Bio-Lab, Inc. et al v. United States

Slip Op. 26-43
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BIO-LAB, INC.; INNOVATIVE WATER
CARE LLC; AND OCCIDENTAL
CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
and
JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO.,
LTD. AND HEZE HUAYI CHEMICAL CO.,
LTD.,
Consolidated Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO.,
LTD. AND HEZE HUAYI CHEMICAL CO.,
LTD.,
Defendant-Intervenors.
Before: Timothy M. Reif, Judge
Consol. Court No. 24-00024
OPINION AND ORDER
[Sustaining in part and remanding in part Commerce’s remand redetermination in the
administrative review of the antidumping order on chlorinated isocyanurates from the
People’s Republic of China.]
Dated: April 27, 2026
Chase J. Dunn, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued for
plaintiffs Bio-Lab, Inc., Innovative Water Care LLC and Occidental Chemical
Corporation. Also on the brief was James R. Cannon, Jr.
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 2
Tate N. Walker, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., argued for defendant United States. Also
on the brief were Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy,
Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel was Jesus Saenz,
Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S.
Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.
Vivien Jinghui Wang, The Inter-Global Trade Law Group PLLC, of Washington, D.C.,
argued for consolidated plaintiffs and defendant-intervenors Juancheng Kangtai
Chemical Co., Ltd. and Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd. Also on the brief were Gregory
S. Menegaz, Alexandra H. Salzman and Judith L. Holdsworth.
* 	* 	*
Reif, Judge: Before the court are the remand results of the U.S. Department of
Commerce (“Commerce”) concerning the administrative review of the antidumping
(“AD”) order on chlorinated isocyanurates (“chlorinated isos,” or “subject merchandise”)
from the People’s Republic of China (“China”) for the period of review (“POR”) June 1,
2021, through May 31, 2022. Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand (“Remand Results”), ECF No. 54-1; see also Chlorinated Isocyanurates from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2021-2022 (“Final Results”), 89 Fed. Reg. 455 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 4,
2024) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“IDM”) (Dep’t of
Commerce Dec. 28, 2023).
Bio-Lab, Inc., Innovative Water Care LLC and Occidental Chemical Corporation
(collectively, “petitioners” or “plaintiffs”) challenge certain aspects of the Remand
Results and request that the court remand to Commerce “with instruction to reconsider
its selection of Romania as the primary surrogate.” Comments on Remand
Redetermination (“Pls. Br.”) at 21, ECF No. 58. Plaintiffs object specifically to the
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 3
continued determination of Commerce that Romania is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise to chlorinated isos. See id.
Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Kangtai”) and Heze Huayi Chemical
Co., Ltd. (“Heze Huayi”) (collectively, “respondents” or “consolidated plaintiffs”) 1 also
challenge certain aspects of the Remand Results and request that the court remand to
Commerce to “reconsider its surrogate country decision.” Consolidated Pls.’ Remand
Comments (“Consol. Pls. Br.”) at 4, ECF No. 57. Consolidated plaintiffs object
specifically to the decision of Commerce to reopen the administrative record and rely on
a new Romanian labor rate. See id.
For the reasons discussed below, the court sustains in part and remands in part
the Remand Results.
BACKGROUND
The court presumes familiarity with the facts as set out in Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United
States (“Bio-Lab I”), 49 CIT __, 776 F. Supp. 3d 1315 (2025), and recounts only those
facts relevant to the issues before the court on remand.
On April 14, 2025, the Court concluded that Commerce did not explain
adequately: (1) Commerce’s determination that cyanuric acid (“CYA”) is not a “major
input” under Policy Bulletin 04.1; (2) Commerce’s determination that calcium
hypochlorite (“calcium hypo”) and chlorinated isos share similar physical characteristics;
(3) Commerce’s treatment of “more detailed information” submitted by petitioners with
respect to the physical differences between calcium hypo, sodium hypochlorite (“sodium
1 Kangtai and Heze Huayi are consolidated plaintiffs and defendant-intervenors in the
instant action. For the sake of simplicity, the court will refer to the two as consolidated
plaintiffs only.
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 4
hypo”) and chlorinated isos; (4) Commerce’s determination that the production
processes for calcium hypo, sodium hypo and chlorinated isos are similar; and (5)
Commerce’s selection of the Romanian labor data on the record as the surrogate value
for labor. See id. at __, 776 F. Supp. 3d at 1343.
On May 23, 2025, Commerce reopened the record and requested additional
information with respect to: (1) “whether calcium hypo shares physical characteristics
with chlorinated isos”; (2) “the similarities in the production processes for calcium hypo,
sodium hypo, [and] chlorinated isos”; and (3) “urea and its applications.” Remand
Results at 3. Further, “Commerce . . . placed information regarding urea and its
applications on the record, as well as Romanian labor data that is specific to Romania’s
manufacturing industry and is contemporaneous to the POR.” Id. Commerce provided
interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the new information. Id.
On July 3, 2025, Commerce issued its draft remand redetermination and
provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment. Id. at 4. On August 4,
2025, Commerce issued its final remand results. See id.
On September 3, 2025, plaintiffs and consolidated plaintiffs filed their comments
on the final remand results. Pls. Br.; Consol. Pls. Br. On September 23, 2025,
defendant United States filed its response to plaintiffs’ and consolidated plaintiffs’
comments. Def.’s Resp. to Pls.’ and Consol. Pls.’ Comments on Commerce’s Remand
Redetermination (“Def. Br.”), ECF No. 62.
On March 19, 2026, the Court heard oral argument. Oral Arg. Manifest, ECF No.
73.
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 4 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 5
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) grants to this Court “exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action
commenced under section 516A or 517 of the Tariff Act of 1930.” Section 516A of the
Tariff Act of 1930 provides that in an action under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2), the court will
hold unlawful any determination, finding or conclusion that is “unsupported by
substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 2 19
U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
Substantial evidence constitutes “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” but it requires “more than a mere
scintilla.” Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (quoting Consol.
Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). For a reviewing court to “fulfill
[its] obligation” to determine whether a determination of Commerce is supported by
substantial evidence and in accordance with law, Commerce is required to “examine the
record and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.” CS Wind Viet. Co. v.
United States, 832 F.3d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts &
Crafts Co. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2013)).
Even so, the court will “uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s
path may reasonably be discerned.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark.-
Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 286 (1974)); see also NMB Sing. Ltd. v. United
States, 557 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Commerce must explain the basis for its
2 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant portions of
Title 19 of the U.S. Code, 2018 edition.
