed by these furniture producers are known in detail, as

opposed to the broad, general MSFTI data. Id. at 29.

Once again, Commerce was faced with a choice between two

imprecise, not-perfect surrogate values. The MSFTI data runs the

risk of being overbroad, in capturing more factor inputs than are

actually utilized by the wooden furniture industry in India, while

the data from the two Indian furniture producers runs the risk of

being too narrow, such that the factor input in question is not

actually captured by the proffered values. Though Respondents have
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 64

asserted that the cardboard data is distortive, they have not

produced evidence to indicate in what way the data is distortive.

Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 225 (Cmt. 29).

Respondents have not alleged that the industry does not use the

inputs captured by MSFTI, nor that the valuation is distorted by the

inclusion of more expensive specialized products. Respondents’

assertion in this instance is limited to pointing out how certain

producers in India pay less for their cardboard inputs. Pls.’ Br.

27 & 36. Though one could conclude from this evidence that this

lower price is reflective of the real experiences of all Indian

producers, one could also conclude that these are specific prices

for specific producers, reflective of their unique product needs,

and thus not reflective of the experience of all Indian producers.

Commerce examined and evaluated the data sources before it, and

chose between two imperfect data sources. Commerce’s conclusion,

that MSFTI represented the best available information in this

instance, was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.

C. Wage rate

One of the primary factors of production for any product is the

cost of labor. Commerce treats the wage rate differently from all

other factors of production; for labor, Commerce employs

“regression-based wage rates reflective of the observed relationship

between wages and national income in market economy countries,”

19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(3). Using this regression analysis, Commerce
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 65

determines the relationship between countries’ per capita Gross

National Product (“GNI”) and their wage rates; Commerce approximates

the wage rate of the PRC by using the PRC’s GNI as the variable in

the equation that was the result of the regression. See Wooden

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results

of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand Orders (Dep’t Commerce

Aug. 1, 2005) (“Remand Determination”).25 Stated mathematically:

where Y is a constant26 (as determined by the regression model), X

is the coefficient (as determined by the regression model), GNIPRC is

the per capita GNP of the PRC, and WagePRC is the derived wage rate

for the PRC. Id. at 9.

For wage rate data used to calculate the regression, because

of “the practices of the respective data sources,” “[t]here is

normally a two-year interval between the current year and the most

recent reporting year of the data required for [Commerce’s]

25
Following the commencement of this litigation, Commerce
requested, and was granted, a voluntary remand to correct some
flaws in its wage rate calculation. The determination under
review is Commerce’s results pursuant to this voluntary remand.
This is the only aspect of Commerce’s determination that the
court is considering after a remand.
26
This term is also known as the y-intercept. The
regression model attempts to fit a line through various data
points, plotted along the x and y axes (here the x axis
representing GNI and the y axis representing the wage rate). The
constant, or y-intercept, is the point at which the line
predicted by the regression equation crosses the y-axis.
See, e.g., Lawrence Hamilton, Data Analysis for Social Scientists
309 (Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1996).
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 66

methodology.” Remand Determination at 4. Therefore, Commerce uses

the “most recent reporting year” provided by each country and

inflates those values, i.e., multiplies the values by the rate of

inflation. Commerce calculates the wage rate regression once a

year and uses that regression to calculate the wage rate for all

investigations and administrative reviews in NMEs conducted during

that year. For this investigation, Commerce calculated its

regression after choosing a wage rate data set for fifty-four market

economy countries, including the United States, as reported to the

World Bank for 2001. See Remand Determination at 4-5 & 14.

Respondents and AFMC challenge numerous aspects of Commerce’s

calculation of the wage rate here. Broadly speaking, Respondents

and AFMC allege three types of errors: (1) that Commerce’s method

for calculating the wage rate is facially unlawful; (2) that even

if the regulation is not facially unlawful, the manner in which

Commerce implements its regulation is unlawful; and (3) that

Commerce erred in its choice of data.27

(1) Facial Challenge

27
As Commerce noted in its Final Determination, and in its
brief, Commerce is currently seeking comments on its calculation
methodology for its NME Wage Rate Methodology. Expected Non-
Market Economy Wages: Request for Comment on Calculation
Methodology, 70 Fed. Reg. 37,761 (Dep’t. Commerce June 30, 2005).
While the court’s holding infra is that Commerce is not required,
by the statute, to limit its data set in its regression analysis
to economically comparable countries, in the manner calculated by
Respondents, nothing stated by the court here would preclude
Commerce from considering Respondents’ arguments in Commerce’s
reexamination of its NME wage rate methodology.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 67

As noted above, the antidumping statute requires that

Commerce’s “valuation of the factors of production shall be based

on the best available information regarding the values of such

factors in a market economy country or countries considered to be

appropriate by the administering authority.” 19 U.S.C. §1677b(c)(1)

(emphases added). In defining the market economy countries to which

Commerce may turn, Congress further requires that Commerce

[S]hall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or
costs of factors of production in one or more market
economy countries that are –
(A) at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the nonmarket economy
country, and
(B) significant producers of comparable
merchandise.

19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4) (emphasis added). Commerce’s regulation

provides that “[f]or labor, [Commerce] will use regression-based

wage rates reflective of the observed relationship between wages and

national income in market economy countries.” 19 C.F.R.

§ 351.408(c)(3).

Respondents argue that although the section 1677b(c)(4) permits

Commerce to use data from only “comparable” market economies,

Commerce’s regulation does not require such comparability in the

selection of economies for the calculation of the wage rate.

Respondents further state that Commerce intended to include the word

“comparable” in its regulation, and unintentionally omitted that
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 68

word from its final rule. Therefore, Respondents argue, Commerce’s

regulation is void on its face. The court disagrees.

Although Commerce’s regulation does not specifically provide

that Commerce must choose comparable market economies, it does not

suggest the opposite either. Rather, the regulation is silent as

to how Commerce will select market economies for its data set. As

such, even if Respondents were correct that the antidumping statute

permits use of data only from comparable market economies, Commerce

could conceivably be faithful to both its regulation and

Respondents’ interpretation of the antidumping statute by using data

from only comparable market economies. Accordingly, Respondents

fail to state a case for the facial invalidity of Commerce’s

regulation. Cf. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 (1993); INS v.

Nat’l Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. 183, 188 & 194

(1991).

(2) As Applied Invalidity

Respondents next argue that Commerce’s selection of market

economies for its regression in this instance violates the

antidumping statute. Specifically, Respondents argue that most of

the countries in the data set have a level of economic development

far exceeding that of the PRC. For example, among the nations

included within the data set is the United States (a nation with one

of the highest GNI’s). See Import Administration, Expected Wages
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 69

of Selected Non-Market Economy Countries, Expected Wage Calculation:

2003 GNI Data, Regression Analysis: 2003 GNI Data, Revised November

2005, htt p : / / i a . i t a .doc.gov/wages/03wages/110805- 2003-

Tables/03wages-110805.html (last visited August 10, 2006).

Therefore, Respondents contend, Commerce’s regression methodology

employs inappropriate countries for its calculation of the PRC’s

wage rate.

While it is true that Commerce’s regression analysis uses data

from non-comparable countries, the result (in theory) derives what

should be a comparable wage rate for the PRC. As Commerce has

explained “[t]he regression that results provides a formula that,

when applied to the non market economy country’s GNI, enables

Commerce to determine in an accurate, fair and predictable manner,

the labor wage rate of a market economy country at a comparable

level of development.” Def.’s Resp. Parties’ Comments Remand

Results Re: Commerce’s Labor Wage Rate 24 (“Def.’s Resp. Parties

Cmts.”).

It may be the case that there is a relationship between a

country’s GNI and its wage rate and that accuracy would be greatly

enhanced by using a broader data set of nations than just those at

a comparable level of development to the PRC. Under such

circumstances, using a broader data set may constitute the “best

available information” and recourse to a broader range of market

economy countries could be "appropriate" in advancing one of the
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 70

antidumping statute’s purposes, i.e., to calculate the dumping

margin as accurately as possible. This view of the “best available

information” and “appropriate” market economy country or countries

requirements is reflected in numerous court decisions. See, e.g.,

Shakeproof Assembly Components Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v.

United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“we have

specifically held that Commerce may depart from surrogate values

when there are other methods of determining the ‘best available

information’ regarding the values of the factors of

production.”)(citations omitted); Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United

States, 166 F.3d 1373, 1378 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (the antidumping

duty statute "does not preclude consideration of pricing or costs

beyond the surrogate country if necessary"); Lasko Metal Prods. Inc.

v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(relying on the

international market price for the factors of production); Globe

Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, 28 CIT ___,___, 350 F. Supp.

2d 1148, 1158 (2004) (“Under some circumstances, however, where the

NME country has become a market economy, the post-NME values will

best serve as representative of the values of the NME country as if

it were a market economy.”).

Indeed, the court in Nation Ford explicitly approved the notion

of creating a “hypothetical” market economy to approximate the

production experience of the PRC. Nation Ford, 166 F.3d at 1378.

Consequently, Commerce’s calculation, at least in theory, produces
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 71

a hypothetical wage rate for the PRC, which is therefore by

definition a wage rate for a producer country at a comparable level

of development, as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)4. As such, so

long as a reasonable mind can find that Commerce’s data choice in

using the regression methodology constitutes the “best available

information” in a particular case, nothing precludes Commerce from

using sources outside a surrogate country to value the factors of

production. Cf. Nation Ford, 166 F.3d at 1378 (the “best available

information” test must be evaluated under the circumstances of the

case).

This, however, raises the main thrust of Respondents’ arguments

here. Specifically, Respondents claim that (1) the manner in which

Commerce created the regression model was arbitrary and therefore

unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) the results of the

regression model may be distorted; and (3) Commerce has failed to

explain why it uses the PRC's GNI but not its wage rate. The court

considers each claim in turn.

(a) Creation of the Regression Model

Commerce selected the wage rate data for its regression from

the Yearbook of Labour Statistics, published by the International

Labour Organization (ILO). Remand Determination at 5. Commerce

follows a three-step process in choosing which data it will use.

First, Commerce establishes a minimum standard for data. Under this

standard, Commerce will only use data if that data is (i) less than
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 72

five years old; (ii) reports wages for both male and female

employees; and (iii) covers "different types of industr[ies]."

Remand Determination at 6. Next, because the ILO database includes

multiple expressions of wage rates, Commerce must choose which data

meeting its minimum threshold it will use for a particular country.

Commerce prioritizes data using the following criteria (in this

order of precedence): (i) "’[w]orker [c]overage,’ i.e., coverage of

different types of workers, such as wage earners or salaried

employees"; (ii) "’[t]ype of [d]ata,’ i.e., the unit of time for

which the wage is reported, such as per hour or per month”; and

(iii) "’[s]ource ID,’ i.e., a code for the source of the data." Id.

Within each factor, Commerce has preferences. For example, Commerce

"generally prioritizes 'wage earners,' 'employees' and 'total

employment,' in that order for the parameter 'Worker Coverage.'"

Id. at 7. "Finally, it is the Department's normal practice to

eliminate aberrational values (i.e., values that vary in either

direction in the extreme from year to year) from the wage rate

dataset" Id. Using these criteria, Commerce used the wage rate

data of fifty-four countries.28

Here, Commerce has acknowledged (a) the desirability of a

broader data set in its own justification for the creation and

28
The initial data set that Commerce employed in this
investigation had fifty-six countries. In the Remand
Determination, Commerce determined that the data from two
countries were not reliable. Remand Determination at 13. As a
result, the data set employed in December 2004 consisted of only
fifty-four countries.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 73

utilization of a regression model for wage rates, see Def.’s Br. 21

(“Due to the variability of wage rates in countries with similar per

capita GNI, a more accurate result would be obtained by utilizing

data from multiple countries.”)(citations omitted); id. at 5 & 24

(“A relatively broad data set helps to prevent bias and ensure that

the regression is statistically sound.”); Rules and Regulations 19

CFR Parts 351, 353 and 355, Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties, 62 Fed. Reg. 27,296 at 27,367 (May 19, 1997) (“Preamble 19

CFR § 351”) (“averaging of multiple data points . . . should lead

to more accurate results. . . .”); (b) that additional countries for

which it had available data (may have) met its selection criteria,

Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. 67,313, 67,317; Issues & Decision

Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 180 (Cmt. 23)29; and (c) use of these

additional countries would yield a better result than a regression

model without such countries, id. Under such circumstances,

Commerce’s exclusion of the countries that met its own selection

criteria was arbitrary and therefore unsupported by substantial

evidence. Accordingly, Commerce’s regression model cannot constitute

29
Specifically Commerce stated:

the Department agrees in part with Dorbest that a
recalculation of the regression analysis may require
the Department to expand the basket of countries it
includes in its regression analysis. A review of the
data shows, however, that it may be appropriate to
include substantially more than the nineteen countries
which Dorbest identifies.

Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 180 (Cmt. 23).
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 74

the “best available information.” Indeed, even if the statute did

not require the use of “best available information” an arbitrary

application of selection criteria is inherently unreasonable and,

therefore, renders the conclusion unsupported by substantial

evidence. Cf. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 48 (1983). Nor can Commerce hide

behind its own regulation - Commerce’s regulation, when interpreted,

must yield a reasonable interpretation of the statute.

Arbitrariness is inherently unreasonable. Cf. Allied Pac. Food

(Dalian) Co. v. United States, 30 CIT ___,___, Slip Op. 06-89 at 48

(June 12, 2006) (finding non-adherence to selection criteria to be

reversible error).

Unsurprisingly then, Commerce does not contest this premise.

Instead, Commerce stated that it would not increase the data set

here because: (i) such an undertaking would require a significant

change in the data set that should be subject to comment from the

general public; and (ii) this would require more time than was

available in the investigation in order to “determine an accurate

construction of a new dataset and to conduct a new regression

analysis. Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 180 (Cmt. 23);

Remand Determination at 22; see also Def.’s Resp. Parties Cmts. 28.

The court will consider each rationale.

(i) Notice and Comment Rulemaking
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 75

Commerce’s first argument, i.e., that the data set in question

must be developed through notice-and-comment rulemaking, appears to

be inconsistent with Commerce’s past practice. Commerce has in the

past updated and expanded the number of countries within the data

set without resorting to notice and comment rulemaking. In fact,

during the investigation here, Commerce used a basket of fifty-six

countries, but during the voluntary remand, used a basket of only

fifty-four. Remand Determination at 13. No notice-and-comment

rulemaking was used to effect the change. Commerce has also, over

time, expanded its data set of countries from forty-five countries

to fifty-six countries without vetting its choices through notice-

and-comment rulemaking. During the notice-and-comment period for

this regulation, Commerce foresaw utilizing forty-five countries for

the regression analysis. See Proposed Rules 19 CFR Parts 351, 353,

and 355 Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 61 Fed. Reg.

7308, 7345 (Dep’t Commerce Feb. 27, 1996) (“Proposed Rule”) (noting

that the methodology would employ approximately forty-five

countries); Import Administration, Expected Wages of Selected Non-

Market Economy Countries, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages (last visited

October 5, 2006) (“For previous updates, we utilized the wage and

gross domestic product (GDP) data of at least 45 market economies

collected from publicly available sources such as the International

Labour Organization and the World Bank/International Monetary

Fund.”). By the year 2002, Commerce had increased this data set to
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 76

fifty-six countries. Expected Wages of Selected Non-Market Economy

Countries, Corrected 2000 data Revised September 2002,

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/corrected00wages/corrected00wages.htm.

Commerce has even changed the underlying data it uses in its

methodology without notice-and-comment rulemaking. See Expected

Wages of Selected Non-Market Economy Countries,

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages (“However, beginning with last year’s

update (May 2000), we chose to use per capita gross national product

(GNP) instead of GDP.”). Consequently, under the regulation,

Commerce has expanded and contracted its data set at will, as well

as altered the underlying data. Cf. Qwest Corp. v. FCC, 258 F. 3d

1191, 1206 (10th Cir. 2001) (“the FCC is not required to begin a new

notice-and-comment period every time it fixes a technical bug in its

computer program.”).

Moreover, it is fundamental administrative law that when a

regulation is unlawful, or a finding of fact unsupported by

substantial evidence, Commerce must change its practice or

conclusion. See, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 367

F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that Commerce employed a

different test than that provided for in the regulation found

unlawful by the Court of International Trade). Contrary to

Commerce's reasoning, it may not continue to unlawfully apply a

regulation or finding of fact to a party. Accordingly, this defense

must be rejected.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 77

(ii) Deadlines

Commerce’s second argument is that, given its statutory

deadlines for completing investigations, Commerce could not consider

available information in updating its regression model. Congress

was certainly sensitive to this concern by limiting Commerce’s

choice of data to that “available” during the investigation. But

in recognizing this concern, Congress nonetheless required that if

information was available, i.e., placed on the record, Commerce was

compelled to consider it. Therefore, Commerce’s defense runs

directly against its statutory duty. Consequently, Commerce’s

second defense must also be rejected.

The difficulty here is more pronounced than it might be in

another context. Commerce’s problem here is entirely self-inflicted

– it chose such an “extremely complex” methodology. Remand

Determination at 2. When adopting such an “extremely complex”

methodology, Commerce should have been aware that correcting it

would also be complex. Therefore, Commerce cannot reasonably

defend its actions here by invoking problems of its own creation.

(b) Distortion of Regression Model

Commerce’s regression model also appears to produce distorted

results. Consider, as an example, the prediction of India’s labor

wage rate. In its Remand Determination, Commerce calculated the

constant to be 0.392, the coefficient to be 0.00048, and India’s
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 78

2002 GNI (expressed in U.S. dollars) to be $470. See Exhibit III

to Remand Determination at pp. 2, 3, 5 & 6. Commerce’s model

therefore predicts India’s wage rate to be $0.6176 per hour.30

However, the labor wage Commerce used for India was $0.21 per hour

– approximately one-third of what the model predicts. Id. at 3.

Therefore, assuming that the Indian labor wage rate is accurate and

representative, it appears that the regression contains a bias or

distortion. Given that India was the country Commerce found most

comparable to the PRC with respect to all other factors of

production, it seems likely then that a similar distortion or

inconsistency could result in computing the wage rate of the PRC.

At the least, there appears to be an inconsistency or distortion in

Commerce’s figures, a distortion Commerce does not explain.

This possible distortion also appears when one considers the

effect of the constant, i.e., 0.392. If a country had no GNI, i.e,

GNI = 0, then the model would predict a wage rate of $ 0.392.31

30
I.e., WageIndia= 0.392 + .00048 * 470 = $0.6176.
31
Of the countries Commerce found economically comparable to
the PRC, only one country has a higher wage rate than this
baseline (without adding in the value of GNI*0.00048).

(continued...)
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 79

Thus, Commerce’s regression model appears to overstate wage rates

of low-income countries. This would appear problematical here where

Commerce is attempting to value labor in such a low-income country,

i.e., the PRC. While Commerce’s model may be the best information

available on the record, here Commerce has failed to give a viable

explanation for its choice in light of this possible distortion of

its predicted wage rate of countries such as the PRC.

Rather, despite these possible anomalies, Commerce's only

apparent justification is that use of the regression model leads to

an accurate, fair, and predictable computation of the wage rate.

See Remand Determination at 22. In the face of what appears to be

flaws in Commerce’s figures, the first observation, i.e., accuracy,

31
(...continued)
Country Wage rate GNI Predicted Wage
rate
India $.21 470 $0.62
Pakistan $.36 420 $0.59
Sri Lanka $.33 850 $0.80
Indonesia* $.35 n/a n/a
Philippines $.81 1030 $0.89
*Indonesia was not included within Commerce's regression model;
this number was provided to Commerce by Respondents.

All data came from, or was compiled using data obtained in,
Exhibit III to Remand Determination at 3 & 5. For reference, the
PRC’s GNI for 2002 was $960. See Exhibit II to Remand
Determination at 1. It is not clear to the court whether the
source of this apparent distortion is in the underlying wage rate
data set, in Commerce’s calculation, or in the regression model
itself.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 80

is no more than a conclusory statement. Nor does the court find

that the claims of fairness and predictability are supportable. In

adopting its regulation Commerce commented that "[i]t also is

fairer [to use the regression method], because the valuation of

labor will not vary depending on which country [Commerce] selects

as the economically comparable surrogate economy." Preamble 19 CFR

§ 351, 62 Fed. Reg. at 27,367. At the same time, in this case,

Commerce used a wage rate of $0.85 which appears to be higher than

each of the possible surrogate countries. Commerce should examine

and balance these competing claims to “fairness.”

As for predictability, first, because the computation of normal

value for merchandise from an NME is based on many different factors

calculated during an investigation, the added predictability of a

wage rate (if there is any) has limited utility -- assuredly not

enough to permit an inaccurate computation. Second, Commerce

recalculates the wage rate annually. It is therefore unclear to

what degree the use of the regression here guarantees

predictability. Certainly, the data set Commerce used here was not

available when the Respondents were importing the merchandise under

investigation -- therefore, they gained no benefit from the

predictability (if any) of its use. Third, if the regression model

is inaccurate, Commerce's use thereof could simply be adding a

tariff to Respondent's merchandise without there existing a

violation of the antidumping statute. In other words, predictable
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 81

or not, Commerce's antidumping authority would be of uncertain

legitimacy. Such a method would also be contrary to congressional

intent. See S. Rep. No. 100-71 at 106 (1987) (quoted above). While

the court will give more deference to long-standing agency

practices, this deference is neither automatic nor unlimited.

See, e.g., AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir.

2000).

Therefore, on this record, and lacking sufficient justification

from Commerce for its choices made, the court cannot conclude that

Commerce’s selected calculation of its regression model is

reasonable.32 Cf. Qwest, 258 F. 3d at 1206 (plaintiff “has not

presented any evidence that the model overall produces such

inaccurate results that it cannot form the basis of rational

32
In AFMC’s response to the court’s questions of July 13,
2006, AFMC pointed out that some changes to the data set or the
regression model would create “distortions and results that are
less reliable than Commerce’s existing methodology.” AFMC Resp.
Court’s July 13, 2006 Qs. 19. AFMC points to the fact that
Commerce’s data set of 56 countries leads to an adjusted R square
of 0.92 while if only the LI [low-income] and LMI [lower-middle
income] countries were used, the adjusted R square is only 0.47.
Id.
This argument ignores two crucial points. First, accepting
all of AFMC’s points as true, these are points addressing the
reasonableness of the model, through an evaluation
of the statistical soundness of the model, that Commerce would
have to make to demonstrate reasonableness in the face of other
discrepancies and distortions. Secondly, as to the point that
restricting the data set to only low income and lower-income
countries would reduce the adjusted R-squared, this does not
address what the outcome would be were the data set to be
expanded to include all countries that meet Commerce’s criteria.
Commerce is, of course, free, upon remand to consider these
issues and respond appropriately.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 82

decision-making.”) (emphasis removed).

Additionally, Commerce uses the GNI of the PRC in its wage rate

calculation while, at the same time, declining to use wage rate data

from the PRC. See Remand Determination at 9. Respondents object

to the use of the GNI from the PRC in calculation of the wage rate,

pointing out that the entire reason behind using surrogate value

data is that Commerce has determined that the PRC is an NME, and,

as such, Commerce does not trust the wage and price data that

emerges from the PRC to be truly reflective of market-forces. The

GNI, representing the per capita income of a country, is in part

based on the wages in a given country, as wages affect income.

Commerce, relying on its regulation, failed to address the

substantive point raised in this argument. To be sure, despite the

presumption that data from an NME is unreliable, Commerce may be

justified in finding some data from the PRC reliable while finding

other data from the PRC unreliable, e.g., Commerce may conclude that

the PRC's GNI data is reliable whereas the PRC's wage rate data is

not. However, at the very least, Commerce must justify why it made

such a finding. See, e.g., Allied Pac. Food, 30 CIT at ___, Slip

Op. 06-89 at 48. Therefore, this matter is also remanded for an

explanation as to why Commerce finds the PRC’s GNI data to be

sufficiently reliable to utilize in a regression analysis.

* * *
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 83

The court expresses no opinion on whether Commerce's

regression methodology is salvageable.33 The court notes, however,

that this will be Commerce's third try to rectify problems with its

methodology in this case.34

Upon consideration on remand, Commerce must explain why it is

using the data set it employs in face of the objections noted above

and address any apparent statistical anomalies. If Commerce finds

it cannot offer such explanation, Commerce shall use the "best

available information" as required by the antidumping statute.

(3) Proper Data Set

AFMC also disagrees with Commerce’s approach for a different

reason. During the proceedings on remand, Commerce admitted that

“[a]fter extracting the selection of datapoints from the larger

dataset, [Commerce} did not retain the full underlying ILO dataset”

it had used during the investigation. Remand Determination at 17.

