Arkema, Inc. et al v. United States

Slip Op. 19 - 81
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
PUBLIC VERSION
Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge
Court No. 16-00179
OPINION
[ITC’s Second Remand Results sustained.]
Dated: July 3, 2019
James R. Cannon, Jr. and Jonathan M. Zielinski, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP,
of Washington, DC, for the Plaintiffs Arkema, Inc., The Chemours Company FC, LLC,
Honeywell International Inc. and Plaintiff-Intervenors The American HFC Coalition, and
its Members.
Patrick 	V. 	Gallagher, 	Jr., 	Attorney-Advisor, 	Office 	of 	the 	General 	Counsel,
U.S. International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, for Defendant United States.
With him on the brief were Dominic L. Bianchi, General Counsel, and Andrea C. Casson,
Assistant General Counsel for Litigation.
Ned H. Marshak, Max F. Schutzman and Jordan C. Kahn, Grunfeld, Desiderio,
Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP, of New York, NY, for Defendant-Intervenors
Shandong Dongyue Chemical Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co., Ltd.,
Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Quhua Fluor-
Chemistry Co., Ltd.
Jarrod M. Goldfeder and Jonathan M. Freed, Trade Pacific PLLC, of Washington,
DC, for Defendant-Intervenor National Refrigerants, Inc.
Gordon, 	Judge: 	This 	action 	involves 	the 	final 	affirmative 	material 	injury
determination by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or the “Commission”)
ARKEMA, INC., THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC, HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 1 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 2
in the antidumping duty investigation covering hydrofluorocarbon (“HFC”) blends and
components from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See Hydrofluorocarbon Blends
and Components from China, 81 Fed. Reg. 53,157 (Int’l Trade Comm’n Aug. 11, 2016)
(“Final Determination”); see also Views of the Commission, USITC Pub. 4629, Inv.
No. 731-TA-1279 (Final) (Aug. 2016), ECF No. 33-3 (“Views”); ITC Staff Report, Inv.
No. 731-TA-1279 (July 8, 2016), as revised by Mem. INV-OO-062 (July 13, 2016), ECF
Nos. 33-1 & 33-2 (“Staff Report”). 1
Before the court are the Views of the Commission on Remand, ECF No. 98
(“Second Remand Results”) filed by the ITC pursuant to Arkema, Inc. v. United States,
42 CIT ___, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (2018) (“Arkema II”), as well as the comments of
Plaintiffs Arkema, Inc., The Chemours Company FC, LLC, Honeywell International Inc.
and Plaintiff-Intervenors The American HFC Coalition, and its members, (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”). See Pls.’ & Pl.-Intervenors’ Remand Comments in Opp’n to the Commission’s
Remand Results, ECF No. 103 (“Pls.’ Cmts.”); see also Def.’s Resp. to Pls.’ & Pl.-
Intervenors’ Remand Comments, ECF No. 107 (“Def.’s Resp.”); Def.–Intervenor National
Refrigerants, 	Inc.'s 	Opp'n 	Pls.' 	Cmts., 	ECF 	No. 109; 	Def.–Intervenors 	Shandong
Dongyue Chemical Co. Ltd., Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co., Ltd., Sinochem
Environmental Protection Chemicals Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Quhua Fluor–Chemistry Co.
Ltd.'s 	Opp'n 	Pls.' 	Cmts., 	ECF 	No. 	111. 	The 	court 	has 	jurisdiction 	pursuant
1 All citations to the Views, Second Remand Results, the agency record, and the
parties’ briefs are to their confidential versions.
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 2 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 3
to Section 516A(a)(2)(B)(i) 	of 	the 	Tariff 	Act 	of 	1930, 	as 	amended, 	19 	U.S.C.
§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012), 2 and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2012). Familiarity with the court’s
decisions in Arkema II and Arkema, Inc. v. United States, 42 CIT ___, 290 F. Supp. 3d
1363 (“Arkema I”), is presumed.