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 5 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 6
decisions; while its explanations do not have to be perfect, the path of Commerce’s
decision must be reasonably discernable to a reviewing court.”).
“[T]he Court will not disturb an agency determination if its factual findings are
reasonable and supported by the record as a whole, even if there is some evidence that
detracts from the agency’s conclusion.” Shandong Huarong Gen. Corp. v. United
States, 25 CIT 834, 837, 159 F. Supp. 2d 714, 718 (2001), aff’d sub nom. Shandong
Huarong Gen. Grp. Corp. v. United States, 60 F. App’x 797 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
On remand, the Court will sustain Commerce’s determinations “if they are in
accordance with the remand order, are supported by substantial evidence, and are
otherwise in accordance with law.” MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States, 39 CIT __, __,
100 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1355 (2015).
DISCUSSION
I. 	Comparable merchandise
A. 	Legal framework
19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1) provides that Commerce “shall determine the normal
value of the subject merchandise” in an AD investigation that involves a non-market
economy (“NME”) country “on the basis of the value of the factors of production
[(“FOPs”)] utilized in producing the merchandise and to which shall be added an amount
for general expenses and profit plus the cost of containers, coverings, and other
expenses.” See Juancheng Kangtai Chem. Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 15-93, 2015
WL 4999476, at *2 (CIT Aug. 21, 2015).
Commerce, “in valuing factors of production . . . shall utilize, to the extent
possible, the prices or costs of factors of production” in a surrogate country that is “at a
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 6 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 7
level of economic development comparable” to that of the NME, and a “significant
producer[] of comparable merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4). And, “[t]o the extent
possible, Commerce's regulatory preference is to ‘value all factors in a single surrogate
country.’” Jinko Solar Imp. and Exp. Co. v. United States, 48 CIT __, __, 701 F. Supp.
3d 1367, 1381 (2024) (quoting 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(2)).
The statute does not define terms such as “significant producer” and
“comparable merchandise.” Id. However, “[s]ome clarification is . . . provided in the
Conference Report to the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, which added
to the statute the current NME provisions and states that ‘significant producer’ includes
any country that is a ‘significant net exporter.’” Import Admin., U.S. Dep't of Commerce,
Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process, Policy Bulletin 04.1 (2004),
https://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull04-1.html (last visited Apr. 20, 2026) (“Policy
Bulletin 04.1”) (quoting Conference Report to the 1988 Omnibus Trade &
Competitiveness Act, H.R. Rep. No. 100-576 (1988), at 590). And “[t]o determine if a
product produced by a company in the surrogate country is comparable, Commerce's
established practice is to apply a three-part test that examines ‘physical characteristics,
end uses, and production processes.’” Shanghai Foreign Trade Enters. Co. v. United
States, 28 CIT 480, 490, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (2004) (citation omitted); US
Magnesium LLC v. United States, 39 CIT __, __, 72 F. Supp. 3d 1341, 1357 n.25
(2015); List Indus., Inc. v. United States, 47 CIT __, __, 641 F. Supp. 3d 1400, 1406
(2023).
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 7 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 8
B. 	Major input
In Bio-Lab I, the Court remanded for further explanation or reconsideration
Commerce’s determination that CYA “does not meet the definition of a major input as
described in Policy Bulletin 04.1.” 49 CIT at __, 776 F. Supp. 3d at 1335-36 (quoting
IDM at 7).
Policy Bulletin 04.1 states that in cases “where there are major inputs, i.e., inputs
that are specialized or dedicated or used intensively, in the production of the subject
merchandise, e.g., processed agricultural, aquatic and mineral products, comparable
merchandise should be identified narrowly, on the basis of a comparison of the major
inputs, including energy, where appropriate.” Policy Bulletin 04.1. Accordingly, the
narrow definition of “comparable merchandise” based on a major input finding could
have a significant impact on the selection of a surrogate country.
On remand, Commerce continued to determine that CYA is not a major input in
the production of chlorinated isos for three reasons: (1) CYA does not “comprise[] a
predominant portion of” subject merchandise; (2) CYA is one of a “large number” of
inputs required to produce subject merchandise such that “chlorinated isos more closely
resemble[] . . . ‘industrial commodity chemicals’”; and (3) CYA is not a “specialized or
dedicated” input. See Remand Results at 4-8, 22-24. And, in the alternative,
Commerce concluded that urea should be the focus of the major input inquiry because
CYA was not purchased by the respondents and, therefore, was not an input for which a
surrogate value was required. Id.
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 8 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 9
Plaintiffs continue to argue that Commerce’s determination that CYA is not a
major input is unsupported by substantial evidence and not in accordance with law. Pls.
Br. at 3-12.
The court concludes that Commerce’s determination as to CYA is not in
accordance with law or supported by substantial evidence and further concludes that
Commerce’s alternative analysis of urea is not in accordance with law or supported by
substantial evidence.
1. 	“Predominant portion”
The court concludes that Commerce failed to demonstrate that CYA does not
constitute a predominant portion of subject merchandise.
Plaintiffs argue that “Commerce’s assertion that CYA is not a ‘major input’
because it does not ‘comprise[] a predominant portion of the product’ is not consistent
with the record.” Pls. Br. at 4 (alteration in original) (quoting Remand Results at 5).
Commerce on remand did not proffer support for its determination that none of
the three intermediate inputs for chlorinated isos (CYA, chlorine and caustic soda)
comprises a predominant portion of the product. See Remand Results at 5. Commerce
merely cited respondent-submitted FOP spreadsheets that list the inputs for chlorinated
isos and their respective volumes in the finished product. See id. at 5 n.18. A mere
citation to the record without an accompanying analysis and explanation of the relative
proportions of the inputs is insufficient support for Commerce’s finding. See Tianjin
Magnesium Int’l Co. v. United States, 34 CIT 980, 982, 722 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1328
(2010) (explaining that the substantial evidence standard “requires that Commerce
thoroughly examine the record and ‘articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 9 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 10
including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” (citation
omitted)). This conclusion is especially true given that Commerce does not offer a
definition of “predominant portion” in its sparse, half-sentence discussion of
predominance. See id.
Merriam-Webster defines “predominant” as “having superior strength, influence,
or authority.” Predominant, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/predominant (last visited Apr. 20, 2026). Similarly, Cambridge
Dictionary defines the term as “more noticeable or important, or larger in number, than
others.” Predominant, Cambridge Online Dictionary,
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/predominant (last visited Apr. 20,
2026).