33
For instance, Respondents have alleged that Commerce’s
data set appears to be heteroscedastic (that is, the variance
between the predicted data point and the actual data point varies
over the data set). Respondents also allege that the appropriate
means of correcting for such heteroscedasticity would be to
employ a Generalized Least Squares Model instead of an Ordinary
Least Squares Model in Commerce’s regression analysis. The
court, of course, does not know whether or not this would improve
the accuracy of the model, but this is an example of a step
Commerce could consider on remand.
34
Commerce made adjustments during ministerial error
proceedings and during the voluntary remand.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 84

Therefore, because the original data set was lost, Commerce used a

data set compiled a month after the publication of the Final

Determination in the Remand Determination. Id. at 10-12, 17.

Commerce did note that the data set it used was “drawn from the same

ILO database that existed during [Commerce’s] investigation.” Id.

at 17. However, Commerce also noted that “while [Commerce] would

prefer to use a 2002 wage rate data set that was extracted in

October 2004, such a data set is not available.” Id. Commerce

further commented that “parties provided [no] information to suggest

that there are any material differences between the datasets.” Id.

AFMC argues that it was improper for Commerce to resort to a

data set compiled after the investigation. In supporting its

arguments, AFMC points to what it claims are “material” differences

(presumably outcome determinative differences) between the data

sets. AFMC further questions when the data was extracted, claiming

that the data upon which Commerce relied was not “available” during

the investigation; it avers that because Commerce did not retain the

original data set, Commerce cannot claim that the information was

actually available during the pendency of the investigation.

Much of AFMC’s legal premise is correct. First, when Commerce

uses data, it must include that data as part of the record.

19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(2); see also 19 U.S.C. § 1677f(a)(3); 19 C.F.R.

§§ 351.104(a)(1). Commerce must, in turn, file this record with the

clerk of this Court within forty days of the service of the
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 85

complaint filed under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a. See 28 U.S.C. § 2635(b);

USCIT R. 73.2. Moreover, just as “substantial evidence review (on

the record) would not be a meaningful exercise if the ‘evidence’

that comprised the record was obtained through an arbitrary

procedure,” Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United States,

29 CIT ___,___, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1305 (2005), substantial

evidence review would not be meaningful if Commerce fails to turn

over the relevant evidence to the court to review. Even absent this

requirement, however, Commerce additionally erred in failing to

retain information relevant to ongoing litigation; such an error may

render the court less able to perform its function and result in a

miscarriage of justice.

AFMC is also right in claiming that Commerce may only resort

to the “best available information.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1).

Although the statute does not define the time period in which

“availability” is measured, given that administrative law defines

“available” in terms of the underlying investigation, “available”

must mean “available during the investigation.” See, e.g., Vt.

Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc.,

435 U.S. 519, 555 (1978) (“[T]he role of a court in reviewing the

sufficiency of an agency's consideration of environmental factors

is a limited one, limited both by the time at which the decision was

made and by the statute mandating review."); see also Co-Steel

Raritan, Inc. v. ITC, 357 F.3d 1294, 1316-1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004); cf.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 86

19 U.S.C. § 1677f(a)(3); S. REP. NO. 96-249 at 247-48 (1979),

reprinted in 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. 381, 633 ("Judicial review of

determinations subject to the provisions of subsection (a)(1) would

proceed upon the basis of information before the relevant

decision-maker at the time the decision was rendered including any

information that has been compiled as part of the formal record.").

However, these legal principles notwithstanding, 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677b(c)(1) only applies to the information itself, i.e., the

source data, apart from any manipulations or analysis of that data,

i.e., the actual data set. After all, Commerce routinely compiles

data sets to value factors of production; if “information” included

these manipulations then, after a determination issues, Commerce

could never go back and fix errors in its analysis without creating

new “information” unavailable during the investigation. Cf. infra

at 100 n. 36. Consequently, to allege that Commerce has relied on

data unavailable during the investigation, a party must allege more

than that the data set as used was unavailable; it must allege that

the underlying data which was then used in the data set was

unavailable during the investigation.

With this foundation in place, AFMC fails to sufficiently

allege reversible error. First, it appears that AFMC’s actual claim

is that the data was not extracted rather than the data set was

unavailable. See, e.g., AFMC’s Resp. Br. Final Result of

Redetermination Re: Wage Rate Calculations 4. Simply because data
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 87

was not “extracted” does not mean that it was unavailable.

Therefore, Commerce’s isolated statement in its Remand Determination

(and others in Commerce’s brief) cannot support AFMC’s argument.

AFMC’s argument also contradicts Commerce’s comment that the

information was unavailable during the investigation. Remand

Determination at 17. Although Commerce’s inability to present the

data set for examination may make it more difficult for parties to

contest Commerce’s assertion, all the data upon which Commerce

relied is publically available.35 As such, AFMC could still have

presented evidence before the closure of the investigation. Given

these considerations, the court rejects AFMC’s argument.

D. Financial Ratios

Because firms have “general expenses and profits” not traceable

to a specific product, in order to capture these expenses and

profits, Commerce must factor (1) factory overhead (“overhead”), (2)

selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), and (3)

profit into the calculation of normal value. 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677b(c)(1); see also Final Determination, 69 Fed. Reg. at 35,327;

Hebei II, 29 CIT at __, 366 F. Supp. 2d at 1277 n.7; Shanghai

Foreign Trade Enters. Co. v. United States, 28 CIT __, ___, 318 F.

35
Commerce obtains its wage rate data from the International
Labor Organization, Yearbook of Labour Statistics; country-
specific consumer price index and exchange rate data from the
International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics;
and country specific GNI data from the World Bank, World
Development Indicators. See Remand Determination at 5.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 88

Supp. 2d 1339, 1341 (2004); Peer Bearing Co. v. United States, 25

CIT 1199, 1214-15, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1303-04 (2001); cf.

19 U.S.C. §§ 1677b(c)(4),1677b(b)(3)(B), 1677b(e). As with its

calculation of the other factors of production, Commerce uses

surrogate values to determine an importer’s financial ratios. In

this instance, Commerce uses financial statements from one or more

surrogate company/companies to calculate comparable ratios.36

36
These values are calculated as follows. Factory overhead
includes such costs as the cost of machinery, spare parts, and
rent. Commerce adds together all such costs, as expressed on a
surrogate company’s financial statement, to get the total
overhead expenditure (“Overheads”); Commerce then divides the
result by the surrogate firm’s material, labor, and energy costs
(“MLEs”). See, e.g., Memorandum from Jon Freed, Case Analyst, to
File Re: Final Determination Financial Ratio Memorandum: Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, P.R. Doc.
1931 at Attachs. 2-10. (“Financial Ratio Memo”). Finally,
Commerce multiplies the result by the derived manufacturing cost
of the product in question of the investigated firm (“MLEp”).
The result is the overhead that may be allocated to the normal
value of the merchandise in question (“Overheadp”). Stated
mathematically:

Next, Commerce adds the surrogate firm’s MLE and Overhead
(together “the cost of manufacturing”) and determines an amount for
general expenses (“SG&As”) including, for example, expenses such as
bank charges, travel expenses, and office supplies. See Magnesium
Corp. of Am. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1364, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir.
1999); Financial Ratio Memo, P.R. Doc. 1931 at Attachs. 2-10.
Commerce then calculates the ratios of the surrogate firms’ SG&A to
its cost of manufacturing and multiplies this ratio by the sum of
MLEp and Overheadp; the result is the SG&A that may be allocated to
the merchandise in question (“SG&Ap”). Stated mathematically:

Last, Commerce adds an amount for profit. Commerce initially
calculates the surrogate company’s profit ratio which is the ratio
of the surrogate company’s before-tax profit (“profits”) over the
(continued...)
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 89

In choosing financial statements, Commerce “normally will use

nonproprietary information gathered from producers of identical or

comparable merchandise in the surrogate country.” 19 C.F.R.

§ 351.408(c)(4). In choosing from financial statements which meet

this criterion, Commerce generally considers the quality,

specificity, and contemporaneity of the available financial

statements. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Cmt. 5

accompanying Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic of China, 67

Fed. Reg. 72,139 (Dep’t Commerce Dec. 4, 2002) (final results of

antidumping duty new shipper review) available at

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/02-30771-1.pdf (“Fresh

Garlic”). Commerce may also consider the “representativeness of the

production experience of the surrogate producers in relation to the

respondent’s own experience[,]” Issues and Decission Memoradum at

Cmt. 9, accompanying Persulfates from the People's Republic of

China, 68 Fed. Reg. 6712 (Dep’t Commerce Feb. 10, 2003) (final

results of antidumping duty administrative review) available at

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/03-3285-1.pdf. We note again

36
(...continued)
sum of MLEs, Overheads, and SG&As. Financial Ratio Memo, P.R. Doc.
1931 at Attachs. 2-10; Shanghai Foreign Trade Enters. Co., 28 CIT
at ___, 318 F. Supp. at 1341. Commerce then multiplies this result
by the investigated company’s derived MLEp, Overheadp, and SG&Ap.
The result is the profit that may be allocated to the merchandise
in question (“profitp”). Stated mathematically:
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 90

that Commerce must apply its selection criterion in a consistent and

uniform manner, otherwise its selection could become arbitrary and

capricious.

In order to derive “a more accurate portrayal of the economic

spectrum,” Commerce may, of course, select more than one surrogate

company from which to draw data. Issues and Decision Memorandum at

Cmt. 6 accompanying “Fresh Garlic”, 67 Fed. Reg. 72,139. When this

is the case, Commerce usually calculates the simple average of the

selected companies’ financial ratios. Rhodia, Inc. v. United

States, 25 CIT 1278, 1285, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1343, 1350 (2001);

see also Timken v. United States, 26 CIT 434, 466-67, 201 F. Supp.

2d 1316, 1346 (2002). Nevertheless, although using multiple

financial statements is permissible, as will be discussed below,

Commerce is not justified in sacrificing quality for quantity; put

differently, Commerce must justify why the data set it chooses is

appropriate. Otherwise, Commerce’s decision would not be faithful

to its own stated criteria.

In the case at bar, the parties submitted financial statements

of eighteen companies. Commerce winnowed this list to nine through

the course of its investigation. See, e.g., Financial Ratio Memo,

P.R. Doc. 1931 at Attachs. 1 & 11. Commerce rejected four

financial statements because they were not contemporaneous with the

period of review. Id. at Attach. 11. Commerce rejected another

company’s financial statement because the company was not a
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 91

producer of the subject merchandise. Id. The parties do not

dispute the rejection of these financial statements.

However, the parties make numerous other challenges to

Commerce’s choices of financial statements and calculation of the

surrogate financial ratios: (1) Respondents contend that Commerce

improperly rejected the 2003/2004 financial statement of Indian

Furniture Products, Inc. (“IFP”); (2) AFMC challenges the inclusion

of a financial statement from Jayaraja Furniture (“Jayaraja”); (3)

AFMC challenges the inclusion of a financial statement from

Evergreen International Ltd. (“Evergreen”); (4) Respondents

challenge the inclusion of financial statements from Swaran

Furnitures Ltd. (“Swaran”), Nizamuddin Furniture Private Ltd.

(“Nizamuddin”), Fusion Design Private Ltd. (“Fusion Design”), and

D’nD’s Fine Furniture Pvt., Ltd. (“DnD”); and (5) Respondents

challenge Commerce’s rejection of financial statements from three

Indonesian companies, Goldofindo, CIPTA, and SIMA (collectively

“the Indonesian companies”).37 Because of the relationship between

these five issues, the court will address each in turn.

(1) IFP
37
AFMC also argues that Commerce “failed to treat the
salaries . . . as SG&A expenses rather than MLE expenses” for
DnD and Evergreen,” AFMC’s Br. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. Re:
Selection Surrogate Values & Calculation of Financial Ratios 26
(“AFMC Br.”), and that Commerce failed to categorize certain
expenses of Jayaraja, Evergreen, Nizzamuddin, Swaran, and DnD,
id. at 28-29. Because of the court’s disposition of issues (2),
(3) and (4) above, the court reserves judgment on these
subsidiary issues until Commerce issues a Remand Determination.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 92

During the investigation, Respondents submitted a 2003/2004

financial statement from IFP, an Indian producer of subject

merchandise. Although acknowledging that the IFP financial

statement was more contemporaneous with the period of review than

the other Indian financial statements used (including one from IFP

from fiscal year 2002/2003), Commerce “excluded [IFP’s 2003/2004

financial statement] because it showed no profit for its 2003/2004

fiscal year and [Commerce] had a wealth of financial statements

from the previous fiscal year on which to rely.” Issues &

Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 68 (Cmt. 3). Without a stated

profit, Commerce is unable to calculate the profit ratio, which is

an important factor in their comparison.