In Arkema II, the court reviewed the ITC’s first remand results to confirm that the
agency 	had 	re-examined 	and 	provided 	further 	explanation 	with 	respect 	to 	the
(1) dedicated for use and (2) differences in costs or value prongs of its semi-finished
product analysis. See Arkema II, 42 CIT at ___, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 1199. The court
concluded that although the ITC had corrected certain inaccuracies identified in Arkema
I, the ITC had “failed to reasonably explain its findings in the dedicated for use and
differences in value prongs.” Id., 42 CIT at ___, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 1206. As a result,
the court remanded the matter back to the ITC for reconsideration and further explanation
of these two prongs, and if necessary, reconsideration of the agency’s ultimate conclusion
of its semi-finished product analysis that HFC Blends and HFC Components do not
constitute a single like product. Id.
On remand, the ITC “reopened the administrative record for the purpose of
requesting more precise data addressing the percentage of in-scope components that
were used to produce in-scope [HFC] blends and out-of-scope refrigerant blends with
respect to consideration of the ‘dedicated for use’ factor.” See Second Remand Results
at 3, 15–19. Additionally, the Commission provided additional explanation with respect
2 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant provisions
of Title 19 of the U.S. Code, 2012 edition.
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 3 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 4
to its analysis of the “differences in value” factor and the use of average unit values
(“AUVs”) in continuing to find significant “differences in value between HFC components
and HFC blends.” See id. at 19–20. Plaintiffs challenge the reasonableness of the ITC’s
findings in the Second Remand Results as to the “dedicated for use” and “differences
in value” factors, as well as the reasonableness of the Commission’s overarching
conclusion that HFC Blends and HFC Components are distinct domestic like products.
I. Standard of Review
The court sustains the Commission’s “determinations, findings, or conclusions”
unless they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not
in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). More specifically, when reviewing
agency determinations, findings, or conclusions for substantial evidence, the court
assesses whether the agency action is reasonable given the record as a whole. Nippon
Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Universal
Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951) (“The substantiality of evidence must
take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.”). Substantial
evidence has been described as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States,
407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.
197, 229 (1938)). Substantial evidence has also been described as “something less than
the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions
from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being
supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 4 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 5
(1966). Fundamentally, though, “substantial evidence” is best understood as a word
formula connoting reasonableness review. 3 Charles H. Koch, Jr., Administrative Law and
Practice § 9.24[1] (3d ed. 2019). Therefore, when addressing a substantial evidence issue
raised 	by 	a 	party, 	the 	court 	analyzes 	whether 	the 	challenged 	agency 	action
“was reasonable given the circumstances presented by the whole record.” 8A West’s Fed.
Forms, National Courts § 3.6 (5th ed. 2019).
II. Discussion
A. 	Differences in Value
On remand the ITC again found that the cost/value prong of its semi-finished
product analysis supported treating HFC components and blends as separate like
products. See Second Remand Results at 19–20. In Arkema II, the court held that the
Commission’s newly emphasized reliance on the ratio of the AUVs of the U.S. industry’s
commercial shipments of HFC components to the AUVs of the U.S. industry’s commercial
shipments of HFC blends as a factor in determining “differences in value” on remand may
be unreasonable in light of Plaintiffs’ comments. 42 CIT at ___, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 1202.
As a result, the court remanded this issue back to the agency so that the agency could
address Plaintiffs’ comments and provide further explanation, or if appropriate, reconsider
its conclusion. Id. In the second remand, the Commission found that the value added
by blending operations of the integrated producers Arkema, Chemours, and Honeywell in
transforming 	HFC 	components 	into 	HFC 	blends 	ranged 	from 	[[ 	]] 	percent 	to
[[ 	]] percent, while the percentage of value added for independent blender National
was [[ 	]] to [[ 	]] percent. Second Remand Results at 19. The Commission also
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 5 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 6
found that the AUVs of the U.S. industry’s commercial shipments of HFC components
to the AUVs of the U.S. industry’s commercial shipments of HFC blends ranged from
[[ 	]] percent to [[ 	]] percent. Id. at 19–20. Based on these data, the Commission
determined that the record regarding the AUVs and value added by blending operations
indicated that there were differences in value between HFC blends and HFC components.
Id. at 20.