Plaintiffs concede that CYA does not comprise the majority of material inputs by
volume but note that the record demonstrates that the raw material inputs used to
produce CYA, urea and sulfuric acid comprise the plurality. Pls. Br. at 5-6 (citing
Commerce, Final SAS Output, Kangtai, “Sample Print of Factors of Production,” CR
102; Commerce, Final SAS Output, Heze Huayi, “Sample Print of Factors of
Production,” CR 109).
As the intermediate input that accounts for the plurality of raw material inputs by
volume, CYA appears to “comprise[] a predominant portion of” subject merchandise.
Commerce failed to offer a reason to the contrary in its explanation. See Remand
Results at 5. For that reason, Commerce’s “predominant portion” basis for concluding
that CYA is not a major input is not supported by substantial evidence.
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 10 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 11
The court remands to Commerce to address plaintiffs’ arguments and to explain
further in light of the court’s discussion of the points above or reconsider its
determination that CYA does not comprise a predominant portion of chlorinated isos.
2. 	Large number of inputs
The court concludes that Commerce failed to demonstrate that chlorinated isos
require a “large number” of inputs for their production.
In Bio-Lab I, the Court concluded that “Commerce failed to explain how
chlorinated isos belong to the category of ‘industrial commodity chemicals’” such that
CYA is not a “major input.” 3 49 CIT at __, 776 F. Supp. 3d at 1335. The Court
reasoned that:
Commerce failed to explain how chlorinated isos belong to the category of
“industrial commodity chemicals.” 	Chlorinated isos consist of only three
intermediate inputs: CYA, chlorine and caustic soda. . . . 	Policy Bulletin
04.1 does not define what a “large number” of inputs would be, but it seems
unlikely given common usage of the term “large number” that three inputs
would suffice. 	See Policy Bulletin 04.1. 	For that reason, Commerce was
required to explain the reason that, in the absence of a “large number” of
inputs, “input matching” would nonetheless be “very complicated” in the
case of chlorinated isos such that they fall within the category of “industrial
commodity chemicals.” Id.
Id. at __, 776 F. Supp. 3d at 1335-36.
On remand, Commerce explained that “the actual number of inputs needed to
produce chlorinated isos . . . is more extensive” than three and consists of “caustic
soda/sodium hydroxide, chlorine, sulfuric acid, boron oxides, and urea.” Remand
3 Policy Bulletin 04.1 contrasts “major inputs” with inputs for “industrial commodity
chemicals,” a class of goods for which “the large number, and generic nature, of the
inputs makes input matching very complicated.”
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 11 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 12
Results at 5 (citing Letter from Heze Huayi Chemical Co., Ltd., “Section C&D
Response” (Nov. 14, 2022), Ex. D-2, CR 9-20; Letter from Juancheng Kangtai Chemical
Co., Ltd., “Section C&D Response” (Nov. 14, 2022), Ex. D-2, CR 21-31). Commerce
noted also that in addition to the five chemical inputs, “Commerce requires values
for . . . three types of fuel/energy (i.e., electricity, coal, and steam), and several types of
packaging.” Id. Commerce concluded that for these reasons, “chlorinated isos more
closely resembles [sic] the example of ‘industrial commodity chemicals’ referenced in
Policy Bulletin 04.1 rather than ‘major inputs.’” Id. (citing Policy Bulletin 04.1).
Plaintiffs object that “[w]hether there are three or five [material] inputs, it is simply
arbitrary to insist that CYA is not a major input because five material inputs is a ‘large
number.’” Pls. Br. at 9.
The court agrees. Commerce on remand merely restated, without further
explanation, that the number of inputs needed to produce chlorinated isos is a “large
number.” Remand Results at 5. The only difference on remand is that Commerce
adjusted the number from “three intermediate inputs” to five chemical inputs, three
energy sources and “several types of packaging.” 4 Id.
While it is true that Policy Bulletin 04.1 does not set a floor or ceiling on what may
constitute a “large number” of inputs, see Policy Bulletin 04.1, Commerce is required to
explain the reason that its decision to bypass the colloquial understanding of that
phrase is nonetheless supported by substantial evidence. Mere assertions are
insufficient. See Linyi Chengen Imp. and Exp. Co. v. United States, 487 F. Supp. 3d
4 The court notes that packaging and energy sources are inputs to some extent in many
if not most products. For that reason, the court is not persuaded that such “inputs”
should be counted for the purposes of the “large number” inquiry.
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 12 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 13
1349, 1359 (2020) (“Commerce's mere assertions without substantial evidence do not
serve the purpose of calculating dumping margins as accurately as possible.”).
Accordingly, Commerce’s “large number” of inputs argument is not supported by
substantial evidence.
On remand, Commerce is directed to explain further by offering support from
other Commerce determinations or court decisions and if none offers specific and
apposite support for Commerce’s conclusion, to offer support from other legal sources,
or reconsider its determination that five to eight inputs constitute a “large number” of
inputs under Policy Bulletin 04.1.
3. 	Specialized or dedicated input
The court concludes that Commerce did not explain adequately its determination
that CYA is not a “specialized or dedicated” input in the production of chlorinated isos.
Commerce on remand concluded that CYA is not a major input because it is “not
a ‘specialized or dedicated’ input . . . as expressed by Policy Bulletin 4.1.” Remand
Results at 6. Commerce found that “information on the record . . . states that [CYA] is
not only used in the production of chlorinated isos, but it can also be used as an input to
produce decolourants . . ., resins, paints, and herbicides,” as well as “an inhibitor of
nylon, in plastics, polyester, and as an additive in cosmetics.” Remand Results at 6.
Commerce determined that “[b]ecause of its uses in various products and industries,
Commerce does not consider [CYA] to be an input that is ‘specialized or dedicated’ with
respect to chlorinated isos.” Id.
Plaintiffs argue that CYA is “specialized or dedicated or used intensively”
because it “imparts the unique physical characteristics and uses of chlorinated isos,”
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 13 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 14
namely “stability.” Pls. Br. at 3. Plaintiffs explain that “CYA is a ‘major input’ because it
is essential to the production of chlorinated isos” and “is not any less a ‘major input’
simply because it is used in other products.” Id. at 7.
Commerce on remand stated merely that the use of CYA in other contexts
demonstrated that CYA was not “specialized or dedicated” with respect to chlorinated
isos. See Remand Results at 6, 23-24. Commerce’s failure to address petitioners’
arguments prevents the court from concluding that the determination was reasonable
and supported by substantial evidence. What is more, Commerce’s own language in
the scope of the order itself describes chlorinated isos as “derivatives of cyanuric acid.”
