Bosun Tools Co., Ltd. v. United States

Slip Op. 21-23
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BOSUN TOOLS CO., LTD. and
CHENGDU HUIFENG NEW MATERIAL
TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff and Consolidated
Plaintiff,
and
DANYANG NYCL TOOLS
MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. ET AL.,
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
DIAMOND SAWBLADES
MANUFACTURERS’ COALITION,
Defendant-Intervenor and
Consolidated Defendant-
Intervenor.
Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Consol. Court No. 18-00102
OPINION
[Sustaining 	Commerce’s 	second 	remand 	redetermination 	in 	the 	seventh
administrative review for the antidumping duty order covering diamond sawblades
and parts thereof from the People’s Republic of China.]
Dated: February 24, 2021
Case 1:18-cv-00102-CRK Document 102 Filed 02/24/21 Page 1 of 14

Consol. Court No. 18-00102 	Page 2
Gregory S. Menegaz, J. Kevin Horgan, and Alexandra H. Salzman, deKieffer &
Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff, Bosun Tools Co., Ltd.
Lizbeth R. Levinson, Ronald M. Wisla, and Brittney R. Powell, Fox Rothschild LLP,
of 	Washington, 	DC, 	for 	consolidated 	plaintiff 	Chengdu 	Huifeng 	New 	Material
Technology Co., Ltd. and plaintiff-intervenors Danyang NYCL Tools Manufacturing
Co., Ltd., Danyang Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Guilin Tebon Superhard
Material Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Deer King Industrial and Trading Co., Ltd., Jiangsu
Youhe Tool Manufacturer Co., Ltd., Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd.,
Rizhao Hein Saw Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Wanli Tools Group Co., Ltd.
John J. Todor, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. Also on the brief was
Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Jeffrey
Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General. 	Of Counsel was Paul Keith,
Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, of
Washington, DC.
Daniel B. Pickard, Maureen E. Thorson, Stephanie M. Bell, and Cynthia C. Galvez,
Wiley Rein, LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor and consolidated
defendant-intervenor, Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition.
Kelly, 	Judge: 	Before 	the 	court 	is 	the 	U.S. 	Department 	of 	Commerce’s
(“Commerce”) second remand redetermination filed pursuant to the court’s order in
Bosun Tools Co. v. United States, 44 CIT __, __, 463 F. Supp. 3d 1308, 1319 (2020)
(“Bosun II”). 	See also Final Second Remand Redetermination, Oct. 13, 2020, ECF
No. 94-1 (“Second Remand Results”). 	In Bosun II, the court sustained in part and
remanded in part Commerce’s remand redetermination in the seventh administrative
review for the antidumping duty (“ADD”) order covering diamond sawblades and
parts thereof (“DSBs”) from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”). See Bosun II, 44
CIT at __, 463 F. Supp. 3d at 1319; Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Ct.
Remand, Mar. 10, 2020, ECF No. 79-1 (“Remand Results”). The court remanded for
Case 1:18-cv-00102-CRK Document 102 Filed 02/24/21 Page 2 of 14

Consol. Court No. 18-00102 	Page 3
further 	consideration, 	or 	explanation, 	Commerce’s 	determination 	of 	the 	rate
applicable to Bosun Tools Co., Ltd. (“Bosun”) and the separate rate respondents. See
Bosun II, 44 CIT at __, 463 F. Supp. 3d at 1319. Commerce further explains that its
decision to use the expected method, i.e., to average the rates of the examined
respondents, to calculate the separate rate for separate rate respondents, including
Bosun, is reasonable in light of record evidence of recent past calculated rates. See
Second Remand Results at 8–9, 15. Bosun contends that the calculated rate assigned
to Jiangsu Fengtai Single Entity (“Fengtai”) in a prior review, that Commerce
compares to the separate rate here, is an outlier, and that Commerce otherwise did
not comply with the court’s remand order. See Pl. Bosun Tools Co., Ltd.’s Cmts. Opp.
Second Remand Results at 1–2, Nov. 12, 2020, ECF No. 97 (“Bosun’s Br.”). 	For the
following reasons, the court sustains Commerce’s determination.
BACKGROUND
The court presumes familiarity with the facts of this case as set out in its
previous opinions ordering remand and now recounts those relevant to the court’s
review of the Second Remand Results. See Bosun Tools Co. v. United States, 43 CIT
__, __, 405 F. Supp. 3d 1359, 1363–64 (2019) (“Bosun I”); Bosun II, 44 CIT at __, 463
F. Supp. 3d at 1319. 	Relevant here, 	Commerce selected Chengdu Huifeng New
Material Technology Co., Ltd. (“Chengdu”) and Fengtai as mandatory respondents. 1
1 Commerce is authorized to impose ADDs when merchandise is sold at less than fair
(footnote continued)
Case 1:18-cv-00102-CRK Document 102 Filed 02/24/21 Page 3 of 14