Plaintiffs argue that the Commission has not explained why a comparison of AUVs
is superior to comparing the actual costs of producing the HFC components with the total
cost of the finished product. Pls.’ Cmts. at 2. In addition, Plaintiffs contend that
a comparison of the AUVs of U.S. industry’s commercial shipments of HFC blends and
HFC components does not reflect an “apples-to-apples” comparison between the value
of the components and the value of the finished HFC blends. Id. at 2–3. The court
disagrees.
As the Commission explained, an underlying assumption of Plaintiffs’ arguments
regarding 	AUVs 	appears 	to 	be 	that 	the 	Commission 	is 	confined 	to 	analyzing
the “differences in costs or value” factor based on the cost of goods sold (“COGS”). See
Pls.’ Cmts. at 2–3. Plaintiffs overlook that the Commission’s approach here is consistent
with that of other investigations in which it likewise examined differences in value, as well
as costs, between vertically integrated products in making a finding under this factor. See,
e.g., Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from India, Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan,
Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-499-500 and 731-TA-1215-
1217 and 1219-1223 (Final), USITC Pub. 4489, at 11 (Sept. 2014), available at 2014 WL
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 6 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 7
11804767. Similarly, it was reasonable here for the Commission to consider any
differences between values of HFC blends and HFC components from a revenue
perspective, i.e. “differences in value.” In addition, the AUVs are based on commercial
shipments of HFC blends and HFC components and represent arms-length sales. See
Staff Report at Tables C-2a & C-2b. Thus, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, the AUVs
represent “apples-to-apples” comparisons from a revenue perspective and indicate that
the valuation of HFC Blends differ from the valuation of HFC Components on this record.
As the Commission also explained in the Second Remand Results, the use
of AUVs was intended to determine the relative value for purchasers of HFC components
and HFC blends in the marketplace and was not intended be a measure of the relative
“value” to producers (i.e., profit margin) of the HFC blends and HFC components. Second
Remand Results at 20. Consequently, profitability, or the lack thereof, does not detract
from the Commission’s analysis of the U.S. shipment AUV data, and the Commission
reasonably concluded that an assessment of profitability is neither necessary nor relevant
to the analysis of the “differences in value” factor in this case. Id.
As Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Commission’s findings regarding the
remanded aspects of the “different cost or value” factor are unreasonable, the court
sustains the Second Remand Results with respect to this issue.
B. Dedication for Use
On remand, the ITC again found that HFC components were not dedicated for use
in the production of HFC blends:
Dedicated for Use. As a preliminary matter, we emphasize
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 7 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 8
that the Commission has no established empirical threshold
for its analysis of the “dedicated for use” factor. Indeed, given
the fact-specific nature of the domestic like product inquiry,
the Commission has not established a numerical threshold for
determining whether a product is dedicated for use in the
production of a downstream article. Instead, the Commission
has based its finding for the “dedicated for use” factor, as it
does for the domestic like product determination as a whole,
on the facts presented in a particular investigation
In light of the Court’s ruling that the [[ ]] percent figure
used 	in 	the 	original 	determination 	and 	first 	remand
determination was not reliable, and because the record lacked
more precise empirical data, we reopened the administrative
record to obtain further information about the extent to which
HFC components are used to make HFC blends. These data
indicate 	that 	a 	large 	majority 	of 	the 	domestic 	industry’s
production of HFC components were internally consumed,
swapped 	with 	other 	domestic 	producers, 	or 	sold
to independent HFC blenders for the production of in-scope
HFC blends. In addition, they show that approximately [[ ]]
percent of the domestic blend producers’ consumption of HFC
components over the three-year POI was consumed in the
manufacture of out-of-scope refrigerant blends. Generally,
parties agree and the record supports the contention that
approximately one percent of HFC components are used for
purposes other than the production of refrigerant blends.
Thus, the percentage of HFC components used for purposes
other than the production of in-scope HFC blends would be
approximately one percentage point higher to account for
these stand-alone uses, or about [[ ]] percent for the POI.