IDM at 2; see also Calcium Hypochlorite from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-510 and 731-TA-
1245, USITC Pub. 4452 at 6 (Feb. 2014) (“Chlorinated isos are a cyanuric acid
derivative, produced from a reaction of cyanuric acid (derived from urea), chlorine, and
caustic soda.”). So, the scope itself requires that Commerce explain the reason that
CYA is not “specialized or dedicated” notwithstanding that the subject merchandise is a
cyanuric acid derivative. 5
Moreover, Commerce’s explanation on remand failed to address the complete
definition of major inputs set forth in the Policy Bulletin. Major inputs are defined as
“inputs that are specialized or dedicated or used intensively, in the production of the
subject merchandise.” Policy Bulletin 04.1 (emphasis supplied). If Commerce wishes
to take the position that CYA is not a major input, Commerce needs to demonstrate that
CYA is not “used intensively” in the production of subject merchandise. Id. That (1)
5 In view of this language and other language discussed throughout this opinion, the
court takes the opportunity to underscore its expectation that Commerce will adhere
closely to the specific remand instructions.
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 14 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 15
CYA accounts for the plurality of raw material inputs by volume and appears to
comprise a “predominant portion” of subject merchandise, and (2) Commerce did not
explain adequately its determination that chlorinated isos include a “large number” of
inputs require that Commerce address this point directly. See supra Section I.B.1-2. In
omitting any discussion of this third criterion, Commerce failed to explain adequately the
reason that CYA could not be considered a “major input” under its own regulations. Nor
did Commerce cite authority that would explain its silence on this point. See Remand
Results at 5-6. Accordingly, Commerce’s “specialized or dedicated” basis for
concluding that CYA is not a major input is both insufficient and incomplete.
On remand, Commerce is directed to: (1) provide definitions for “specialized,”
“dedicated” and “used intensively”; (2) explain further or reconsider its determination
that CYA is not a “specialized or dedicated” input with respect to chlorinated isos given
that chlorinated isos are derived from CYA; and (3) explain whether CYA is “used
intensively” in the production of chlorinated isos.
4. 	Urea
The court concludes that Commerce did not explain adequately its determination
in the alternative on remand, that it is inappropriate to focus on CYA for the “major
input” analysis and that Commerce should focus instead on urea. Id. at 6-7; 23-24.
Commerce contended that “neither respondent purchases any of the [CYA] that
is used to produce chlorinated isos” but “both respondents purchase urea which they
use to produce the [CYA] that is then used to produce chlorinated isos.” Id. at 6.
Plaintiffs object that, under Policy Bulletin 04.1, “[i]t does not matter . . . whether
the major input itself is manufactured from another material (e.g., urea) or whether the
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 15 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 16
producer of the comparable merchandise itself manufactures the major input.” Pls. Br.
at 10. Plaintiffs explain that “[u]ncontested record evidence . . . demonstrates that none
of the countries on the surrogate country list are [sic] producers of merchandise
manufactured with the essential raw materials, such as CYA or urea, required to make
chlorinated isos.” Id. at 11.
Commerce on remand maintained that “focusing on purchased inputs is
appropriate as the purpose of the surrogate country analysis is to determine whether a
surrogate country will likely have accurate prices available . . . for valuing the
respondents’ inputs and by-products and co-products.” Remand Results at 7.
This comment is not supported by the language of the statute or Commerce’s
regulations. Commerce, in short, is confusing or conflating the statute’s surrogate
country selection process under § 1677b(c)(4) with the factors of production analysis
under § 1677b(c)(1), which provides that Commerce “shall determine the normal value
of the subject merchandise on the basis of the value of the factors of production utilized
in producing the merchandise” in the surrogate country.
By contrast, the determination of normal value is downstream from the surrogate
country selection process set forth in § 1677b(c)(4). Before looking at FOPs,
Commerce must select the surrogate country that will be the source of those FOPs.
Once a surrogate country is selected that, “to the extent possible,” is “at a level of
economic development comparable to that of the nonmarket economy country” and a
“significant producer of comparable merchandise,” then shall Commerce “determine the
normal value of the subject merchandise on the basis of the value of the factors of
production utilized in producing the merchandise” in the surrogate country. See 19
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 16 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 17
U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1)-(4). The statute does not provide that Commerce shall make
certain assumptions regarding the availability of price data when considering whether a
potential surrogate country meets the two statutory criteria. 6 See id. And there is
nothing in the statute or in Policy Bulletin 04.1 that requires that Commerce must
consider inputs purchased in the surrogate country for the “comparable merchandise”
inquiry. See id.; see also Policy Bulletin 04.1. For the court to conclude otherwise
would be to conflate the “significant producer” and “comparable merchandise” elements
of the inquiry.
As discussed, the determination of whether different types of merchandise are
comparable involves “a three-part test that examines ‘physical characteristics, end uses,
and production processes.’” Shanghai Foreign Trade Enters., 28 CIT at 490, 318 F.
Supp. 2d at 1348. That an input, such as CYA, is produced rather than purchased in
the surrogate country is irrelevant to the basic question of whether two products are
comparable. For that reason and those enumerated above, the court remains
unpersuaded that a “major input” analysis as to CYA is improper.
But even if urea is the proper input to be analyzed in the “major input” inquiry
here, Commerce’s determination in that respect is not supported by substantial
6 Moreover, Policy Bulletin 04.1 states expressly that “if more than one country has
survived the selection process” after the economic comparability and significant
producer of comparable merchandise inquiries, then “the country with the best factors
data is selected as the primary surrogate country.” The Policy Bulletin provides that
poor data quality could be a legitimate reason for rejecting a country that meets the two
statutory criteria or departing from the surrogate country list entirely to select one or
more surrogate countries not on the original list. See id. However, the structure of the
regulation suggests that this decision should occur only after the potential surrogate
countries are analyzed under the two statutory criteria. See id.
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 17 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 18
evidence. Commerce stated that urea is not a “major input” because it is used in a wide
range of applications and is therefore not “specialized” or “dedicated.” Remand Results
at 8. As with CYA, Commerce needs to explain the reasons that urea should be the
focus of the major input inquiry given that the scope of the order describes chlorinated
isos as “derivatives of cyanuric acid,” not “derivatives of urea.” IDM at 2.
