Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. et al v. United States

Slip Op. 13-47
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
___________________________________
:
FOSHAN SHUNDE YONGJIAN 	:
HOUSEWARES & HARDWARE 	:
CO., LTD., and POLDER, INC. 	:
:
Plaintiffs, 	:
:
v. 	:
:
UNITED STATES, 	: 	Before: Richard K. Eaton, Judge
:
Defendant, 	: 	Court No. 10-00059
:
and 	:
:
HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, 	: 	PUBLIC VERSION
INC., 	:
:
Defendant-Intervenor. 	:
___________________________________ :
OPINION and ORDER
[Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the agency record is granted, and the matter is remanded to the
Department of Commerce.]
Dated: April 8, 2013
William E. Perry, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, of Seattle, WA, argued for plaintiffs. With him
on the brief were Emily Lawson and Derek A. Bishop.
Michael D. Snyder, Trial Attorney, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of
Washington, D.C., argued for the defendant. With him on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant
Director. Of counsel on the brief was Rachael Wenthold Nimmo, Senior Attorney, Office of the
Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of Washington
D.C.
Frederick L. Ikenson, Blank Rome LLP, of Washington D.C., argued for
defendant-intervenor. With him on the brief was Larry Hampel.
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 1 of 15

Court No. 10-00059 	Page 2
Eaton, Judge: Before the court is the Department of Commerce’s (the “Department” or
“Commerce”) Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, dated June 11, 2012 (ECF
Dkt. No. 71) (“Remand Results”). On remand, Commerce was instructed to reconsider whether
Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co., Ltd. (“Foshan Shunde”, “the company”,
or, collectively with jointly-represented plaintiff/importer Polder, Inc.,1 “plaintiffs”) qualified for
separate-rate status in connection with the antidumping duty order on Floor-Standing Metal-Top
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) and, if
eligible, to determine the appropriate rate. Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware
Co., Ltd. v. United States, 35 CIT ___, ___, Slip Op. 11-123, at 41–42 (2011) (“Foshan Shunde I”).
In the Remand Results, Commerce determined that (1) Foshan Shunde was entitled to
separate-rate status on the basis of newly submitted information, and (2) assigned a rate of
157.68%, applying adverse facts available (“AFA”). Plaintiffs and defendant-intervenor, Home
Products International, Inc. (“HPI” or “defendant-intervenor”), filed comments to the Remand
Results.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“The court shall hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion found . . . to be
unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19
U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i) (2006).
1 Polder, Inc. is the importer of the subject merchandise.
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 2 of 15

Court No. 10-00059 	Page 3
DISCUSSION
I. 	Background
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ challenge to the Department’s final results of
the fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on floor-standing metal-top ironing
tables and certain parts thereof from the PRC for the period of review (“POR”) August 1, 2007
through July 31, 2008. See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof
from the PRC, 75 Fed. Reg. 3,201 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 20, 2010), and the accompanying
Issues & Decision Memorandum (“Issues & Dec. Mem.”) (collectively, the “Final Results”). In
the Final Results, Commerce “found that Foshun Shunde’s ‘unreliable and inconsistent’ responses
to questionnaires concerning the company’s factors of production and sales data warranted the
application of adverse facts available . . . to all of the company’s questionnaire responses when
determining its dumping margin.” Foshan Shunde I, 35 CIT at ___, Slip Op. 11-123, at 3–4.
Based on this finding, Commerce applied AFA to Foshan Shunde’s questionnaire responses
regarding the company’s production and sales information, as well as to its submissions regarding
independence from the PRC government. Commerce then determined that Foshan Shunde could
not demonstrate an entitlement to separate-rate status and assigned the PRC-wide rate of 157.68%.
Id. at ___, Slip Op. 11-123, at 4–5.
The court sustained Commerce’s determination to apply AFA to Foshan Shunde’s factors
of production and sales data, noting the “‘pervasiveness of the inaccuracies’ in Foshan Shunde’s
questionnaire responses.” Id. at ___, Slip Op. 11-123, at 33 (citation omitted). The court also held,
however, that because the Department made “no finding that Foshan Shunde failed to act to the
best of its ability in responding to the . . . separate-rate questionnaires” and “Commerce did not
notify” the company of deficiencies in its separate-rate questionnaire responses in accordance with
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 3 of 15