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 8 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 9
Although we have derived an average consumption
figure for the three-year POI, the record also indicates that
there is considerable variation in the proportion of HFC
components 	used 	to 	produce 	out-of-scope 	refrigerants
in different years of the POI and among different domestic
producers. Petitioners argue that the Commission should
focus its analysis on the consumption of HFC components in
the production of out-of-scope refrigerant blends for 2014 and
2015, rather than 2013, because production of out-of-scope
refrigerant blends declined sharply after 2013. They contend
this decline is attributable to the EPA decision in April 2013
to permit an increase in the supply of R-22. As a result, they
claim 	that 	a 	large 	and 	increasing 	percentage 	of 	HFC
components was consumed in the production of HFC blends
over the POI. While we are cognizant of the trend alleged by
Petitioners, we have examined the data for the entire POI for
our 	analysis, 	as 	annual 	consumption 	percentages 	can
fluctuate due to extrinsic factors such as demand trends and
patent expirations
Indeed, 	the 	record 	indicates 	that 	there 	were
a substantial number of out-of-scope refrigerants produced
during the POI that contained at least one in-scope HFC
component. 	As 	described 	in 	the 	Commission 	Report,
domestic producers Arkema, Chemours, Honeywell, National,
and 	ICOR 	reported 	production 	of 	25 	out-of-scope 	HFC,
HCFC/CFC, and HFO blends during the POI. This production
totaled over 18,000 short tons. As further explained in the
Commission Report, 23 of the 25 out-of-scope blends that the
domestic 	producers 	reported 	producing 	during 	the 	POI
contained at least one in-scope HFC component. These data
contained in the Commission Report were compiled based on
questionnaire 	responses 	submitted 	by 	the 	domestic
producers regarding their production during the POI and are
not 	simply 	formulas 	that 	have 	been 	registered 	with 	the
American 	Society 	of 	Heating, 	Refrigeration, 	and
Air Conditioning 	Engineers 	(“ASHRAE”), 	as 	has 	been
suggested by petitioners. Consequently, the record shows
that the domestic producers used in-scope HFC components
during the POI for numerous uses other than in the production
of the five in-scope HFC blends.
Further, HFC components R-32 and R-125 have stand-
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 9 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 10
alone end uses in addition to being used as components for
refrigerant blends. Specifically, R-32 was approved by the
EPA in February 2015 for use in some self-contained air
conditioning units. Also, R-125 has independent uses as a
stand-alone refrigerant, in fire suppression systems, as a
blanketing gas for aluminum and magnesium casting, and in
foam 	blowing, smelting operations, semiconductor silicon
wafer processing, and certain medical applications. As noted
above, however, petitioners and respondent parties agree
that 	no 	more 	than 	[[ ]] 	percent 	of 	in-scope 	HFC
components are used as stand-alone products.
We have 	evaluated 	the 	more 	comprehensive 	and
reliable 	empirical 	data 	collected 	in 	this 	second 	remand
proceeding concerning the percentage of HFC components
used to produce out-of-scope blends and for stand-alone
purposes together with the data concerning the number of
out-of-scope uses. The record now shows that approximately
[[ ]] percent of HFC components were used in out-of-scope
applications 	during 	the 	POI. 	This 	percentage, 	however,
differed greatly among individual producers and also was not
consistent on a year-to-year basis for the industry as a whole.
An analysis of those out-of-scope applications shows that,
in addition 	to 	stand-alone 	uses, 	there 	were 	at 	least 	23
different out-of-scope refrigerant blends produced by the
domestic industry using in-scope HFC components during the
years of the original investigation. Taken together, we find that
HFC components are not dedicated for use in the production
of in-scope HFC blends.
Second Remand Results at 15–19.
As indicated above, in the second remand the Commission collected additional
data about the extent to which HFC components are used to make HFC blends and it
determined, based on these new data, that approximately [[ ]] percent of the domestic
producers’ consumption of HFC components over the period of investigation (“POI”) was
used in the manufacture of out-of-scope blends. See id. at 15–16 & n.47. Taken together
with the approximately one percent of HFC components used for purposes other than the
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 10 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 11
production of refrigerant blends, the Commission determined that the percentage of HFC
components used for purposes other than the production of in-scope HFC blends was
approximately [[ ]] percent for the POI. Id. at 16. The Commission also determined that
a substantial number of out-of-scope refrigerant blends were produced during the POI
that contained at least one in-scope HFC component. Id. at 16–17.