Further, as with CYA, Commerce failed to address a critical part of the Policy
Bulletin’s definition of “major input,” namely that a major input may also be an input that
is “used intensively” in the production of subject merchandise. Policy Bulletin 04.1
(“[W]here there are major inputs, i.e., inputs that are specialized or dedicated or used
intensively . . . .” (emphasis supplied)); see supra Section I.B.3. Commerce restated
also its conclusion that the number of inputs needed to produce chlorinated isos is a
“large number” without further explanation. See Remand Results at 24; see supra
Section I.B.2.
For these reasons, the court remands to Commerce to explain further as
specified above or reconsider its determination that neither CYA nor urea is a “major
input” such that “comparable merchandise should [not] be identified narrowly, on the
basis of a comparison of the major inputs.” See Policy Bulletin 04.1. In addition to the
remand instructions set forth above, Commerce is directed specifically to consider the
volume of urea in subject merchandise and whether urea does or does not comprise a
“predominant portion” of subject merchandise. See supra Section I.B.1-3. The court
notes the significant impact that a reconsideration by Commerce of its major input
determination could have on the broader comparable merchandise inquiry, which could
in turn have ramifications for the selection of a surrogate country.
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 18 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 19
C. 	Physical characteristics
1. 	Whether calcium hypo and chlorinated isos share similar
physical characteristics
The court concludes that Commerce’s determination that calcium hypo and
chlorinated isos share physical characteristics was reasonable and supported by
substantial evidence.
In Bio-Lab I, the Court held that Commerce did not explain adequately its
determination that calcium hypo and chlorinated isos shared similar physical
characteristics. 49 CIT at __, 776 F. Supp. 3d at 1336. Commerce in the Final Results
“discussed only the physical characteristics of sodium hypo despite Commerce’s
conclusion that both calcium and sodium hypo are comparable to chlorinated isos.” Id.
(citing IDM at 8). Accordingly, the Court remanded for Commerce to “explain whether
calcium hypo shares similar physical characteristics with chlorinated isos.” Id.
Commerce on remand found that “record information demonstrates that
chlorinated isos and calcium hypo share similar characteristics because they can be
both found in a powdery or tablet form, are chlorinated[,] . . . both products can be used
as disinfectants or for water treatment applications, can be purchased in similar
packaging, and react in a similar fashion when they come into contact with water.”
Remand Results at 9.
Plaintiffs argue that Commerce’s determination is not supported by substantial
evidence. Pls. Br. at 12-15. Plaintiffs assert that Commerce’s conclusions with respect
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 19 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 20
to the “powdery or tablet form” of the products ignores the fact that “innumerable
chemicals and other products are available in powder or tablet form.” 7 Id. at 13.
Even if plaintiffs note correctly the preponderance of “chemicals and other
products . . . available in powder or tablet form,” plaintiffs do not address Commerce’s
other factual findings. See id. For example, Commerce discussed the similarly high
chlorine percentages of trichloroisocyanuric acid (“TCCA”) ʊ one of the three primary
chemical compositions of chlorinated isos that is within the scope of the AD order, see
IDM at 2 ʊ and calcium hypo. Remand Results at 9-10.
Moreover, Commerce cited the following excerpt from advisory material from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on swimming pool chemicals:
At many pools, gaseous chlorine . . . is fed directly into pool water to kill
bacteria and Other microorganisms. 	Almost all pools using gaseous
chlorine use cylinders containing 100 to 150 pounds of chlorine.
At other pools[,] solid, granular, pellet, or stick compounds (e.g., calcium
hypochlorite 	and 	chlorinated 	isocyanurates) 	or 	liquids 	(e.g., 	sodium
hypochlorite) are added to the water. In contact with water, these solid and
liquid chemicals dissolve and form hypochloric acid or chlorine ions to
perform the same disinfecting function as chlorine.
Letter from Respondents, “Rebuttal Comments on GNI List” (Nov. 28, 2022), attach. 3,
PR 37 (emphasis supplied).
7 To support this notion, plaintiffs cite only two proceedings in which Commerce noted
that certain products were available in powder form; however, in neither of these
determinations did Commerce link its conclusion as to the availability of the product in
powder form with the “comparable merchandise” inquiry. See Pls. Br. at 13 (citing Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the
People's Republic of China, 73 Fed Reg. 6,479 (Dep’t of Commerce Feb. 4, 2008) and
accompanying IDM at cmt. 1 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 28, 2008); Wood Mouldings and
Millwork Products from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2022-2023, 89 Fed. Reg.
76,452 (Dep’t of Commerce Sep. 18, 2024) and accompanying IDM at cmt. 8 (Dep’t of
Commerce Sep. 11, 2024)).
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 20 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 21
It was reasonable for Commerce to read the proximity of calcium hypo and
chlorinated isos in the above excerpt as an indication that they share physical
characteristics. Moreover, both products may appear as “solid, granular, pellet, or stick
compounds” and both “dissolve and form hypochloric acid or chlorine ions” when
brought into contact with water. Id.
In light of the totality of the record information, it was reasonable for Commerce
to conclude that chlorinated isos and calcium hypo share physical characteristics. The
court notes further that Commerce on remand provided more information regarding the
physical similarity between chlorinated isos and calcium hypo than Commerce did
regarding the physical similarity between chlorinated isos and sodium hypo in the Final
Results. Compare Remand Results at 9-11, with IDM at 6-9. The Court concluded in
Bio-Lab I that the explanation of the latter comparison was adequate and the court
concludes the same of the former here. See Bio-Lab I, 49 CIT at __, 776 F. Supp. 3d at
1336.
Plaintiffs in effect ask the court to isolate each item of record information and
determine whether each proves conclusively that calcium hypo and chlorinated isos
share physical characteristics. Such an approach is not provided for let alone required
by the statute, Policy Bulletin 04.1 or case law. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c); Policy Bulletin
04.1. Nor have plaintiffs proffered legal authority in support of this approach. See Pls.
Br.
Accordingly, the court sustains the Remand Results on this point.
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 21 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 22
2. 	Whether Commerce explained adequately its treatment of the
“more detailed information” submitted by petitioners
The court concludes that Commerce’s explanation of its treatment of the “more
detailed information” submitted by petitioners is adequate.
Commerce in the Preliminary Results noted that the information that petitioners
provided regarding the “differences in physical characteristics, end use, and production
processes to produce sodium hypochlorite versus chlorinated isos” was “more detailed”
compared to the information submitted in prior reviews. Chlorinated Isocyanurates from
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2021-2022 (“Preliminary Results”), 88 Fed. Reg. 43,271 (Dep't of Commerce July 7,
2023) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (“PDM”) at 19 (Dep't of
Commerce June 30, 2023); IDM at 7.