Court No. 10-00059 	Page 4
19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d), “Commerce’s reliance on AFA to deny Foshan Shunde separate-rate
status” was unsupported by substantial evidence and contrary to law. Id. at 40–41.
On remand the court instructed the Department to: (1) consider the record evidence
regarding Foshan Shunde’s entitlement to a separate rate, including opening the record if it
contained insufficient information to make a determination as to Foshan Shunde’s entitlement to
separate-rate status; and, (2) if the company is found to be entitled to a separate rate, to “determine
an appropriate dumping margin specific to Foshan Shunde, taking into consideration the
Department’s determination, sustained here, to apply AFA to Foshan Shunde’s factors of
production and sales data.” Id. at ___, Slip Op. 11-123, at 42.
II. 	The Remand Results
Commerce made two determinations in the Remand Results, which was conducted under
protest. Remand Results at 3 n.1. The first, made solely on the basis of information solicited from
Foshan Shunde on remand, is that the company “is entitled to a separate rate.” Remand Results at
3–5. No party challenges this determination and it is sustained.2
Commerce then assigned Foshan Shunde an individual rate of 157.68%. Remand Results
at 1. Commerce justified its use of AFA by reference to the court’s holding in Foshan Shunde I
that “the application of AFA to all of Foshan Shunde’s factors of production and sales information
is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law.” Remand Results at 5
(quoting Foshan Shunde I, 36 CIT at ___, Slip Op. 11-123, at 31).
2 Defendant and defendant-intervenor, however, reserved their objections to Foshan
Shunde I’s ruling that AFA could not be applied to determine whether Foshan Shunde is entitled to
a separate rate.
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 4 of 15

Court No. 10-00059 	Page 5
In finding that a rate of 157.68% was “both reliable and relevant,” the Department first
argues that the rate was reliable because it was “an individually calculated rate for a cooperative
respondent in the investigation.” Remand Results at 8. The Department continued that the
selected rate was corroborated as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c), because it “has been used
repeatedly as the rate assigned to the China-wide entity representing the rate for the industry [and]
nothing on the record . . . indicate[s] that the [rate] is uncharacteristic of the industry, or is
otherwise inappropriate.” Remand Results at 9. In other words, the Department concluded that
the selected rate was corroborated based on its previous use and because there was no record
evidence indicating that the rate was aberrant.
Commerce further claimed to corroborate the selected rate by pointing to data derived
from imports of the subject merchandise into the United States during the POR (“Customs Data”)
which “indicate that importers are paying this rate . . . and exporters subject to this rate are able to
sell ironing tables in substantial quantities to the United States.” Remand Results at 9. Put another
way, Commerce argued that because the Customs Data showed that some market participants were
importing subject merchandise while being subject to the 157.68% rate, the selected rate reflected
Foshan Shunde’s commercial reality. See, e.g., Lifestyle Enter., Inc., v. United States, 36 CIT ___,
___, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1290 (2012) (Lifestyle II) (“An AFA rate . . . should bear a rational
relationship to respondent’s commercial reality.”).
As part of its findings, Commerce rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the Customs Data
contained too small a quantity of imports to reflect Foshan Shunde’s commercial reality or the
commercial reality of the industry as a whole. In doing so, the Department concluded that the
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 5 of 15