Plaintiffs contend that “the Data Collected on Remand Confirm the Testimony that
Only a Small Percentage of HFC Components were used to Produce Out-of-Scope HFC
Blends.” See Pls.’ Cmts. at 4–6. Plaintiffs additionally maintain that in the Second
Remand Results, the ITC unreasonably presented the evidence on the record in a
manner that “inflates the actual usage of HFC Components in Out-of-Scope Blends.” Id.
at 6–8. Lastly, Plaintiffs argue that the Second Remand Results are inconsistent with the
ITC’s precedent in other matters involving the Commission’s semi-finished product
analysis. Id. at 8–10. The court disagrees with Plaintiffs’ contentions and concludes that
the ITC’s analysis of the “dedication for use” factor in the Second Remand Results was
reasonable.
Plaintiffs acknowledge that, by their calculation, [[ ]] percent of in-scope HFC
components were not used to produce in-scope refrigerant blends over the POI. Pls.’
Cmts. at 4. Rather than argue that the [[ ]] percentage point difference between their
calculation and the Commission’s is material, Plaintiffs focus on minute aspects of the
Commission’s calculations. Initially, they contend that the Commission should have given
greater weight to data for 2014 and 2015. Id. The Commission addressed Plaintiffs’
argument, noting that the agency examined the trends identified by Plaintiffs, but that the
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 11 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 12
proper focus of its analysis was the record data covering the entire POI, and not specific
periods or years within the POI. See Second Remand Results at 17. In this regard, the
Commission observed that the annual consumption percentage can fluctuate within the
POI due to other extrinsic factors such as demand trends and patent expirations. Id. at 17
& n.51. In any event, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the ITC acted unreasonably
by considering data for the entire POI.
Plaintiffs also argue that the Commission improperly reduced the denominator
in the usage rate calculation to determine the ratio of HFC components used to
manufacture out-of-scope refrigerants by excluding HFC components “used or sold in
unprocessed form.” See Pls.’ Cmts. at 6–7. The ITC addressed this contention fully by
explaining that the ITC collected data on the quantity of HFC components produced by
the U.S. industry that were “used or sold in unprocessed form,” which comprised all the
HFC components the domestic producers did not consume in the production of either in-
scope HFC blends or out-of-scope refrigerant blends. Second Remand Results at 16 &
n.47. The ultimate disposition of components reported by the U.S. industry as “used or
sold in unprocessed form” during the POI could not be determined. Id. Because the
Commission could not ascertain the final disposition of these components, the ITC
reasonably excluded them from the denominator in the calculation because their inclusion
within the denominator would not provide an accurate measure of the share of HFC
components used for the production of out-of-scope refrigerant blends over the POI. Id.
The Commission further emphasized that, notwithstanding the small percentage
of in-scope components used for purposes other than the production of in-scope blends,
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 12 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 13
“HFC components were used for purposes other than HFC blends.” Second Remand
Results at 21. In particular, the domestic producers’ questionnaire responses showed
there were at least 23 different out-of-scope refrigerant blends produced by the domestic
industry using in-scope HFC components during the POI. See id. at 19, 21 & n.63.
Plaintiffs cannot and do not contest the accuracy of this data on the record; rather, they
maintain that the Commission afforded it undue weight in its semi-finished product
analysis. See Pls.’ Cmts. at 10. Plaintiffs may prefer that the Commission have weighed
the evidence on the record differently, but they are not entitled to have the agency’s
reasonable determination remanded on that basis. See, e.g., Samsung Elecs. Co. v.
United States, 39 CIT ___, ___, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1350, 1358 (2015) (explaining that for
a plaintiff to prevail under substantial evidence standard on judicial review of fact-
intensive issues, plaintiff must demonstrate that the administrative record supports “one
and only one determination”); Tianjin Wanhua Co. v. United States, 40 CIT ___, ___,
179 F. Supp. 3d 1062, 1071 (2016) (“For the court to remand for Commerce to use
[plaintiff’s preferred] dataset, [plaintiff] needed to establish that [its preferred dataset],
when compared with [the dataset selected by Commerce], is the one and only reasonable
surrogate selection on this administrative record, not simply that [plaintiff’s preferred
dataset] may have 	constituted another possible 	reasonable choice.” 	(citing Globe
Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, 36 CIT ___, ___, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1269, 1276 (2012))).