In Bio-Lab I, the Court concluded that Commerce in the Final Results
disregarded petitioners’ submission “without an adequate explanation and without a
statement of what the ‘more detailed information’ was.” 49 CIT at __, 776 F. Supp. 3d
at 1336 (citing PDM at 27; IDM at 7). On this basis, the Court held that Commerce
failed to explain adequately its treatment of information submitted by petitioners with
respect to physical characteristics. Id. The Court remanded to Commerce to “explain
further or reconsider whether the ‘more detailed information’ that petitioners submitted
with respect to physical characteristics is inadequate.” Id.
On remand, Commerce identified the “more detailed information” as including:
[A] finding by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) . . . that
calcium hypo, sodium hypo, and chloro isos are separate like products and
declarations 	from 	engineers 	for 	Occidental 	Chemical 	Corporation
(Occidental 	Chemical) 	and 	Clearon 	Corporation 	that 	focused 	on 	the
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 22 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 23
production processes used to produce sodium hypo, chlorinated isos,
calcium hypo, and cyanuric acid.
Remand Results at 12 (citing Calcium Hypochlorite from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-510
and 731-TA-1245 (Final), USITC Pub. 4515 (Jan. 2015); Calcium Hypochlorite from
China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-510 and 731-TA-1245 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4452 (Feb.
2014); Letter from Petitioners, “Petitioners’ Rebuttal Comments on Final Surrogate
Value Submission” (June 26, 2023), Ex. 4, CR 88-89).
Commerce asserted that “while . . . it did not specifically identify these
declarations as being ‘new detailed information’” in the underlying administrative review,
“Commerce did take these declarations into consideration in finding that calcium hypo
and sodium hypo are comparable merchandise.” Id. at 15. Commerce explained that it
determined in the Final Results that the ITC’s findings were not dispositive “because the
criteria for such products to be part of the same domestic like product did not involve the
same analysis as conducted by Commerce in determining whether a product is
‘comparable’ for purposes of surrogate country selection as defined by the statute.” Id.
at 12-13.
The court agrees that Commerce provided adequate analysis on this point in
both the Final Results and Preliminary Results but notes that Commerce failed to
identify the ITC finding as constituting part of the “more detailed information” from
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 23 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 24
petitioners. See IDM at 8-9; PDM at 28. Commerce remedied that discrepancy on
remand. 8
In light of the foregoing and seeing that plaintiffs do not comment on this point,
see Pls. Br., the court sustains.
D. 	Production processes
The court concludes that Commerce on remand did not explain adequately its
determination that calcium hypo, sodium hypo and chlorinated isos share similar
production processes.
In Bio-Lab I, the Court concluded that “Commerce did not explain adequately its
determination that calcium and sodium hypo and chlorinated isos share ‘a similar
production process.’” 49 CIT at __, 776 F. Supp. 3d at 1338 (quoting IDM at 6). The
Court instructed that:
On remand, Commerce should explain further or reconsider the similarity of
the production processes of chlorinated isos, sodium hypo and calcium
hypo. The production processes need not be identical, but Commerce must
support its determination of similarity with more than the mere assertion that
the processes are both multi-stage and share some inputs.
Id.
Commerce on remand “continue[d] to find that the production processes of
chlorinated isos, calcium hypo, and sodium hypo are similar for purposes of finding
8 The court notes separately that the second category of “more detailed information”
described in the Remand Results, “products and declarations from engineers for
Occidental Chemical Corporation . . . and Clearon Corporation,” concerns primarily
production processes and does not pertain to the Court’s instructions in the remand
order, which concerned physical characteristics. Remand Results at 12-16; Bio-Lab,
Inc. v. United States, 49 CIT __, __, 776 F. Supp. 3d 1315, 1336 (2025).
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 24 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 25
these products to be comparable as instructed by Policy Bulletin 04.1.” Remand
Results at 17. Commerce explained specifically that “these three products require
similar key inputs (i.e., sodium hydroxide and chlorine) and each requires multi-stage
production processes.” Id. In making this determination, Commerce relied upon: (1)
“record information provided by respondent Heze Huayi (regarding its process for
producing chlorinated isos)”; (2) an ITC proceeding regarding calcium hypo from China
in which the ITC made findings with respect to the production process; and (3)
petitioner-submitted information regarding the “two production processes for sodium
hypo.” Id.
Plaintiffs object on two fronts. First, plaintiffs argue that Commerce failed to
address record evidence demonstrating that the production of chlorinated isos is more
expensive, more labor intensive, requires more specialized equipment and has more
stages of production. Pls. Br. at 16-19. Second, plaintiffs argue that shared inputs and
multi-stage production processes do not automatically render the production of
chlorinated isos comparable to the production of calcium or sodium hypo. Id. at 19-21.
On remand, Commerce noted these concerns but responded that “petitioners’
arguments are essentially that Commerce must find that the production processes for
chlorinated isos, calcium hypo, and sodium hypo are identical.” Remand Results at 32.
Commerce explained that “[t]he fact that one product requires more processing steps
and different production facilities than the other does not take away from our conclusion
that production processes are comparable.” Id.
Commerce’s attempt to avoid petitioners’ objections is not persuasive.
Commerce does not cite authority of any kind for the assertion that two products with
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 25 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 26
different production steps and facilities are nonetheless comparable. See id.; cf. M S
Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 45 CIT __, __, 547 F. Supp. 3d 1254, 1270 (2021) (affirming
Commerce’s comparison of two production processes that shared “five of the seven
production steps” for one product and “use[d] similar machinery”). Commerce instead
reiterated, as it did in the Final Results, that the products share similar inputs (sodium
hydroxide and chlorine) and all involve multi-stage production processes. Remand
Results at 17.
The court recognizes that Commerce on remand described the production
processes of chlorinated isos, calcium hypo and sodium hypo in greater detail than in
the Final Results. Compare Remand Results at 16-20, 30-33, with IDM at 8. However,
Commerce did not actually compare these processes to each other. 9 See Remand
Results at 18-19. Commerce even reconsidered its earlier determination with respect to
the comparability of the production processes of sodium hypo and chlorinated isos after
finding that, unlike chlorinated isos, “sodium hypo does not require evaporation as part
of its production process.” Id. at 19.
In sum, Commerce on remand did not explain adequately its determination that
chlorinated isos, calcium hypo and sodium hypo involve similar production processes.
That said, the court declines to remand on this point given that Commerce has
explained adequately the similarity of physical characteristics and end uses among the
9 The attempted comparison of the three production processes in defendant’s brief is a
post-hoc rationalization and cannot constitute an adequate explanation under the law.