Court No. 10-00059 	Page 6
“quantity of exports at the selected AFA rate is [not] relevant for corroboration purposes.”
Remand Results 15–16.3
III. 	Discussion
Plaintiffs object to the Remand Results, arguing that (1) by assigning Foshan Shunde a rate
that had originally been calculated for another respondent in a prior review the Department failed
to follow the court’s instructions, and (2) that the 157.68% rate selected by Commerce is not
sufficiently corroborated.
a. 	Calculation of a Rate “Specific” to Foshan Shunde
As an initial matter, plaintiffs’ position that Commerce was required to undertake the
calculation of a rate ‘anew’ for Foshan Shunde stems from a misreading of the court’s remand
order. For plaintiffs, the court’s instruction that Commerce “determine an appropriate dumping
margin specific to Foshan Shunde” required the Department to calculate a unique rate, specific to
Foshan Shunde, and “precluded the use of a dumping margin that was calculated for another
entity.” Pls.’ Objections to Dep’t of Commerce’s Remand Redetermination 5 (ECF Dkt. No. 75)
(“Pls.’ Br.”). Thus, according to plaintiffs, Commerce was required to use the 2.37% rate
calculated for Foshan Shunde in the first administrative review or to create a rate using some
unspecified methodology.
3 It is worth noting that Commerce makes no reference in the Remand Results to the
fact that the Customs Data contains information which appears to be specific to the export of
subject goods produced by Foshan Shunde during the POR.
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 6 of 15

Court No. 10-00059 	Page 7
This argument cannot be credited. On remand, the court expressly instructed Commerce to
“take[] into consideration the Department’s determination, sustained here, to apply AFA to Foshan
Shunde’s factors of production and sales data.” Foshan Shunde I, 36 CIT at ___, Slip Op. 11-123,
at 42. Therefore, the court anticipated the use of a reasonable AFA methodology by Commerce
when determining the company’s rate. Nothing in the order indicated that when applying AFA,
the Department was required to calculate a rate for Foshan Shunde or that it was prohibited from
using any reasonable method for determining the company’s rate.
In addition, contrary to plaintiffs’ suggestion, there is nothing in the order that required
Commerce to open the record and allow Foshan Shunde to submit additional information as to its
inputs. The company had the chance to place information on the record during the underlying
review. Foshan Shunde’s decision not to fully cooperate with the Department during the review
foreclosed that opportunity.
b. 	Corroboration
On remand, Commerce selected a rate calculated for a cooperating competitor of Foshan
Shunde during the initial investigation. A rate calculated in the final determination of an
investigation may be appropriate “secondary information” which Commerce may use in assigning
an AFA rate. See Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4199
(1994) (“Secondary information is information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any
previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.”) (“SAA”); KYD, Inc. v.
United States, 607 F.3d 760, 765 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (describing secondary information as
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 7 of 15

Court No. 10-00059 	Page 8
information not obtained in the course of the subject investigation or review); see, e.g., Tianjin
Magnesium Int’l Co. v. United States, 35 CIT ___, ___, Slip. Op. 11-100, at 7–8 (2011) (“Here, the
AFA rate of 111.73% was a weighted-average margin calculated for a cooperating respondent
during the previous administrative review and thus, is secondary information.”); Washington Int’l
Ins. Co. v. United States, 33 CIT __, __, Slip. Op. 09-78, at 21–24 (2009) (observing that an AFA
rate selected from the PRC-wide rate was secondary information); Chia Far Indus. Factory Co. v.
United States, 28 CIT 1336, 1358–59, 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1365–66 (2004) (noting that a rate
calculated for another party in the initial investigation was secondary information); Kompass Food
Trading Int’l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 682 (2000) (treating a margin assigned to an individual
respondent in the initial investigation as secondary information).
When Commerce relies on secondary information to select an AFA rate, it must, “to the
extent practicable,” corroborate that rate using “information from independent sources that are
reasonably at [its] disposal.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c). To support its selection, “Commerce must
therefore demonstrate that the rate is reliable and relevant to the particular respondent” and “show
that it used reliable facts that had some grounding in commercial reality.” Tianjin Mach. Imp. &
Exp. Corp. v. United States, 36 CIT ___, ____, Slip. Op. 12-83, at 6–7 (2012) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted) (Tianjin II); see also KYD, 607 F.3d at 765 (“Before Commerce
can rely on secondary information, it must establish that the ‘secondary information to be used has
probative value.’” (citation omitted)); Gallant Ocean (Thai.) Co. v. United States, 602 F.3d, 1319,
1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Substantial evidence requires Commerce to show some relationship
between the AFA rate and the actual dumping margin.”); F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara S.
Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Congress[] . . . intended
for an [AFA] rate to be a reasonably accurate estimate of the respondent’s actual rate, albeit with
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 8 of 15