The court also rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that the ITC’s “dedication for use”
analysis in the Second Remand Results is contrary to the Commission’s prior precedent.
See Pls.’ Cmts at 8–10. In Arkema I, the court considered and rejected Plaintiffs’
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 13 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 14
contentions that the ITC’s “dedication for use” analysis conflicted with its precedent
involving a comparable analysis of other products. See Arkema I, 42 CIT at ___, 290 F.
Supp. 3d at 1370 (“The court agrees with the ITC that it did not, as Plaintiffs contend,
adopt a 100 percent threshold in considering whether HFC Components are dedicated
for use in the production of HFC Blends. Rather the Commission based its ‘dedicated for
use’ finding on the record as a whole rather than a simple numerical threshold.
Accordingly, the ITC reasonably explained the differences between this proceeding and
its prior ‘dedicated for use’ treatment.” (internal citation omitted)).
Plaintiffs seek to relitigate this issue, arguing that the Commission’s decision to
continue to find that HFC Components and Blends constitute separate like products is
unreasonable in light of the Commission’s precedent and its finding on second remand of
a reduced figure for the percentage of HFC Components not used in the production of
HFC Blends. See Pls.’ Cmts. at 8–10. The court remains unpersuaded. The Commission
on remand reopened the record to find a more reliable estimation of the percentage of
HFC Components consumed in the production of out-of-scope blends, and it found that
the revised figure of [[ 	]] was sizeable enough to conclude that HFC Components are
not “dedicated for use” in the production of HFC Blends. See Second Remand Results
at 15–19. The Commission also explained that its conclusion that HFC Components and
Blends are separate like products was based on an analysis of “all five factors of the
Commission’s semifinished products analysis including the Commission’s findings on the
three factors affirmed by the Court in Arkema I, with no one factor being dispositive.” Id.
at 20–21. While the ITC acknowledged “that the substantial majority of in-scope HFC
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 14 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 15
components are used to produce HFC blends;” it explained that based on its review of
the record as a whole, the “facts weigh in favor of finding that HFC components are not
dedicated for use in the production of in-scope HFC blends.” Id. at 21. The court has
already rejected Plaintiffs’ contention that the ITC has inexplicably deviated from
its precedent, and Plaintiffs have subsequently failed to demonstrate that the ITC’s
analysis on this issue was unreasonable.
Finally, while the court concludes that the ITC’s analysis and findings with respect
to the “dedication for use” and “differences in value” prongs of its semi-finished product
analysis in the Second Remand Results were reasonable, the court also concludes that
the Commission reasonably reached its overarching determination that “HFC blends and
HFC components are distinct domestic like products.” See Second Remand Results
at 20. As noted in Arkema I, the court’s purpose for remanding the ITC’s separate like
products determination was to ensure that the agency was not relying on inaccurate data
and to gain clarification “as to how much weight the ITC placed on this data and how it
weighed the [each] prong in comparison to the other four prongs in reaching the ultimate
determination.” See Arkema I, 42 CIT at ___, 290 F. Supp. 3d at 1370.
After reviewing the record as a whole and the agency’s explanation of its analysis
in the second remand, the court concludes that the ITC has reasonably addressed both
of the court’s concerns. First, by gathering more precise data, the agency has ensured
that it is not reaching conclusions based on admittedly erroneous data. See Second
Remand Results at 15–19. Second, the ITC provided additional explanation as to how
the agency considered the entirety of the record and reasonably reached its determination
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 15 of 16

Court No. 16-00179 	Page 16
that HFC Components and Blends are separate like products based on all five factors of
its semi-finished product analysis. See id. at 20–25.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court sustains the Second Remand Results.
Judgment will enter accordingly.
/s/ Leo M. Gordon
Judge Leo M. Gordon
Dated: July 3, 2019
New York, New York
Case 1:16-cv-00179-LMG Document 120 Filed 07/15/19 Page 16 of 16