Def. Br. at 28-29; see Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Enf’t Comm. v. United States, 46 CIT __,
__, 578 F. Supp. 3d 1310, 1320 (2022) (“A court will uphold an agency action when the
explanation is of less-than-ideal clarity; however, the explanation must come from the
agency, not counsel's post hoc rationalization of agency action.”).
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 26 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 27
three products and therefore established their comparability. See supra Section I.C;
Bio-Lab I, 49 CIT at __, 776 F. Supp. 3d at 1336-38. “Though Commerce's practice is
to consider a product's end use, physical characteristics, and production process in
determining comparability, it is not restricted to using products that are comparable
along all three fronts . . . .” Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co. v. United States, Slip Op.
No. 14-38, 2014 WL 1387529, at *19 (CIT Apr. 9, 2014); see also Shanghai Foreign
Trade Enters., 28 CIT at 491, 318 F. Supp. 2d at 1348 (recognizing that in “some past
cases in which Commerce has applied its three-part ‘comparable merchandise’ test to
two classes of products made using similar materials and production processes, it has
found comparability despite differences in shape, size and end use.”).
In conclusion as to Commerce’s findings on comparable merchandise, the court
is unable to sustain Commerce’s determination that calcium hypo and sodium hypo are
comparable merchandise until Commerce explains further or reconsiders its “major
input” determination on remand. See supra Section I.B. Doing so will in turn determine
whether “comparable merchandise” must be defined “narrowly,” which could alter
Commerce’s determinations with respect to the comparability of calcium and sodium
hypo. See Policy Bulletin 04.1.
II. 	Reconsideration of the Romanian labor data
The court concludes that Commerce did not abuse its discretion in reopening the
administrative record and relying on new Romanian labor data.
In Bio-Lab I, the Court concluded that Commerce “did not explain adequately its
decision to select the Romanian labor data” on the record. 49 CIT at __, 776 F. Supp.
3d at 1339. The Court explained that Commerce in the Final Results did not address
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 27 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 28
comments by consolidated plaintiffs related to the Romanian labor rate, namely
consolidated plaintiffs’ objection that the labor rate is not contemporaneous with the
POR and “is ‘not even a manufacturing labor rate at all.’” Id. at __, 776 F. Supp. 3d at
1341 (citation omitted). For that reason, the Court remanded to Commerce “to address
consolidated plaintiffs’ concerns and explain further or reconsider its selection of the
Romanian labor data.” Id.
On remand, Commerce “reopened the record and placed Romanian labor data
from ILOSTAT covering 2021-2022 for ‘manufacturing’ on the record and provided
parties with an opportunity to comment.” Remand Results at 22. Commerce
determined to rely on the new Romanian labor data because Commerce concluded that
the data were “specific to the production of subject merchandise (i.e., specific to the
manufacturing sector), contemporaneous with the POR, and satisfy Commerce’s
preference to value labor solely from the primary surrogate country.” Id.
Consolidated plaintiffs argue that in reopening the record, placing an alternative
Romanian labor rate on the record and relying on that rate, Commerce “did not follow
the Court’s instructions” and violated its “normal practice.” Consol. Pls. Br. at 1.
Consolidated plaintiffs’ argument runs contrary to this Court’s precedent.
It is well-established that “Commerce generally may reopen the administrative
record on remand.” Fresh Garlic Producers Ass’n v. United States, 40 CIT __, __, 190
F. Supp. 3d 1302, 1306 (2016); Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, 45 CIT __,
__, 495 F. Supp. 3d 1318, 1335 (2021); cf. Nippon Steel Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
345 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Whether on remand the Commission reopens
the evidentiary record, while clearly within its authority, is of course solely for the
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 28 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 29
Commission itself to determine.”). This Court has stated that “[a]s long as the Court
does not forbid Commerce from considering new information, it remains within
Commerce's discretion to request and evaluate new data” on remand. NTN Bearing
Corp. of Am. v. United States, 25 CIT 118, 124, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1102, 1107 (2001); see
also Laclede Steel Co. v. United States, 19 CIT 1076, 1078 (1995) (“Any decision to
expand the administrative record upon remand is well within [Commerce’s] discretion,
absent express language from the court barring such action.”). There was no such
prohibition in the instant case, so Commerce was permitted to reopen the administrative
record on remand. See generally Bio-Lab I, 49 CIT __, 776 F. Supp. 3d 1315.
Consolidated plaintiffs argue that Commerce’s reopening of the record “is
contrary to [Commerce’s] normal practice and administrative policy that ‘the burden of
creating an adequate record lies with interested parties and not with Commerce.’”
Consol. Pls. Br. at 1 (quoting QVD Food Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318, 1324
(Fed. Cir. 2011)). But consolidated plaintiffs offer the court only a partial quotation of
the Federal Circuit’s language in the case that they quote. See QVD Food Co., 658
F.3d at 1324. The Federal Circuit’s full sentence reads: “Although Commerce has
authority to place documents in the administrative record that it deems relevant, ‘the
burden of creating an adequate record lies with [interested parties] and not with
Commerce.’” Id. (emphasis supplied) (alteration in original) (citation omitted)). 10
Consolidated plaintiffs’ selective quotation of the Federal Circuit is misleading.
10 The court takes the opportunity to remind all parties that all attorneys practicing
before this Court are considered Officers of the Court. As such, they have an obligation
to present the law fully and accurately. Selective quotation fails to meet this obligation.
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 29 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 30
Further, Commerce complied with 19 C.F.R. § 351.301(c)(4), which states that
interested parties are permitted one opportunity to submit factual information to “rebut,
clarify, or correct factual information placed on the record of the proceeding” by
Commerce. See Risen Energy Co., v. United States, 46 CIT __, __, 569 F. Supp. 3d
1315, 1328-29 (2022). On remand, Commerce provided interested parties an
opportunity to rebut, clarify or correct factual information placed on the record, including
the ILO Romania 2021-2022 labor data. See Mem., “Request for Additional
Information: Placing New Factual Information on the Record” (May 23, 2025), PRR 1.
Respondents did not comment at that time. See Remand Results at 4.
Consolidated plaintiffs argue also that “even in comparing this new Romanian
ILO labor rate that [Commerce] itself placed on the record, the Malaysian labor rate is
still more specific.” Consol. Pls. Br.at 2.
In Bio-Lab I, the Court sustained Commerce’s rejection of the Malaysian labor
data on the record on the grounds that the data were distorted by the prevalence of
forced labor in the Malaysian electrical and electronics sector. See 49 CIT at __, 776 F.