Court No. 10-00059 	Page 9
some built-in increase intended as a deterrent to non-compliance.”).
Commerce’s attempt to corroborate the rate self-referentially by indicating that the rate
was selected from a prior review and has been used as the all-China rate, however, is not supported
by substantial evidence. Absent a lack of other reasonably available information “at their
disposal,” Commerce is required to use independent sources to corroborate its secondary
information. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c). Calculated dumping margins are not “independent sources” as
contemplated by the statute and the Department’s regulations. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c); 19 C.F.R. §
351.308(d) (2008) (“Independent sources may include, but are not limited to, published price lists,
official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during
the instant investigation or review.”). Although the data that underlies a calculated rate may
constitute an independent source, calculated rates themselves are creations of the Department and,
thus, are not independent sources. See SAA at 870 (“Independent sources may include, for
example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information
obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation or review.”); KYD, 607 F.3d at
765.
As noted, Commerce need only corroborate its selected rate “to the extent practicable.”
When doing so is not practicable, however, Commerce must explain why. See Essar Steel Ltd. v.
United States, 36 CIT ___, ___, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1332 (2012); e.g., Shandong Mach. Imp. &
Exp. Co. v. United States, 33 CIT ___, ____, Slip. Op. 09-64, at 13–20 (2009) (quoting
Commerce’s explanation, accepting it as to one determination, and rejecting it as to another
determination); Washington Int’l Ins, 33 CIT at __, Slip. Op. 09-78, at 21–24 (quoting but
rejecting Commerce’s explanation); Shandong Huarong Gen. Grp. Corp. v. United States, 31 CIT
42, 46 (2007) (quoting Commerce’s explanation). Commerce has made no representation that
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 9 of 15

Court No. 10-00059 	Page 10
corroboration by independent sources is impracticable in this case. Indeed, the Department has
relied on an independent source to corroborate its chosen rate, namely the Customs Data. Thus, it
is clearly “practicable” for the Department to have used independent sources to corroborate the
underlying rate.
Further, that the Department has calculated a rate for another respondent in a prior segment
of the proceeding is not, standing alone, evidence supporting the selection of that rate for a
different respondent in a later review.4 A rate assigned for a different respondent several years
earlier, without more, is simply not probative of whether a selected rate is a “‘reasonably accurate
estimate of [a] respondent’s actual rate’” in the current review. Gallant Ocean, 602 F.3d at 1323
(quoting De Cecco, 216 F.3d at 1032). Moreover, where the Department selects a rate identical to
the entity-wide rate for a respondent entitled to a separate-rate, more is required than the mere
assertion that the rate is corroborated because it has been used as the entity-wide rate. See Remand
Results at 9 (“As the selected AFA rate has been used repeatedly as the rate assigned to the
China-wide entity representing the rate for the industry, there is nothing on the record of this
review to indicate the selected AFA rate is uncharacteristic of the industry, or is otherwise
inappropriate.”). Normally, a lack of evidence does not constitute substantial evidence that a rate
is relevant to a particular respondent.
4 This is not a case where the Rhone Poulenc presumption that the highest prior
margin is probative applies. Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Not only does that presumption not necessarily “replace actual corroboration . . . . [T]he Federal
Circuit appears to restrict its use to situations where a respondent has not answered Commerce’s
questionnaire at all, rather than when the questionnaire responses were found wanting for one
reason or another.” Tianjin Mach. Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, 35 CIT ___, ____, 752 F.
Supp. 2d 1336, 1348 (2011). Here, Foshan Shunde responded to the Department’s questionnaires.
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 10 of 15