Consol. Court No. 18-00102 	Page 4
See Selection of Respondents for Individual Examination at 8, PD 106, bar code
3566489-01, ECF No. 24-1 (Apr. 26, 2017). 2 	Although both companies sought
separate rate certification, 3 Commerce found both companies uncooperative, finding
value in the United States. 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1673 (2012). 	ADDs are equal to the
dumping 	margin, 	or 	the 	amount 	by 	which 	“normal 	value”—or, 	the 	price 	of
merchandise in the exporting country—exceeds the export price—or the price of
merchandise in the United States. Id. at §§ 1673e(a)(1), 1677b(a)(1), 1677a(a). If the
exporting country is designated a nonmarket economy (“NME”), like the PRC, “sales
of merchandise in [that NME] country do not reflect the fair value of merchandise.”
See id. at § 1677(18)(A). Therefore, Commerce determines normal value based on an
NME producer’s factors of production, used to produce the subject merchandise, in a
market economy country or countries. 	See id. at § 1677b(c); see also 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.408 (2012). 	In proceedings involving a nonmarket economy, Commerce
presumes exporters and producers are under foreign government control with respect
to export activities, and will assign a single "country-wide" rate unless a respondent
demonstrates it qualifies for a separate rate. See Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts
Co. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("Yangzhou") (citing Sigma
Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); see also 19 C.F.R.
§ 351.107(d).
2 On June 13, 2018, Defendant submitted indices to the public and confidential
administrative records underlying Commerce’s final determination. Defendant later
filed a corrected index to the confidential record. The relevant indices are located on
the docket at ECF Nos. 24-1 and 29-1, respectively. Subsequently, on March 24, 2020,
Commerce filed on the docket the indices for the remand administrative record at
ECF Nos. 80-1–2. All references to administrative record documents in this opinion
are to the numbers Commerce assigned to the documents in the relevant indices.
3 A party may attempt to rebut the presumption of government control by filing a
separate rate application through which it must demonstrate that their activities are
de facto and de jure free of the NME-country’s control. See [DSBs] From the [PRC]:
Decision Memo for Prelim. Results of [ADD] Admin. Rev.; 2015–2016 at 4, A-570-900,
PD 255, bar code 3646590-01, ECF No. 24-1 (Nov. 30, 2017). 	If a company
successfully rebuts the presumption, it is assigned its own separate rate. 	See id.
Congress does not prescribe a method for calculating a separate rate. Congress does,
however, in 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5) prescribe a method for calculating an all-others
rate, a rate assigned to non-mandatory respondent companies from a market
(footnote continued)
Case 1:18-cv-00102-CRK Document 102 Filed 02/24/21 Page 4 of 14

Consol. Court No. 18-00102 	Page 5
they withheld necessary information from Commerce, and assigned each a rate based
on total facts available with an adverse inference (“AFA”). 4 Specifically with respect
to Chengdu, Commerce rejected as untimely the public and business proprietary
versions of Chengdu’s second supplemental response. 5 See Commerce’s Rejection of
Chengdu’s Second Suppl. Resp. at 1–2, PD 235, bar code 3625400-01, ECF No. 24-1
(Oct. 3, 2017). Commerce assigned separate rate respondents, a rate of 82.05 percent,
invoking the expected method of averaging the rates assigned to the individually
examined mandatory respondents. See [DSBs] From the [PRC], 83 Fed. Reg. 17,527,
17,528 (Dep’t Commerce Apr. 20, 2018) (final results of [ADD] admin. rev.; 2015–
2016) (“Final Results”) and accompanying Issues & Decision Memo Admin. Rev.
economy country. Commerce has, by practice, adopted the methodology in 19 U.S.C.
§ 1673d(c)(5) to calculate a separate rate. 	See Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v.
United States, 821 F.3d 1345, 1351–53 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Albemarle”); see also 19
U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5). 	Section 1673d(c)(5) states that the all-others rate shall be the
weighted average of the individually investigated exporter’s and producer’s dumping
margins, excluding any margins that are de minimis, zero, or determined entirely by
adverse facts available..
4 Parties and Commerce sometimes use the shorthand “adverse facts available” or
“AFA” to refer to Commerce’s reliance on facts otherwise available with an adverse
inference to reach a final determination. 	However, AFA encompasses a two-part
inquiry pursuant to which Commerce must first identify why it needs to rely on facts
otherwise available, and second, explain how a party failed to cooperate to the best of
its ability as to warrant the use of an adverse inference when “selecting among the
facts otherwise available.” 	19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)–(b). 	The phrase “total adverse
inferences” or “total AFA” encompasses a series of steps that Commerce takes to
reach the conclusion that all of a party’s reported information is unreliable or
unusable and that as a result of a party’s failure to cooperate to the best of its ability,
it must use an adverse inference in selecting among the facts otherwise available.
5 No party challenged Commerce’s calculation of Fengtai’s rate, and Fengtai is not a
party to this consolidated action.
Case 1:18-cv-00102-CRK Document 102 Filed 02/24/21 Page 5 of 14