Respondents challenge this finding. Despite the fact that

IFP’s financial statement showed a loss, Respondents contend that

this loss is illusory. Pls.’ Br. 31, 50-51. When closely read,

Respondents attest, the financial statement reveals that IFP pays

a significantly high interest rate on a loan to its parent. Id.

This high rate of interest, Respondents allege, represents profit

that IFP diverts to its parent to avoid tax liabilities. Id.

Therefore, Respondents assert, IFP is profitable and Commerce’s

rejection of the statement was erroneous. Id. Respondents claim

that because IFP’s 2003/2004 financial statement demonstrates that

IFP is profitable, and given that this statement is the more

contemporaneous with the period of review, Commerce should have
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 93

used (perhaps exclusively) the 2003/2004 IFP financial statement.

In the Final Determination, Commerce rejected this argument

averring “that the interest owed to IFP’s parent company was just

a method for the parent company to extract profits without

incurring tax liability, is speculation and does not change the

fact that the inter-company interest expense is an expense

nonetheless.” Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 68-69

(Cmt. 3).

The court finds reasonable Commerce’s conclusion that

Respondents’ theory is speculative. Respondents provide no

evidence to support their profit diversion theory and offer no

reason why their theory is the only possible explanation for the

allegedly high interest rate. Moreover, even if Respondents’

theory is correct, it was reasonable for Commerce not to prefer

(and therefore exclude) a financial statement where one of the

accounting maneuvers was, even under Respondents’ account,

misleading. Furthermore, Respondents’ allegation would require the

court to determine the “real” interest rate as well as IFP’s “real”

profit. Because any derivation of the “real” interest rate IFP is

paying to its parent, if any, would, on this record, be entirely

speculative, deriving IFP’s profit ratio and SG&A might be highly

problematic if Commerce were to include IFP’s 2003/2004 financial

statement in its calculation. Cf. Financial Ratio Memo, P.R. Doc.

1931 at Attachs. 3-6, 10 (including interest payments within SG&A).
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 94

Because of these complications, it was reasonable for Commerce to

conclude that IFP’s earlier financial statements provided more

accurate information.

(2) Jayaraja

AFMC challenges Commerce’s use of Jayaraja’s financial

statement. In particular, AFMC alleges that despite “Commerce’s

well-established practice to reject” financial statements that

contain “no notes” and “no auditor’s statement,” Commerce used

Jayaraja’s financial statement which had such deficiencies.

AFMC’s Br. 23. In addition, AFMC avers that “Jayaraja’s financial

statements are inappropriate because they report zero depreciation

in the profit and loss statement,” id. (emphasis in original),

which “renders the Jayaraja statement a significant outlier and a

cause of distortion when aggregated with the other financials.”

AFMC’s Reply Def. & Def.-Intervenors’ Resps. Opposition AFMC’s Mot.

J. Agency R. Re: Selection Surrogate Values & Calculation Financial

Ratios 8 (“AFMC Reply Br.”).

In its brief, Commerce asserts that Jayaraja’s financial

statement was approved by an auditor and was sufficiently detailed

such that no auditor’s statement or notes were necessary; in

addition, insofar as Commerce is expected to vet financial

statements with the same consistency, Commerce further notes that
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 95

one of the financial statements AFMC proffered, and which Commerce

adopted, also lacked such imprimaturs. Def.’s Br. 85. In response

to AFMC’s alternative argument, Commerce argues that general

accounting principles require consideration of depreciation.

Accounting rules do not require that depreciation be separately or

specifically listed – it can be factored into other values. Id.

Because the statement was approved by an auditor, Commerce reasons,

depreciation must be stated as part of other values. Id.

Despite the fact that Commerce outlined AFMC’s arguments in

the Issues & Decision Mem. accompanying its Final Determination,

Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 48 (Cmt. 3), the Final

Determination does not directly or indirectly refute these

arguments, id. at 67-73. As such, Commerce’s explanations and

arguments offered in its brief here are entirely post-hoc

rationalizations. Although Commerce’s argument may be compelling,

the agency must adopt this position on the agency record if the

court is to affirm it here. See, e.g., SKF USA Inc. v. United

States, 254 F.3d 1022, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, this

question is remanded to Commerce.

(3) Evergreen

AFMC also argued before Commerce that Evergreen’s financial

statement should not be included in Commerce’s data set.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 96

Evergreen, AFMC contends, is “a significant producer of leather

garments as well [as] a manufacturer of furniture.” AFMC Br. 24.

Because leather goods are not comparable to the subject

merchandise, AFMC avers, including Evergreen’s financial statement

was improper. AFMC claims Evergreen’s financial ratios reflect

values not attributable to its furniture manufacturing operations

and are therefore inappropriate surrogates.

In the Final Determination, Commerce conceded that Evergreen

produces leather products, but found that it could disaggregate

leather production from furniture production expenses and/or

neutralize any spillover. Specifically, Commerce found that

“Evergreen outsources almost the entire production of its leather

goods, and as such there is no installed capacity. Accordingly, in

our calculation of Evergreen’s factory overhead ratio, we have

excluded identifiable manufacturing expenses related to the

production of leather goods from the MLE denominator.” Financial

Ratio Memo, P.R. Doc. 1931 at 2 (citations omitted). Commerce

conceded that Evergreen’s leather production was more problematic

in the calculation of the other ratios. In particular, Commerce

noted, “Evergreen’s SG&A and profit relate to both leather and

furniture goods.” Id. To remedy this problem, Commerce included

leather related expenses in the denominator of the SG&A and profit

ratios. Id.

Averring that Commerce’s remedy was insufficient, AFMC argues
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 97

that “Commerce improperly applied the SG&A ratio for the entire

company to the furniture division, even though it recognized that

the furniture division was a manufacturing operation, and the

leather goods division was an outsourcing operation.” AFMC Br. 25.

This, it claims, distorts Evergreen’s SG&A and profit ratios. Id.

The court agrees for slightly different reasons.

Missing from Commerce’s determination is an explanation as to

why the inclusion of Evergreen’s financial statement, in spite of

the complication identified by Commerce, adds to the accuracy of

its calculation of the surrogate ratios. Particularly problematic

is the fact that other financial statements, without such problems,

exist. Under such circumstances, Commerce must justify its

decision to include statements which it admits are of questionable

reliability and thereby unlikely to constitute the best available

information.

Nor does the court find convincing Commerce’s argument

espoused in its briefs. In its briefs, Commerce argues that

Evergreen is a large producer of wooden bedroom furniture.

Commerce further contends that AMFC “has not shown that the

calculation of SG&A and profit results in a distortion to the

surrogate ratios, nor does it cite to any record evidence

indicating that another allocation would have been more accurate.”

Def.’s Br. 88-89. Rather than justifying their position or

providing additional rationales for the inclusion of Evergreen in
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 98

their calculation, Commerce attempts to shift the burden to AFMC to

prove why Commerce’s mathematical manipulation does not cure the

facial deficiency of Evergreen’s data, even though there are other

reliable financial statements from which Commerce may choose. This

is not an appropriate basis upon which to approve Commerce’s

selection.

(4) Swaran, Nizamuddin, Fusion Design, and DnD

Respondents contend that the inclusion of Swaran, Nizamuddin,

Fusion Design, and DnD’s financial statements was improper. Pls.’

Br. at 48-50. Respondents claim that the inclusion of these

financial statements was improper because the firms from which the

financial statements came have different production experiences

than their own. Id. More specifically, Respondents allege that:

i. “There is no record evidence that Swaran produces
wood bedroom furniture as it lists no production
equipment among its assets. It therefore must
either subcontract its production or produce
furniture by hand.” Pls.’ Br. 29 (citations
omitted).

ii. “Nizamuddin characterizes itself as a ‘handicraft’
producer specializing in ‘carving pearl and wood
inlay.’ In addition evidence was submitted that
its showroom and workshop combined was no more
than 600 square feet and employed about 4 or 5
people.” Id. (citations omitted).

iii. “Fusion Design is as much a design shop as a
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 99

manufacturer, creating custom furniture for end-
users such as the British High Commission, British
Airways, US AID, and STARTV.” Id. at 30.

iv. “DnD is also a design shop and it is not clear at
all that it is even a furniture design shop given
its discussion in the technology absorption
section of its financial statement regarding
efforts ‘being made to increase the shelf life of
the product and increase its nutritious value.’”
Id. at 30 (citations omitted).

In response to the argument that the size of these firms led

to unrepresentative financial ratios, Commerce acknowledged:

The fact that the Indian surrogate has a smaller
production capacity than the Chinese respondents “does
not lead to the automatic conclusion that its overhead
rate is different, but simply that it may incur less
overhead (in the numerator) and consume fewer raw
materials (in the denominator(.

Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 69-70 (Cmt. 3) (quoting

Persulfates from the People’s Republic of China, 68 Fed. Reg.

6712). In refuting the idea that any such distortion would occur

here, Commerce found that:

Jayaraja and Akriti [companies included within the data
set that Respondents did not directly contest] both
experienced production and sales volumes in the range of
those experienced by Nizamuddin, Fusion [Design], Swaran,
and DnD. Further, the SG&A expenses of Jayaraja and
Akriti demonstrate that small production and sales
volumes do not automatically precipitate high SG&A
expenses.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 100

Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 70 (Cmt. 3). Commerce

appears to concede that these firms are facially less

representative of Respondents’ production experience.

Nevertheless, Commerce claims that this facial distinction is of no

moment.

In weighing the arguments on this issue, the court notes that

Respondents are certainly correct in claiming that a firm’s size

may affect certain of its financial ratios – after all, that is why

economies of scale are beneficial in certain settings. Indeed, as

is recorded in the legislative history of the antidumping statute,

“Commerce should seek to use, if possible, data based on production

of the same general class or kind of merchandise using similar

levels of technology and at similar levels of volume as the

producers subject to investigation.” Conf. Rep. at 591(emphasis

added).

This concern appears relevant here. As reflected in the

Amended Final Determination, Nizamuddin, Fusion Design, Swaran, and

DnD had an average SG&A ratio of 32.22% compared with the 14.37%

average SG&A rate of the other allegedly similar five companies

included in the data set.38 Commerce does not address these

38
The Amended Final Determination found the following SG&A
ratios:

(continued...)
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 101

averages. Rather, Commerce responds by pointing to the SG&A ratios

of Jayaraja and Akriti, which it claims demonstrate “that small

production and sales volumes do not automatically precipitate high

SG&A expenses.” Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 70 (Cmt.

3). While this may be true, it does not demonstrate the opposite

conclusion: that the size of Nizamuddin, Fusion Design, Swaran, and

DnD are irrelevant.39 Commerce’s answer is simply nonresponsive to

38
(...continued)
Company SG&A Ratio Company SG&A Ratio
IFP 24.38% Nizamuddin 31.51%
Evergreen 6.90% Fusion Design 34.39%
Akriti 13.53% Swaran 47.30%
Jayaraja 16.61% DnD 15.66%
Raghbir 10.44%

Attach. 1 to Memorandum from Jon Freed, Case Analyst, to File,
through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, Re: Amended Final
Determination Financial Ratio Memorandum: Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, Dep’t of Commerce
(Dec. 27, 2004), P.R. Doc. 2004 (“Amended Financial Ratio
Memorandum.”). Admittedly, because these numbers were announced
for the first time in its Amended Final Determination, Commerce
did not rely on them. Nevertheless, because Commerce amended its
ratio calculations, either Commerce made an implicit finding that
the changes did not upset its previous findings in its Final
Determination or, alternatively, the matter must be remanded for
Commerce to reconsider this evidence. See, e.g., SEC v. Chenery
Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94 (1943); cf. Borlem S.A.– Empreedimentos
Industriais v. United States, 913 F.2d 933, 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

39
In order for this evidence to have bite, Commerce would
essentially have to establish that because Jayaraja’s and
Akriti’s SG&A ratios do not appear (superficially speaking) to be
related to production volume, there may not be, in general, a
(continued...)
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 102

Respondents’ challenge. Also lacking from Commerce’s analysis is

any discussion of why it chose to include the four financial

statements at all. In particular, (a) given the facial

distinctions, (b) that general principles of economics and

intuition would suggest that such a distinction has relevance, (c)

evidence to suggest there might be a relationship between

production experience and overhead, and (d) financial statements of

firms which (appear) to have similar manufacturing experiences to

the Respondents, Commerce has an obligation to explain why it

included these financial statements.