Court No. 10-00059 	Page 11
Although Commerce’s blanket assertion that the relevance of a rate can be corroborated by
the rate’s use in a prior review, or that it was employed as the China-wide rate, is flawed, the
Department also sought to corroborate the selected rate based on the Customs Data. Here, the
Department is on firmer ground. 19 C.F.R. § 351.308(d) (defining “official import statistics and
customs data” as exemplars of “independent sources”). 	The Department’s reliance on this data,
however, requires additional explanation. First, during the review, plaintiff objected that the
number of entries underlying the Customs Data was too small to corroborate a rate of 157.68%.
Here, the Customs Data consisted of a limited number of entries, typically of small value,
from a limited number of producers. 5 Commerce’s only reply to plaintiff’s objection was that the
size of the sample is irrelevant for corroboration purposes. Remand Results at 15–16 (“We
disagree that the quantity of exports at the selected AFA rate is relevant for corroboration
purposes, as there is no requirement that the selected source of AFA must be based upon a
specified sales volume.”). In other words, the Remand Results do not meaningfully address
whether the quantity of imports that underlie the Customs Data can adequately corroborate an
AFA rate based on secondary information. Second, plaintiff is correct that the Customs Data does
not contain a field identifying the tariff provision under which the entries represented therein were
imported, despite the indication in the Remand Results that the data reflects entries of subject
merchandise. See Remand Results at 9.
Contrary to the Department’s position, the size of the data set relied upon may be relevant
to whether an AFA rate is sufficiently corroborated and supported by substantial evidence.
5 The Customs Data covers [[ 	]] entries made by [[ 	]] producers. Of those
entries, [[ 	]] appear to be for a value greater than [[ 	]].
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 11 of 15

Court No. 10-00059 	Page 12
Dongguan Sunrise Furniture, Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 13-46, at 6 (2013) (“Here Commerce
has based [respondent’s] rates on an impermissibly small percentage of sales.”); Lifestyle II, 37
CIT at ___, 865 F. Supp. 2d at 1289 (“Selection of an AFA rate based on miniscule data will not
suffice.”); Lifestyle Enter., Inc., v. United States, 37 CIT ___, ___, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1289
(2012) (Lifestyle I) (“Facts specific to a particular case may make transactions representing a small
percentage of sales inadequate corroboration.”); Tianjin Mach. Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States,
35 CIT ___, ____, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1352 (Tianjin I) (rejecting the use of a small number of
third party transactions as corroboration); cf. Gallant Ocean, 602 F.3d at 1324 (“Because
Commerce did not identify any relationship between the small number of unusually high dumping
transactions with [petitioner’s] actual rate, those transactions cannot corroborate the adjusted
petition rate.”). Moreover, where the Department relies on Customs Data to support a rate, in
order to demonstrate relevance it must point to some record evidence indicating that the Customs
Data reflects imports under the subject merchandise’s tariff heading.
Commerce’s determinations “must include ‘an explanation of the basis for its
determination that addresses relevant arguments[] made by interested parties.’” NMB Sing. Ltd. v.
United States, 557 F.3d 1316, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing 19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(3)(A)). Where the
Department has reached important conclusions that are not fully explained with reference to record
evidence, its conclusions are “not supported by substantial evidence” and remand is appropriate
for Commerce to “‘explain its rationale . . . such that a court may follow and review its line of
analysis, its reasonable assumptions, and other relevant considerations.’” Clearon Corp. v. United
States, 35 CIT __, __, Slip Op. 11-142, at 27–28 (2011) (quoting Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v.
United States, 29 CIT 157, 168, 358 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1344 (2005)). Accordingly, because the
Department has not explained why the size of the Customs Data is sufficient to corroborate the
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 12 of 15