Supp. 3d at 1339-41. The Court sustained also Commerce’s rejection of the Mexican
labor data because Commerce determined that Mexico was not at a comparable level of
economic development to China during the POR. See id. at __, 776 F. Supp. 3d at
1332-33. And on remand, Commerce explained that the Mexican labor data are not
reliable either because they “are from 13 years prior to the POR and, therefore, are not
contemporaneous with the POR.” Remand Results at 21.
Because Commerce determined that all three original labor rates on the record
were unreliable, it was reasonable for Commerce to rely on a new labor rate that is
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 30 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 31
more “specific to the production of subject merchandise . . . contemporaneous with the
POR, and satisf[ies] Commerce’s preference to value labor solely from the primary
surrogate country.” Id. at 22.
Accordingly, the court concludes that Commerce’s reopening of the record and
selection of the new Romanian ILOSTAT labor data was supported by substantial
evidence. The court sustains the Remand Results on this point.
III. 	Commerce’s selection of the Romanian financial ratios
A. 	Legal framework
In administrative proceedings that involve an NME country such as China,
Commerce calculates the “normal value” of the subject merchandise by selecting
surrogate data from one or several market economy countries that Commerce
determines constitute the “best available information” in the record. 19 U.S.C. §
1677b(c)(1); Heze Huayi Chem. Co. v. United States, 45 CIT __, __, 532 F. Supp. 3d
1301, 1309-10 (2021).
The “best available information” standard involves “a comparison of the
competing data sources” in the record. Weishan Hongda Aquatic Food Co. v. United
States, 917 F.3d 1353, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Section 1677b(c)(1) does not define
“best available information,” which means that Commerce has “broad discretion” to
evaluate information in the record. Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. v. United States,
652 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
When reviewing a determination by Commerce, the “court's duty 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
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 31 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 32
information.’” Id. (quoting Goldlink Indus. Co. v. United States, 30 CIT 616, 619, 431 F.
Supp. 2d 1323, 1327 (2006)).
B. 	Analysis
The court concludes that Commerce’s selection of Romanian financial ratios in
the Final Results was reasonable and is supported by substantial evidence.
In Bio-Lab I, the Court withheld “judgment on Commerce's selection of financial
ratios until after Commerce has explained further or reconsidered its selection of the
Romanian labor data.” 49 CIT at __, 776 F. Supp. 3d at 1343. The Court noted the
possibility that “Commerce's reevaluation of its selection of the Romanian labor data will
lead Commerce to reconsider its determination that the Romanian financial ratios
constitute the best available information.” Id.
As discussed, Commerce reconsidered its selection of the original Romanian
labor data and determined to rely on new Romanian labor data. See supra Section II.
And Commerce’s reconsideration on remand did not disturb its determination in the
Final Results that the Romanian financial ratios constituted the best available
information. See Remand Results; see also IDM. Accordingly, the court will now
address consolidated plaintiffs’ objections to Commerce’s selection of Romanian
financial ratios in the Final Results.
Consolidated plaintiffs argue that Commerce “failed to properly consider the
importance not only of Malaysia sourcing more financial statements than Romania, but
also the relative quality of the statements in each country.” Pls.’ Rule 56.2 Mem. in
Supp. of Mot. for J. Upon the Agency R. at 13, ECF No. 29. Specifically, consolidated
plaintiffs object to the fact that Romania sourced financial statements from only one
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 32 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 33
company with comparable merchandise whereas Malaysia sourced financial statements
from two companies with comparable merchandise. Id.
In the Final Results, Commerce conceded that “Commerce has a preference to
use multiple financial statements because it reduces the potential for certain cost
distortions when relying on one company's financial situation.” IDM at 21. However,
Commerce noted that such a preference “would be a consideration in selecting one
primary SC over another but only in the instance where the overall quality of the
remaining SVs of the two competing countries [is] considered equal.” Id. Commerce
contrasted such a circumstance with the instant proceeding in which Commerce
determined that Malaysia had an “unreliable labor rate and a less preferable water rate,”
whereas “Romania has usable SVs for all FOPs as well as usable financial ratios
calculated from Chimcomplex's financial statements which have been used in other
proceedings.” Id.
The court concludes that Commerce explained adequately its determination.
Given that Commerce concluded reasonably that the other Romanian surrogate values
were reliable, see Bio-Lab I, 49 CIT at __, 776 F. Supp. 3d at 1339-43; see also supra
Section II, it was reasonable for Commerce to rely on Romanian financial ratios
notwithstanding its stated preference for multiple financial statements. This
determination follows Commerce’s longstanding practice of “valu[ing] all factors in a
single surrogate country.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(2).
The court sustains the Final Results on this point.
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 33 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 34
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the court sustains in part and remands in part Commerce’s
Remand Results. For the reasons provided above, it is hereby
ORDERED that on remand Commerce shall address plaintiffs’ arguments and
explain further or reconsider its determination that CYA does not comprise a
predominant portion of chlorinated isos; it is further
ORDERED that on remand Commerce shall explain further by offering support
from other Commerce determinations or court decisions and if none offers specific and
apposite support for Commerce’s conclusion, to offer support from other legal sources,
or reconsider its determination that five to eight inputs constitute a “large number” of
inputs under Policy Bulletin 04.1; it is further
ORDERED that on remand Commerce shall: (1) provide definitions for
“specialized,” “dedicated” and “used intensively”; (2) explain further or reconsider its
determination that CYA is not a “specialized or dedicated” input with respect to
chlorinated isos given that chlorinated isos are derived from CYA; and (3) explain
whether CYA is “used intensively” in the production of chlorinated isos; it is further
ORDERED that on remand Commerce shall explain further or reconsider its
determination that neither CYA nor urea is a “major input” such that “comparable
merchandise should [not] be identified narrowly, on the basis of a comparison of the
major inputs.” See Policy Bulletin 04.1. It is further
ORDERED that Commerce shall file with the court its second remand
redetermination within 90 days following the date of this Opinion and Order; it is further
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 34 of 35

Consol. Court No. 24-00024 	Page 35
ORDERED that the moving parties shall have 30 days from the filing of the
remand redetermination to submit comments to the court; and it is further
ORDERED that should the moving parties submit comments, defendant shall
have 21 days from the date of filing of the last comment to submit a response.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ 	Timothy M. Reif
Timothy M. Reif, Judge
Dated: April 27, 2026
New York, New York
Case 1:24-cv-00024-TMR Document 74 Filed 04/27/26 Page 35 of 35