Nor is the court convinced by AFMC’s argument that, in

essence, the comparability between these firms and Respondents is

close enough. “Comparability” is an elastic concept that Commerce

has latitude to define on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, this

latitude may vary in relation to the information available. It may

be the case that where Commerce is left with the choice of two

undesirable (in the absolute sense) options, the comparability of

the surrogate firms to the importers need not be great. For

example, if Commerce is investigating allegations of dumping cast

iron pipe fittings and is left with choosing between the financial

statement of a surrogate company producing cast iron brake rotors

or “nonspecific information compiled by the Reserve Bank of India,”

39
(...continued)
relationship between size and financial ratios for other
furniture manufacturers.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 103

relying on a company producing cast iron brake rotors may suffice.

See Shanghai Foreign Trade Enters. Co., 28 CIT at ___, 318 F. Supp.

2d at 1342, 1348-49; cf. Yantai Oriental Juice Co. v. United

States, 26 CIT 605, 619-20 (2002). However, where, as here, there

are (perhaps) other surrogate companies which better approximate

the manufacturing experience of the importers’ businesses, the

comparability test may require limiting the data set to those

surrogate companies which reasonably approximate the importers’

manufacturing experience -- otherwise, Commerce’s choices may no

longer be faithful to its statutory mandate. Put differently,

without a convincing explanation, when Commerce has other reliable

information available, there is no basis for tainting good data

with bad by adopting an expansive definition of “comparability.”

With that said, the court expresses no opinion on which

company or companies reasonably approximate the Respondents’

production experiences. Commerce is free on remand to find that

these financial statements are as reflective of the Respondents’

manufacturing experiences as the other financial statements upon

which it relies. In justifying its conclusion either way, Commerce

cannot take the inferential leap it took here without addressing

contrary evidence. The court further notes again that Commerce

must uniformly apply whatever criterion it ultimately adopts.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 104

(5) Indonesian Firms

Respondents placed on the record financial statements of three

Indonesian companies. Commerce rejected these statements because

“the record contained a wealth of Indian financial statements” and

therefore it “had no reason to look” outside the surrogate country

for financial statements. Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933

at 68 (Cmt. 3). This conclusion is consistent with Commerce’s

explanation of its regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(2), which

provides (subject to certain exceptions) that Commerce will “value

inputs using publicly available information regarding prices in a

single surrogate country.” Rules and Regulations 19 CFR Parts 351,

353 and 355, Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 Fed.

Reg. 27,296 at 27,366 (May 19, 1997) (emphasis added).

Nevertheless, Respondents contend that “[n]umerous U.S.

importers and retailers provided affidavits demonstrating that

Indian furniture producers are not comparable to Chinese or

Indonesian furniture producers.” Pls.’ Br. 52. In contrast to

the data from Indian companies, Respondents contend that one

Indonesian producer, Goldfindo, produces identical merchandise and

has a production process “on a scale and with technology that is

very much like Plaintiffs.” Id. at 53. Consequently, Respondents

contend that the data from Indonesia, and specifically Goldfindo,

represents the best available information. The court disagrees.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 105

Here, based on Commerce’s regulations, Commerce may reasonably

rely, even after remand, on financial statements from Indian

surrogate companies. Moreover, as Commerce has reasonably

interpreted its statutory mandate, Commerce has full discretion not

to use the data from Indonesian companies. Accordingly, Commerce’s

determination is sustained.

II. VALUING SPECIFIC FACTORS OF PRODUCTION

Having addressed Commerce’s selection of certain data sets, the

court now turns to how Commerce chose to value specific factors of

production.

As noted in the introduction, Commerce used Indian import

statistics as stated in a database referred to as the MSFTI as a

basis for estimating most factor values. Factors Valuation Mem.,

P.R. Doc. 1329, at 4. MSFTI, in turn, lists pricing information

for goods by their tariff classifications. Therefore, to value a

factor of production, Commerce must first classify a factor of

production under the Indian tariff schedule (the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of India (“HTS[I]”)), and then determine the price listed

in MSFTI for goods classified under the tariff provision.40

40
Because India is a member of the Harmonized Tariff System,
classifications under the HTS[I] are based on an international
nomenclature common to many countries (including the United
States).
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 106

It is well-established under United States law that an

administering authority can make two types of errors when

classifying a product. First an administering authority may

misread the tariff schedule, i.e., erroneously interpret it and

incorrectly include a product. Second, an administering authority

may misunderstand the characteristics, use, or properties of the

input material and, therefore, erroneously classify that input.

Cf. Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. United States, 148 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir.

1998). This analytic approach has been consistently applied to

classifications throughout U.S. history, and helps to frame the

exact question so the court can quickly identify the alleged agency

error.

Nor is this approach different from the court’s previous

reviews of Commerce’s choice of surrogate values. Commerce must

articulate in what way the surrogate value chosen relates to the

factor input. Hebei II, 29 CIT at __ ,366 F. Supp. 2d at 1273.

“It will not do for a court to be compelled to guess at the theory

underlying the agency’s action; nor can a court be expected to

chisel that which must be precise from what the agency has left

vague and indecisive.” Siderca, S.A.I.C., v. United States, 28 CIT

__, __, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1236 n. 15 (2004) (quoting SEC v.

Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196-97 (1947)).

With that said, the court appreciates that the standard of

review here, i.e., the substantial evidence test, is significantly
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 107

different from that for Customs’ classifications cases in which the

court reviews Customs’ finding of fact and conclusions of law

largely de novo. Furthermore, Commerce’s goal here is different

from Customs’. Whereas in Customs cases determining the proper

specific classification is paramount, Jarvis Clark Co. v. United

States, 733 F.2d 873, 878 (Fed. Cir. 1984), in Commerce cases,

Commerce is using the HTS[I] merely to approximate the cost of a

factor of production, Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States, 166

F. 3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Therefore, unlike Customs

cases, the court will only upset Commerce’s decision if no

reasonable mind could find Commerce’s choice of HTS[I] heading or

subheading is proper.

Pursuant to these principles, the court examines the parties’

arguments regarding the valuation of certain factors of production

concerning: (1) hooks, hinges and connectors; (2) resin; (3)

styrofoam; (4) cardboard; (5) certain metal components.

(A) Hooks and Connectors

In its submissions to Commerce, Dorbest described its hooks and

connectors as made out of iron and its hinges as made out of metal.

Letter from Jeffrey S. Grimson, Grunfield, Desiderio, Liebowitz,

Silverman & Klestadt LLP, on behalf of Dorbest Limited, to The

Honorable Donald L. Evans, Secretary of Commerce, Re: Response to
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 108

the Department’s Request of HTS Data in Wooden Bedroom Furniture

from the People’s Republic of China (Investigation A-570-890), P.R.

Doc. 1152 Attach. 1 at 2-3 (fr. 8-9) (May 26, 2004) (“Dorbest HTS

Submission”); Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 169 (Cmt.

19). For these inputs, Dorbest proposed subheading 8302.1009,

HTS[I] (“hardware, fixtures, castors, etc., and parts, base metal:

hinges & parts therof”). Pls.’ Br. 59.

In its Preliminary Determination, Commerce used Dorbest’s

proposed category. Issues and Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at

171 (Cmt. 19). In its Final Determination Commerce determined “not

to use the HTS category 8302.10.09 because that category is no

longer a valid HTS category.” Id. Instead, Commerce chose to use

subheading 8302.4200, HTS[I] (“mountings, fittings and similar

articles” that are “suitable for furniture”) to value hooks and

connectors. Id.

Dorbest argues that Commerce’s determination is not supported

by substantial evidence and that Commerce should have utilized the

HTS[I] subheading suggested by Dorbest and inflated the values so

that they would be contemporaneous with the POI. Additionally,

with respect to hooks and connectors, Dorbest claims that Commerce

has neither provided a rationale nor articulated how the subheading

proposed is related to the input. For its part, Commerce has

suggested that the description of its chosen HTS[I] subheading

“closely resembles” the description of the input provided by
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 109

Dorbest. Memorandum from Aishe Allen, Case Analyst, to File,

through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, Re: Analysis Memorandum

for the Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation

of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China:

Rui Feng Woodwork Co., Ltd. (“Rui Feng Dongguan”), Rui Feng Lumber

Development Co., Ltd. (“Rui Feng Shenzen”), and their parent

company Dorbest Limited (collectively “Dorbest”), Dep’t of

Commerce, Attach. to Letter from Laurie Parkhill, Office Director,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, to

Jeffrey S. Grimson, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman &

Klestadt LLP, at 7, P.R. Doc. 1936 (fr. 9) (Nov, 17, 2004).

(“Dorbest Calculation Mem.”)

Commerce may have determined here that mountings and fittings

or those articles similar to mountings and fittings include hooks

and connectors. This, however, is not apparent to the court.

Though Commerce has stated that there is a match, Commerce has not

articulated in what way the inputs “closely resemble” the HTS[I]

subheading description. See Hebei II, 29 CIT at __, 366 F. Supp.

2d at 1273. Therefore, with respect to hooks and connectors,

Commerce must explain how the chosen subheading is rationally

connected to the factor input. If Commerce finds the chosen

subheading does not include hooks and connectors, it may revert to

the method utilized in the Preliminary Determination of inflating

an expired HTS[I] subheading, Pls.’ Br. 69, or find another
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 110

suitable subheading or data set.

(B) Hinges

For hinges, Commerce determined that subheading 8302.1000,

HTS[I], (“hinges made out of different types of metal”) was the

appropriate classification because Dorbest did not specify, in its

description of this input in its May 26, 2004, submission, the type

of metal it uses in its hinges. Issues and Decision Mem., P.R.

Doc. 1933 at 171 (Cmt. 19); Dorbest HTS Submission, P.R. Doc. 1152

Attach. 1 at 2 (fr. 8). Dorbest avers that Commerce’s chosen

subheading, though it specifically refers to metal hinges used in

furniture, is inappropriate because it covers different types of

metal. Pls.’ Br. 69. Dorbest claims that since the hinges Dorbest

used in its wooden bedroom furniture production are not made of

brass, id., a subheading that includes hinges “of different types

of metal” cannot be specific to the input, presumably because it

could potentially include brass. Dorbest, however, does not claim

that other various types of metal are not used in its hinges, only

that its hinges are not made of brass. Neither did Dorbest propose

a more suitable, contemporaneous HTS[I] subheading.

As Commerce is faced with two sub-optimal choices, it is

reasonable for Commerce to choose a contemporaneous subheading

that, based on the description, appears to resemble the input, over
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 111

an inflated valuation of an expired category to determine the best

available information, i.e., it is reasonable for Commerce to have

found that the better information was in finding a valuation of

hinges made of various kinds of metal, rather than inflating the

values of an expired HTS[I] subheading.

(C) Resin

Dorbest suggested that Commerce value Dorbest’s resin applique

input using expired subheading 3926.4009, HTS[I], (“articles of

plastics (inc. polymers & resins)”). Pls.’ Br. 56. Dorbest, after

initially labeling this input as “ornament”, renamed it “resin

applique” and described it as a “PVC and polymer used for

decorating.” Dorbest HTS Submission, P.R. Doc. 1152 Attach. 1 at

5 (fr. 11).

Because subheading 3926.4009, HTS[I], was phased out, Commerce

decided not to value Dorbest’s resin input using Dorbest’s

suggested category. Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 170-

71 (Cmt. 19). Instead, Commerce applied subheading 3926.3090,

HTS[I], which covers “other articles of plastics and articles of

other materials . . . fittings for furniture, coachwork or the

like.” Id. at 171; Pls.’ Br. 57-58. Subheading 3926.4009, HTS[I],

appears to apply to ornamental articles while subheading 3926.3090,

HTS[I], appears to apply to furniture fittings.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 112

In response to a supplemental question from the court as to

whether or not Commerce’s selection was based on the nature of

Dorbest’s resin applique or an analysis of what is the appropriate

subheading, Commerce stated that “[t]he nature of this dispute

concerns how Commerce chose to value Dorbest’s resin input, not the

nature of the resin input.” Def.’s Resp. Court’s March 10, 2006

Questions 22 (“Def.’s Resp. Court’s Questions”). Commerce further

clarified, in its response to the court’s question, that “Commerce

selected this category because it most closely resembles Dorbest’s

proposed but expired category, and comports with Commerce’s

preference that the factor value information be contemporaneous.”