Court No. 10-00059 	Page 13
selected rate or pointed to any record evidence demonstrating that the Customs Data covered
entries of the subject merchandise, its determination that the selected rate is corroborated, and that
the requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c) have been met, is not supported by substantial evidence
and must be remanded for further explanation. On remand, the Department must explain why the
quantity of imports underlying the Customs Data is sufficient to corroborate the selected rate or, if
it determines that the quantity is not sufficient standing alone, identify whether there are
“additional facts that make the small [quantity] less troubling.” Lifestyle II, 37 CIT at ___, 865 F.
Supp. 2d at 1290. The Department must also identify what record evidence, if any, indicates that
the Customs Data represents entries of the subject merchandise.
Finally, Commerce’s decision also fails to indicate whether it is relying on the Customs
Data only generally or particularly on some specific entries contained in the data.6 If relied upon
directly and identified to the appropriate tariff provision, some entries might provide the necessary
“additional facts” required to corroborate a high AFA rate. Id. at ___, 865 F. Supp. 2d at 1290; see
Gallant Ocean, 602 F.3d at 1324 (noting that a high AFA rate based on a small number of
petitioner’s own sales during the POR may be supported by substantial evidence); but see
Dongguan, Slip Op. 13-46, at 7 (noting that additional corroboration may be required to support
very high rates). The Remand Results themselves, however, make no mention of any particular
entries as a basis for the Department’s reliance on the Customs Data for corroboration.
Accordingly, the court cannot determine whether the Department relied on that information in
6 [[ 	]] entries are identified as sales of products manufactured by Foshan Shunde.
Non-Public Doc. 3. Those entries have an aggregate value exceeding [[ 	]]. It is worth
noting that, if those entries are relied upon specifically, that reliance would entirely rebut
plaintiffs’ argument that it is impossible for Foshan Shunde to import the subject merchandise at
the selected rate.
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 13 of 15

Court No. 10-00059 	Page 14
reaching its conclusion and, thus, cannot sustain the results on that basis. See Nan Ya Plastics
Corp. v. United States, 37 CIT ___, ___, Slip Op. 13-18, at 10–11 (2013) (quoting Burlington
Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168–69 (1962) (“The courts may not accept . . .
counsel’s post hoc rationalizations for agency action; . . . an agency’s discretionary order [must] be
upheld, if at all, on the same basis articulated in the order by the agency itself.”)).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the agency record is GRANTED, and
Commerce’s Final Results are REMANDED; it is further
ORDERED that, on remand, Commerce shall issue a redetermination that complies in all
respects with this Opinion and Order, is based on determinations that are supported by substantial
record evidence, and is in all respects in accordance with law; it is further
ORDERED that the Department shall clarify its position as to why the Customs Data
represents a sufficiently large number of entries to corroborate the selected rate or otherwise
corroborate its selected rate in a manner supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with
law; it is further
ORDERED that should the Department continue to rely upon the Customs Data, it shall
explain with specificity why the Customs Data demonstrates that the selected rate is relevant to
Foshan Shunde and either identify record evidence indicating that the Customs Data represents
entries of the subject merchandise or reopen the record to place such additional evidence thereon;
it is further
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 14 of 15

Court No. 10-00059 	Page 15
ORDERED that the remand results shall be due on July 8, 2013; comments to the remand
results shall be due thirty (30) days following filing of the remand results; and replies to such
comments shall be due fifteen (15) days following filing of the comments.
/s/ Richard K. Eaton
Richard K. Eaton
Dated: 	April 8, 2013
New York, New York
Case 1:10-cv-00059-RKE Document 108 Filed 06/20/13 Page 15 of 15