Id. at 23 (citations omitted). While the court agrees that

contemporaneity is an important factor to consider when evaluating

surrogate value information, the use of contemporaneity as the sole

justification for its decision does not comport with Commerce’s

statements that contemporaneity is but one of several criteria when

selecting surrogate value information. See Factors Valuation Mem.,

P.R. Doc. 1329 at 2; see also Hebei II, 29 CIT at __, 366 F. Supp.

2d at 1275. Additionally, it does not appear that Commerce

advanced this argument on the record before the court.

Commerce determined that subheading 3926.3090, HTS[I] most

closely resembled the subheading advanced by Dorbest (and by

implication the factor description advanced by Dorbest). Commerce

has not explained in what way the selected subheading resembles the
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 113

suggested subheading, or, more importantly, the factor input. The

court cannot be expected to fathom what the link is between the

surrogate value chosen and the factor input. See Burlington Truck

Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168(1962) (the agency

did not “articulate any rational connection between the facts found

and the choice made.”); Hebei II, 29 CIT at __, 366 F. Supp. 2d at

1273; Siderca, 28 CIT at __, 350 F. Supp. 2d at 1236 n.15.

Commerce must provide an explanation or analysis as to why it chose

this particular subheading. Based on the record before the court,

it is not clear whether Dorbest is representing its “resin

applique” input to be ornamentation. If, in the Remand

Determination process, Commerce finds that the factor input is

ornamental in nature, Commerce needs to then determine what the

appropriate subheading would be to reflect that it is ornamental.

(D) Styrofoam

Dorbest described its styrofoam input as “styrofoam.” It also

proffered subheading 3901.1010, HTS[I], covering “Polymers of

ethylene, in primary forms: Polyethylene having a specific gravity

of less than 0.94.” After submitting this product description and

its classification thereof, Dorbest acknowledged that its proposed

classification was submitted in error and proposed the subheading

Commerce used to classify other respondents’ styrofoam, i.e,

subheading 3903.1100, HTS[I], covering “Polymers of styrene, in
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 114

primary forms: Polystyrene: Expansible polystrene.” Pls.’ Br. 55-

56; Def.’s Br. 67. In rejecting Dorbest’s proposed classification,

Commerce explained that Dorbest “did not provide Commerce with any

reasoning or explanation as to why this value would be more

appropriate for Dorbest’s input.” Def.’s Br. 67. Therefore,

Commerce employed a basket provision subheading 3921.1100, HTS[I],

covering “other plates, sheets, film, foil and strips of plastics:

Cellular: Polymers of styrene,” Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. 1933

at 171 (Cmt. 19); Pls.’ Br. 55.

The court subsequently asked the parties about the nature of

Dorbest’s styrofoam, because the subheading suggested by Dorbest

and the subheading chosen by Commerce appeared to refer to

different forms of styrofoam.41 Once again, Commerce’s response to

the court’s supplemental question stated that the nature of the

dispute was one of classification and not the nature of Dorbest’s

input. Def.’s Resp. Court’s Questions 18. Commerce further

clarified that “Dorbest advised that its styrofoam input is of

41
The court assumes that the HTS[I] is identical to the
HTS[US] up to the six digit level. As such, the Explanatory
Notes to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System
("Explanatory Notes") for the HTS[US] (2006) provide illumination
for the HTS[I]. The Explanatory Notes for Chapter 39 state that
“Primary forms,” which was a phrase employed by Dorbest in its
suggested subheading, is defined as “liquids and pastes . . .
[b]locks of irregular shape, lumps, powders. . . .” Explanatory
Note 6 to Chapter 39. Note 10 to Chapter 39 states that the
phrase “plates, sheets, film, foil and strip applies only to
plates, sheets, film, foil and strip . . . and to blocks of
regular geometric shape . . . .” Explanatory Note 10 to Chapter
39.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 115

‘plates, sheets, film, foil and strip plastics,’ and Commerce

accepted this description in its final determination.” Id. ; See

Dorbest Limited Antidumping Duty Investigation: Wooden Bedroom

Furniture from the People’s Republic of China A-570-890 – Period of

Review 04/01/2003 - 09/30/2003 (May 21, 2004), Attach. to Letter

from Jeffrey Grimson, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman &

Klestadt LLP, on behalf of Dorbest Limited, to the Secretary of

Commerce Re: Supplemental Questionnaire Sections C & D Responses in

Wooden Bedrooom Furniture from China (Inv. No. A-570-890), P.R.

Doc. 1086 at fr. 49 (May 24, 2004) (“Dorbest Sections C & D

Resp.”)(Dorbest describes its input as “styrofoam sheet.”);

see also Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 170 (Cmt. 19).

Commerce based its surrogate value selection on the information

provided by Dorbest as to its input. Def.’s Resp. Court’s

Questions 20.

An examination of the various descriptions of factor inputs

provided by the respondents reveals that, understandably,

respondents did not provide an abundance of detail in their

descriptions. As such, Commerce credited Respondents’ descriptions

of the nature of their products as much as possible, and sought to

match the descriptions to HTS[I] subheadings. See, e.g., Dorbest

HTS Submission, P.R. Doc. 1152; Def.’s Resp. Court’s Questions 19

& 22. Though it may be the case that the subheading does not

accurately capture the nature of Dorbest’s styrofoam, Dorbest did
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 116

not present arguments or evidence that demonstrated the nature of

its styrofoam to be other than what it described. Therefore,

Commerce selected an HTS[I] subheading whose description included

the word “sheets”, which was a reasonable selection given that

Dorbest described its input as “styrofoam sheet.” Accordingly, the

court finds that Commerce’s selection of 3921.1000, HTS[I] is

supported by substantial evidence.

(E) Cardboard

Dorbest described its packing cardboard as “paper cardboard for

protecting furniture at the time of shipping.” Issues and Decision

Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 167 (Cmt. 19). In its Final Determination,

Commerce assigned subheading 4808.1000, HTS[I], for Dorbest’s

packing cardboard. Id. at 170. Commerce assigned this subheading

because it covered “corrugated paper/paperboard whether or not

perforated,” noting that Dorbest’s verification report did not

indicate that the cardboard was made of corrugated paper, despite

Commerce’s observation at verification that Dorbest’s cardboard is

made of corrugated paper. Id. Throughout the investigation, Dorbest

suggested that Commerce value Dorbest’s cardboard input using

subheading, 4808.9000, HTS[I], covering “other paper and paperboard

corrugated.” Resp. Def.-Intervenors Dorbest Ltd., Rui Feng Woodwork

(Dongguan) Co., Ltd. & Rui Feng Lumber to Pl. Am. Furniture Mfrs.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 117

Comm. Legal Trade’s Br. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. Re: Selection

Surrogate Values & Calculation Financial Ratios 25-30 (“Dorbest

Resp. AFMC”).

After the Final Determination, Commerce reviewed the record,

which indicated that Commerce does not use perforated cardboard.

Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini Acting

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration Re: Issues and

Decision Memorandum for the Amended Final Determination in the

Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from

the People’s Republic of China, P.R. Doc. 1996 at 10-12 (Cmt. 5)

Dep’t of Commerce (Dec. 27, 2004) (“Amended Final Issues & Decision

Mem.”). As a result of examining this record evidence, Commerce

amended its choice for Dorbest’s cardboard input to subheading

4808.9000, HTS[I], (“other ”) stating that “there is nothing on the

record that contradicts Dorbest’s statement that it did not use

perforated cardboard as an input.” Id. at 12.

AFMC has questioned Commerce’s decision to use a basket

provision, subheading 4808.9000, HTS[I], to classify Dorbest’s

cardboard, instead of a specific provision under which Dorbest’s

cardboard is classifiable, subheading 4808.1000, HTS[I]. AFMC

asserts that “Commerce’s recitation of evidence that Dorbest did

not use perforated cardboard does not constitute substantial

evidence supporting the change in classification.” AFMC’s Br. 23
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 118

(“AFMC Br.”)(emphasis in original).

Logic would dictate that the use of the word “other” in the

basket subheading indicates that this subheading should only be

used if all other subheadings within that heading are exhausted and

have been deemed inappropriate. This view is supported by

classification law – under well-established classification

principles, it is only appropriate to use a basket provision when

no other subheading applies. See, e.g., Witex, U.S.A., Inc. v.

United States, 28 CIT __, __, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1319 & n. 16

(2004).42 It appears on the record before the court, that it is

uncontroverted that Dorbest’s cardboard is “paper [or] paperboard.”

There also appears to be no dispute that the cardboard is

“corrugated.”

Under the common understanding of the phrase “[w]hether or

not,” the finding of the perforated nature of the cardboard is

irrelevant to the proper classification of the cardboard. Cf. XX

42
In Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Comm. v. United States,
the court noted that Commerce in the past has found the basket
categories to be potentially unreliable if a more representative
alternate surrogate is available. Polyethylene Retail Carrier
Bag Comm. v. United States, 29 CIT __, __, Slip Op. 05-157 at 43
(Dec. 13, 2005); See, e.g., Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the
People’s Republic China, 69 Fed. Reg. 3887, 3892 (Dep’t Commerce
Jan. 27, 2004) (notice of preliminary determination of sales at
less than fair value); Freshwater Crawfish Tailmeat from the
People’s Republic of China, 64 Fed. Reg. 27,961, 27,962 (Dep’t
Commerce May 24, 1999) (final results of new shipper review)
("import data from basket categories can be too broad to be
reliable.").
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 119

Oxford English Dictionary 220 (2nd ed. 1989) (wherein the third

definition of “whether” is “[w]hichever of the two . . . [n]o

matter which of the two”); id. at 221 (wherein the sixth definition

of “whether” is “whether or no . . . less freq. not. . . [i]n any

case, at all events.”) Webster’s Third new International Dictionary

2,602 (1993) (“whether or no also whether or not adv: in any

case”).

Reviewed in the light of this analysis of the terms of the

subheadings, Commerce’s choice of the catch-all subheading

4808.9000, HTS[I], absent an adequate explanation, is not supported

by substantial evidence, where the alternate subheading more

clearly fits the description of the factor input. This issue is

therefore remanded for Commerce to either explain, with reference

to the description of the input, why 4808.9000 is the appropriate

classification, or to change the classification accordingly.

(F) Iron Components

Dorbest described its iron components inputs as “iron-welded

shapes and canopies” as well as “iron panel for headboard, and iron

panel used to keep the drawer fixed.” Exh. 16 of Dorbest Limited

Antidumping Duty Investigation: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the

People’s Republic of China A-570-890 – Period of Review 04/01/2003

- 9/30/2003 Post-Preliminary Determination Supplemental
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 120

Questionnaire Response, (July 13, 2004) Attach. to Letter from

Jeffrey S. Grimson, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman &

Klestadt LLP on behalf of Dorbest Limited to the Secretary of

Commerce Re: Response to DOC’s July 1, 2004 Supplemental

Questionnaire in Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China (Inv. No. A-

570-890), P.R. Doc. 1514 at fr. 224; Dorbest HTS Submission, P.R.

Doc. 1152 at fr.9. For these components Dorbest suggested

subheading 7216.9000, HTS[I], covering “angles, shapes & sections

of iron & nonalloy steel: Angles, shapes section, iron/nonalloy

steel nesoi.” Id. Commerce ultimately selected the subheading

proposed by Petitioners, 8302.4200, HTS[I], covering “mountings,

fittings and similar articles” that are “suitable for furniture.”43

Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1993 at 171 (Cmt. 19).

Commerce now requests a remand to exclude non-scope metal

canopies from the Dorbest calculations. The court grants this

request. The court understands that the remainder of the iron

43
Note E, to Section 8302 of the Explanatory Notes states:
Mountings, fittings and similar articles suitable for furniture.
This group includes:
(1) Protective studs (with one or more points) for legs of
furniture, etc.; metal decorative fittings; shelf adjusters for
book-cases, etc.; fittings for cupboards, bedsteads, etc.;
keyhole plates.
(2) Corner braces, reinforcing plates, angles, etc.
(3) Catches (including ball spring catches), bolts, fasteners,
latches, etc. (other than key-operated bolts of heading 83.01).
(4) Hasps and staples for chests, etc.
(5) Handles and knobs, including those for locks or latches.
Commodity Description and Coding System, 3 Explanatory Notes 1372
(3d ed. 2002) (emphasis in original).
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 121

components at issue is the portion of iron components described by

Dorbest as “iron panel for headboard, and iron panel used to keep

the drawer fixed.”

As there is no argument as to the nature of Dorbest’s input,

the record before the court, in addition to the Explanatory Notes,

demonstrates that Commerce’s choice for iron components was

reasonable. An examination of the Explanatory Notes that

accompanies the subheading chosen by Commerce indicates that the

subheading chosen by Commerce appears to include items such as the

ones described by Dorbest in its submission. Accordingly, this

aspect of Commerce’s determination is supported by substantial

evidence and is otherwise in accordance with law.

III. DISCRETE COMPANY-SPECIFIC ISSUES

The parties raise additional discrete issues. Dorbest argues

that (A) Commerce erred in failing to (i)eliminate the spare parts

discount adjustment to U.S. price for Dorbest; (ii) remove non-

scope metal canopies and other metal parts from Dorbest’s

antidumping duty calculation; (iii) treat certain expenses on

incoming raw materials as direct expenses for Dorbest. Commerce

has requested a voluntary remand on these issues. Def.’s Resp.

Pls.’ Party-Specific Mot. J. Agency R. 3. (“Def.’s Party-Specific

Resp.”). AFMC argues that (B) Commerce improperly used its export

price methodology, as opposed to its constructed export price
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 122

methodology, for certain sales after erroneously concluding that

the sales were made between unaffiliated parties; Additionally,

Dorbest asserts that (C) Commerce erred in applying its zeroing

methodology.

The court will address each issue in turn.

(A) Voluntary Remand Issues

In its brief, Commerce requested a voluntary remand to (i)

eliminate the spare parts discount adjustment to U.S. price for

Dorbest; (ii) remove non-scope metal canopies and other metal parts

from Dorbest’s antidumping duty calculation; (iii) treat certain

expenses on incoming raw materials as direct expenses for Dorbest.

Def.’s Party-Specific Resp. 3.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has approved the

grant of a request for a voluntary remand where “the agency's

concern is substantial and legitimate.” SKF USA Inc. v. United

States, 254 F.3d 1022, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Shakeproof Assembly

Components Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, 29 CIT

___,___, 412 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1337 (2005). If the agency’s

determination is unsupportable, there exists no good reason to

expend judicial resources to state the obvious. Cf. Lawrence v.

Chater, 516 U.S. 163, 167 (1996)(per curiam). Here, Commerce’s

explanation for why a voluntary remand is necessary shows that its
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 123

concern is substantial and legitimate. Although AFMC disagrees

that remand is necessary, it fails to state any good cause for why

voluntary remand should not be granted. Accordingly, the court

grants a voluntary remand on these issues.

The only remaining question regarding the voluntary remand is

its scope. Dorbest argues that the court should include issues

Dorbest did not raise in its summons and complaint, but which were

related to the issue of metal spare parts. Specifically, Dorbest

asserts that:

Having now agreed that metal spare parts do not
belong in the antidumping calculation in the
context of the specific claim raised by Dorbest
to the Court, [Commerce] should take reasonable
steps to reverse the improper instruction it
gave to Dorbest [to include all metal spare
parts in its calculations].

Dorbest Resp. Court’s Questions March 7, 2006 3(“Dorbest Supp.

Br.”). While the court can appreciate that Commerce may have

erroneously requested that Dorbest include metal spare parts in its

calculations, Dorbest did not preserve these issues on appeal. As

such, Dorbest has not appropriately exhausted its administrative

remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2637(d). See also USCIT R. 8(a)(1); United

States v. Thibodeaux, 211 F.3d 910, 912 (5th Cir. 2000) (failure to

brief an issue is waiver). Accordingly, Dorbest’s request is

denied.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 124

In its brief in response to the court’s questions of July 13,

2006, Dorbest argues that a contrary conclusion is required by

Shandong Huarong Mach. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 30 CIT __, Slip

Op. 06-88, at 73-74 (June 9, 2006), claiming that the Shandong

court recognized that raising the issue of commissions in

administrative proceedings was sufficient to preclude a finding of

failure to exhaust on the more general issue of Commerce’s refusal

to make a circumstance of sale adjustment. But as the Shandong

court explained, the Defendant-Intervenor had made an argument at

the agency level that was equivalent to the argument raised before

the court. Id. at 74. The same cannot be said here.

(B) Zeroing

Dorbest also attacks Commerce's zeroing methodology in this

case. Under Commerce's current practice in calculating the

dumping margin, Commerce first finds the average normal value.

Commerce then substracts each individual export and constructed

export price from this average normal value. If the result is

negative, i.e., the particular sale was not dumped, Commerce

assigns the transaction a "zero" value. "Commerce [then]

calculates the dumping margin by dividing the combined unit margins

of the dumped sales by the value of dumped and nondumped U.S.

sales." See Böwe Passat Reinigungs-Und Wäschereitechnik GmbH v.

United States, 20 CIT 558, 570, 926 F.Supp. 1138, 1149 (1996).
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 125

Commerce's zeroing metholodgy has been attacked numerous times

before this court, see, e.g., NSK Ltd. v. United States., 30 CIT

___, 416 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (2006); SNR Roulements v. United States,

28 CIT ___,___, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (2004); Böwe Passat

Reinigungs-Und Wäschereitechnik, 20 CIT at 558, 926 F. Supp. at,

1149; Serampore Indus. Pvt. Ltd. v. U. S. Dep’t of Commerce, 11 CIT

866, 675 F. Supp. 1354 (1987), and before the Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit, Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334

(Fed. Cir. 2004); Corus Staal BV v. Dep’t of Commerce, 395 F.3d

1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005). No court has ever disapproved Commerce's

methodology.

Recently, in Timken, 354 F.3d 1334, the Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit identified 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A) (defining

dumping margin as the amount normal value exceeds export or

constructed export price) as the relevant statutory provision. The

Court of Appeals held that section 1677(35)(A), even when read in

light of of 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a) (requiring a fair comparison

between normal value and export/constructed export price),

permitted (although did not require) zeroing. In reaching its

conclusion, the court also rejected an argument that zeroing was

unlawful because the practice violated the Uruguay Round Agreements

as interpreted by the World Trade Organization ("WTO"). The court

noted that (a) the United States was not a party to the WTO dispute

and that (b) the WTO dispute involved an investigation whereas the
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 126

challenge before the court involved an administrative review.

The Timken court implicitly left the door open to the

possibility that (a) other statutory provisions, (b) a decision by

the WTO against the United States, or (c) a challenge to an

investigation might change the outcome. The court in Corus

Staal, 395 F.3d 1343 closed that door. In Corus Staal, the court

held that a WTO decision could not compel the United States to

abandon a regulatory approach and that any decision to abandon a

permissible regulatory approach in light of a WTO decision was left

to the unfettered discretion of the political branches. The court

also summarily held that Timken foreclosed arguments as to the

permissibility of zeroing under U.S. law. As a result of these

decisions, there appear to be no grounds to challenge the zeroing

methodology. See, e.g., NSK Ltd. v. United States., 30 CIT

___,___, 416 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1338 (2006).

Nevertheless, Respondents argue that zeroing is impermissible

because (1) 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(d)(1)(B) would be rendered

superfluous if Commerce were permitted to zero (in the manner it

does); (2) Commerce's application of zeroing here is overly

distortive; and (3) Commerce has published notice in the Federal

Register that it is seeking comments on whether to replace the

methodology. The court is unpersuaded by any of these arguments.

Respondents' argument that section 1677f-1(d)(1)(B) informs
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 127

the zeroing question is misplaced. The Court of Appeals has

already interpreted the statute -- Respondents' argument is no more

than an attempt to reargue a settled issue by raising a new

argument for interpretation. Because Congress can always correct

erroneous interpretations of law, Patterson v. McLean Credit Union,

491 U.S. 164, 172-73 (1989), and because predictability in law

(especially in the case of foreign commerce) is highly valued,

Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 437 U.S. 443, 457-58 (1978);

Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 517 (1974),

"[c]onsiderations of stare decisis are particularly forceful in the

area of statutory construction, especially when a unanimous

interpretation of a statute has been accepted as settled law for

several decades[,]" IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 126 S. Ct. 514, 523

(2005). If parties were free to introduce new theories of

interpretation, or invoke canons of interpretation left unaddressed

by prior courts, an interpretation of a statute would never become

settled. Accordingly, given that this issue has been unanimously

addressed by multiple opinions, the court finds Respondents'

argument barred by stare decisis.

Nor are Respondents' claims here that zeroing is overly

distortive availing. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

has categorically approved zeroing. Moreover, despite the

observations of this court that it is "wary of [such] a methodology

that intentionally minimizes the impact of nondumped transactions
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 128

by manipulating the data of potentially equalizing sales," Corus

Staal BV v. United States DOC, 27 CIT ___, ___, 259 F. Supp. 2d

1253, 1263 (2003), and that this methodology "introduces a

statistical bias in the calculation of dumping margins," Böwe

Passat, 20 CIT at 570, 926 F. Supp. at 1149, the court has

nevertheless unanimously (albeit not enthusiastically) sustained

the zeroing methodology.

Respondent's last argument similarly fails. Although Commerce

may be in the process of changing its methodolgy, no rule has been

set forth which necessarily would apply retroactively. Therefore,

given that Commerce's current practice has been found permissible,

that practice was applicable during this investigation, and no new

rule with retroactive effect has been promulgated, Respondents fail

to state a case requiring remand on this issue.

IV. FACTS OTHERWISE AVAILABLE/ADVERSE INFERENCES

AFMC further raises complaints about Commerce's decision not

to apply adverse inferences in other specific instances. Given the

inherent difficulties in obtaining information, gaps in the factual

record are largely inevitable. When such gaps arise, section

1677e(a) requires Commerce to use “facts otherwise available” to

fill gaps in the administrative record. Because Commerce’s use of

“facts otherwise available” is borne out of necessity, the specific
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 129

reason for the gap is “of no moment,” Nippon Steel Corp. v. United

States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and Commerce is

required to use facts otherwise available in calculating the

dumping margin as accurately as possible. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.308;

F.Lli de Cecco di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States,

216 F.3d 1027, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“De Cecco”).

Nevertheless, section 1677e also recognizes that parties may

bear responsibility for informational gaps. Appropriately, in

order to prompt parties to timely and diligently provide such

information, id., and because a party’s failure to provide

requested information may lead to an inference that the party is

attempting to conceal damaging information to its case, see Rhone

Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir.

1990); Shanghai Taoen Int'l Trading Co. v. United States, 29 CIT

__,__, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1344 (2005), when Commerce finds that

a party has “failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability . . . [to meet] a request for information from” Commerce,

section 1677e(b) grants Commerce the discretion to use adverse

inferences when “selecting” from the array of “facts otherwise

available.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b). That this authority is

discretionary is manifested by section 1677e(b)’s use of the

permissive term “may,” which stands in contraposition to section

1677e(a)’s use of the mandatory term “shall.” See AK Steel Corp.

v. United States, 28 CIT ___, __, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1355
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 130

(2004). See generally Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 126 S. Ct.

704, 708-709 (2005) (the word “may” connotes discretion where the

statute has in other instances used the word “shall”); Jama v.

Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 125 S. Ct. 694, 718 (2005)

(same).

In exercising its discretion to use adverse inferences in its

selection of facts otherwise available, section 1677e(b) first

requires that the requirements of section 1677e(a) be satisfied.

See Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co. v. United States, 29 CIT ___, ___, 387

F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1284 (2005); New World Pasta Co. v. United

States, 28 CIT ___,___, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1338, 1350 (2004). Section

1677e(a) requires that there be a gap in the record of verifiable

information due to a party’s failure to supply necessary or

reliable information in response to an information request from

Commerce. See NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 368 F.3d

1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“All that is required is that the

necessary information be unavailable on the record.”); Nippon

Steel, 337 F.3d at 1381; SAA at 869, as reprinted in 1994

U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198 (subsection 1677e(a) pertains to situations

"where requested information is missing from the record or cannot

be used because, for example, it has not been provided, it was

provided late, or Commerce could not verify the information.").

Second, and inextricably intertwined with the first

requirement, this gap in the record must be factual in nature;
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 131

where a gap is not factual in nature, section 1677e is not

triggered. See, e.g., Gerber Food (Yunnan), 29 CIT at ___, 387 F.

Supp. 2d at 1285 (finding that an assessment rate is not a fact);

NSK Ltd. v. United States, 29 CIT ___, ___, 358 F. Supp. 2d 1276,

1290 (2005) (use of a methodology is not a fact); Tung Fong Indus.

Co. v. United States, 28 CIT ___, __, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1335

(2004) (a calculation is not a fact); cf. Transcom, Inc. v. United

States, 294 F.3d 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (applying a

presumption did not invoke Commerce’s authority to use the best

information under the predecessor statute to modern section 1677e).

Third, Commerce must take into consideration the requirements

of section 1677m(d). Generally speaking, section 1677m(d) requires

Commerce to inform parties of their deficient submissions and, when

practicable, allow the party remedy or explain this deficiency.44

See, e.g., Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, 298 F.3d at 1341; NEC

Corp. v. United States, 151 F.3d 1361, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 1998);

Gerber Food (Yunnan), 29 CIT at ___, 387 F. Supp. 2d at 1280-81.

44
Section 1677m(d) provides, in relevant part:

If the administering authority or the Commission
determines that a response to a request for information
under this subtitle does not comply with the request, the
administering authority or the Commission (as the case
may be) shall promptly inform the person submitting the
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to
the extent practicable, provide that person with an
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency in light
of the time limits established for the completion of
investigations or reviews under this subtitle.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 132

But cf. NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 368 F.3d 1369, 1376

(Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that Commerce need not request

information in order to later apply adverse inferences).

Fourth, Commerce must determine that this deficiency was due

to a party’s failure to act to the “best of its ability” in

responding to an information request from Commerce. Under this

test, Commerce must make (a) an “objective showing” that a

reasonable and responsible importer would have been able to provide

such information and (b) a “subjective showing” that the

respondent failed to cooperate by not maintaining records or

failing to put maximum effort in acquiring such information. See

Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382; Tung Fong Indus. Co. v. United

States, 28 CIT ___,___, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1335 (2004) (where

Commerce fails to explain how a party could have met a deadline,

Commerce may not resort to the use of adverse inferences); China

Steel Corp. v. United States, 27 CIT ___, ___, 264 F. Supp. 2d

1339, 1360-61 (2003).

Only when each of these elements are found does Commerce then

have discretion to elect whether or not to apply adverse

inferences, notwithstanding that its discretion as to how it

applies its discretion is bounded by the requirements of law.

Compare Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334, 1346 (Fed. Cir.

2004) (“Commerce has discretion to apply adverse inferences.”) with

De Cecco, 216 F.3d at 1033 (holding that Commerce’s selection of
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 133

facts otherwise available was overly punitive and, therefore, not

in accordance with law). Because this court only has authority to

review a final determination to ensure that Commerce has acted in

accordance with law and that its conclusions are based on

substantial evidence, see 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i); cf.

19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(A) & (B)(ii) (judicial review provided to

ensure that an action by Commerce is not “arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”),

unless a party alleges that Commerce has exercised its discretion

in an unlawful manner, De Cecco, 216 F.3d at 1033; D & L Supply Co.

v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 1997), or that the

factual predicates of Commerce’s decision were unsupported by

substantial evidence, see, e.g., Kao Hsing Chang Iron & Steel Corp.

v. United States, 26 CIT 536, 542 (2002), this court may not

disturb Commerce’s decision,45 Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, 298

F.3d at 1340; SNR Roulements, 28 CIT at ___, 341 F. Supp. 2d at

1353 (“Because Commerce is not bound by prior decisions based on

different facts . . .”); AK Steel, 28 CIT ___, 346 F. Supp. 2d at

1356.

In this case, the parties allege that Commerce impermissibly

The reason for this discretion is self-evident. See, e.g.,
45

Henry J. Friendly, Indiscretion About Discretion, 31 Emory L. J.
747, 761 (1982) (in justifying deference to trial courts noting
that “[t]he district judge must be master of how to get cases to
trial, and has had opportunities for frequent observation of the
offending counsel which would not emerge from a cold record.”).
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 134

failed to apply adverse inferences where it should have and did

apply adverse inferences when it should not have. Specifically,

AFMC argues that Commerce failed to apply adverse inferences (A)

against all parties with regard to their HTS[I] submissions.

Additionally, (B) Dorbest argues that Commerce improperly applied

adverse inferences in rejecting an offset claim for its wood

scraps.

(A) Factor Inputs

Before Commerce, AFMC argued that various respondents

failed to cooperate to the best of their abilities by failing to

justify their proposed HTS[I] classifications. In particular, AFMC

maintained that:

[T]he respondents failed to provide complete and
accurate information for Commerce to use in calculating
the final dumping margins. Specifically, the respondents
either failed to respond to Commerce’s request for
information as to the classification of raw material
inputs under the Indian Harmonized Tariff Schedule . . .
provided information that was completely useless to make
such classifications, or provided classifications that
were too vague or broad to permit accurate classification
under the Indian HTS at the eight-digit level.

AFMC’s Br. Reply Def.’s & Def.-Intervenor’s Resp. Op. AFMC’s

Mot. J. Agency R. Re: Selection Surrogate Values & Calculation of

Financial Ratios 4.

In its determination, Commerce did not dispute that there
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 135

were deficiencies in Respondents' answers. Notwithstanding this

fact, Commerce declined to use adverse inferences in its selection

of facts otherwise available. In particular, Commerce found that:

This investigation has presented a host of complex
issues with respect to HTS categories and factor
valuations, given the hundreds of inputs that are
necessary to produce the subject merchandise. It is
important to recognize that the breadth of the
information we have requested in this investigation is
substantial. We have balanced that recognition with the
importance of ensuring that the information we receive
is adequate for the purpose of calculating an accurate
antidumping margin. We have examined each of the
Petitioners’ criticisms of the respondents’ HTS and
valuation recommendations carefully to ensure that the
values we apply to the respondents’ factors are
supported by the weight of the evidence on the record.

Issues & Decision Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933, at 160-61 (Cmt. 16).

While Commerce was not satisfied with some of the responses and

selected its own values, given the burdensome request, it did not

find that imperfect responses amounted to a failure to cooperate.

AFMC claims that Commerce’s Final Determination erred by

failing to sufficiently analyze and respond to its arguments.

Although acknowledging that Commerce need not respond to every

argument raised by parties, AFMC claims that here Commerce did not

meet the minimum threshold of laying out a clear “path.” The court

disagrees that remand is required here.

In discussing the volume of information requests Commerce

made to the parties, and the limited time for response permitted
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 136

them, Commerce implicity found that Respondents' errors were

excusable. Certainly, the record supports the factual basis of

Commerce's finding.

Nor can the court say Commerce's result was unlawful. As

discussed above, section 1677e(b) grants Commerce discretion not to

use adverse inferences. Given that Commerce's factual finding was

well supported by the record, there is no basis here for reversing

Commerce's conclusion. Indeed, granting AFMC's request would

convert section 1677e(b)'s use of the term "may" into "shall" -- a

result contrary to the intent of Congress.46

46
The court notes that AFMC's arguments are unclear. To the
extent AFMC is arguing that Respondents did not provide an
accurate description of their inputs, it is correct that only
respondents are in possession of this information and have a duty
to disclose such facts when so requested by Commerce. If a party
fails to provide such facts, Commerce may apply adverse
inferences. However, once Respondents supply these facts,
Commerce must then apply the law to these facts. This process is
analytical and, therefore, not subject to an application of
adverse inferences. After all, Respondents are in no better
position than any other party to classify these inputs.
Inasmuch as AFMC is arguing that respondents' difficulty in
applying a third-country's law triggers adverse inferences, they
misunderstand the nature and role of adverse inferences in the
process.
The court notes that although classifying goods appears to
be simple, it is quite complicated. Routinely, the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit remands Customs cases back to
this court to develop the factual record (this of course after a
protest proceeding before Customs and review by this court).
Accordingly, if Commerce is going to use the HTS[I], it must (and
did) accept the burden to ask the follow-up questions and conduct
the analysis that such a choice will necessitate.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 137

(B) Wood Scraps

Dorbest asserts that when Commerce calculated the constructed

export price of its merchandise, Commerce failed to deduct the

economic value of certain by-products of its manufacturing process.

Specifically, Dorbest claims that it generates wood scraps and

scrap cardboard in its production process and that these byproducts

“re-enter the production process” except for portions which are

“burned in the kitchen for cooking and for hot water for the

dormitory.” Dorbest Sections C & D Resp., P.R. Doc. 1086 at fr.

48.

In its Determination, Commerce found that Dorbest failed to

explain whether it based its “scrap-allocation methodology on sales

or production figures for scrap.” Therefore, Commerce found

inadequate “Dorbest’s explanation for its calculation of the by-

product offset . . . because Dorbest did not provide worksheets or

any other evidence on the record to demonstrate how it calculated

its wood scrap and cardboard scrap offset.” Issues & Decision

Mem., P.R. Doc. 1933 at 231 (Cmt. 33).

Prior to denying Dorbest’s offset request, Commerce did

not provide Dorbest notice that Dorbest had failed to sufficiently

document its claimed deduction. Dorbest claims that Commerce’s

failure to notify Dorbest of the deficiencies in its submissions,

and Commerce’s subsequent failure to credit Dorbest’s claimed
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 138

deductions, contravenes Commerce’s duties imposed by 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677m(d)47 and, therefore, Commerce’s Determination impermissibly

resorted to using facts otherwise available under 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677e(a). The court disagrees.

Despite Dorbest's contention, here Commerce did make a follow-

up request for Dorbest to explain its numbers. Dorbest Sections C

& D Resp., P.R. 1086, fr. 48. This follow-up inquiry discharged

Commerce's obligations under section 1677m(d). Once Commerce did

this, no more was required of Commerce under 1677m(d).

47
See supra note 44, p. 131.
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 139

V. CONCLUSION

In summary, the court finds as follows:

(i) Commerce's selection of India as the surrogate country is
affirmed;
(ii) Commerce's calculation of the labor rate is remanded;
specifically Commerce is to either (a) justify why its data set
constitutes the best available information; or (b) incorporate
those countries meeting its criteria into the data set; and (c)
reconsider its use of its methodology or an alternative method for
determining the labor rate for the PRC in this case;
(iii) Commerce's decision not to use the spring 2005 data set
in its calculation of the labor rate is affirmed;
(iv) Commerce's selection of surrogate companies for the
computation of the financial ratios is remanded; specifically,
Commerce may exclude IFP's 2004 financial statement; Commerce must
explain its inclusion of Jayaraja's financial statement; Commerce
must explain its inclusion of financial statements from Swaran,
Nizamuddin, Fusion Design, and DnD;
(v) Commerce's use of MSFTI, in general, is affirmed;
(vi) Commerce's use of MSFTI to value mirrors is remanded for
a fuller explanation or use of a better data set;
(vii) The use of MSFTI to value paints is affirmed;
(viii) The use of MSFTI to value cardboard is affirmed;
(ix) Commerce's valuation of hooks and connectors is remanded
for a fuller explanation or use of a different subheading;
(x) Commerce's valuation of resin is remanded;
(xi) Commerce's valuation of hinges is affirmed;
(xii) Commerce's valuation of styrofoam is affirmed;
(xiii) Commerce's valuation of cardboard is remanded;
(xiv) Commerce's valuation of iron components is affirmed;
(xv) Commerce's decision not to apply adverse facts on its
valuation of input materials is affirmed;
(xvi) Commerce's denial of Dorbest's by-product offset claim
is affirmed;
(xvii) Commerce's request for a voluntary remand regarding
metal spare parts is granted; Commerce shall limit itself to
addressing only the stated issues in its request for voluntary
Consolidated Ct. No. 05-00003 Page 140

remand;
(xviii) Commerce's request for a voluntary remand on the
question of non-scope metal canopies and other metal parts is
granted;
(xix) Commerce's request for a voluntary remand regarding its
treatment of certain expenses on incoming raw materials is granted;
(xx) Commerce's use of zeroing is affirmed.

Commerce shall have until March 2, 2007 to issue a remand
determination. Parties’ comments shall be due by March 23, 2007.
Rebuttal comments shall be due by April 13, 2007.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2006
New York, NY

/s/ Donald C. Pogue
Donald C. Pogue, Judge