Consol. Court No. 18-00102 	Page 6
[ADD] Order on [DSBs] from the [PRC] at 24–27, A-570-900, ECF No. 24-5 (Apr. 16,
2018) (“Final Decision Memo”); see also [DSBs] From the [PRC], 82 Fed. Reg. 57,585,
57,586 (Dep’t Commerce Dec. 	6, 2017) (prelim. results of [ADD] admin. rev.; 2015–
2016) (“Prelim. Results”), and accompanying Decision Memo. for [Prelim. Results] at
10–13, A-570-900, PD 255, bar code 3646590-01, ECF No. 24-1 (Nov. 30, 2017).
In Bosun I, the court held Commerce abused its discretion when it rejected
Chengdu’s second supplemental response and directed Commerce, on remand, to
place the submission on the record and consider it for purposes of calculating
Chengdu’s rate and to recalculate any rates affected by a change to Chengdu’s rate.
See Bosun I, 43 CIT at __, 405 F. Supp. 3d at 1366–67. On remand, Commerce placed
Chengdu’s second supplemental response on the record under respectful protest. See
Remand Results at 1, 6. Commerce calculated an individual antidumping rate of 0.00
percent for Chengdu. 	See id. at 4. 	Commerce also assigned the separate rate
respondents the average of Chengdu’s 0.00 percent rate and Fengtai’s AFA 82.05
percent rate, i.e., an all others separate rate of 41.025 percent. See id. at 7–8, 14–18.
In Bosun II, the court held Commerce’s use of the expected method was not
supported by substantial evidence because Commerce failed to address evidence
proffered by respondents suggesting the expected method did not result in a rate
reasonably reflective of respondents’ dumping. 	See Bosun II, 44 CIT at __, 463 F.
Supp. 3d at 1318–19. 	The court ordered Commerce to either reconsider or further
explain its decision. See id. at 1319. Accordingly, Commerce reconsiders its decision
Case 1:18-cv-00102-CRK Document 102 Filed 02/24/21 Page 6 of 14

Consol. Court No. 18-00102 	Page 7
to assign a separate rate for non-examined respondents calculated on the basis of the
expected method. See generally Second Remand Results. But ultimately, Commerce
continues to rely on the expected method to calculate a separate rate for non-
examined respondents, finding that the 41.025 percent rate is similar to the separate
rate for non-examined respondents in the 2013-2014 review and is consistent with
rates generally, which are trending upward. 	See id. at 8–9, 15. 	Bosun argues that
Commerce failed to comply with the court’s remand order to consider Bosun’s prior
rates, and to rely instead on a separate rate which Bosun contends was the result of
one outlier rate calculated for a mandatory respondent. See Bosun’s Br. at 1–2.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 516A(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) (2012) 6 and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c)
(2012), 7 which grant the Court authority to review actions contesting the final
determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order. This Court
will uphold Commerce’s determination unless it is “unsupported by substantial
evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law[.]” 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). “The results of a redetermination pursuant to court remand are
also reviewed ‘for compliance with the court’s remand order.’” 	Xinjiamei Furniture
(Zhangzhou) Co. v. United States, 38 CIT __, __, 968 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1259 (2014)
6 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.
7 Further citations to Title 28 of the U.S. Code are to the 2012 edition.
Case 1:18-cv-00102-CRK Document 102 Filed 02/24/21 Page 7 of 14

Consol. Court No. 18-00102 	Page 8
(quoting Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Co. v. United States, 32 CIT 1272, 1274, 587
F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1306 (2008)).
DISCUSSION
Commerce defends its decision to use the expected method to calculate a rate
for the separate rate respondents, including Bosun, by explaining that the resulting
rate under the expected method, of 41.025 percent, is reflective of a general market
trend of increasing rates, and is also comparable to the rate for non-examined
separate rate respondents in the 2013-2014 review. See Second Remand Results at
8–9, 15. Bosun argues the results of the 2013-2014 review are the result of an outlier
rate for one of the mandatory respondents in that review, 8 and argues that Commerce
failed to comply with the court’s remand order. See Bosun’s Br. at 1–2.
Commerce is required to “determine the individual weighted average dumping
margin for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise” unless “it
is not practicable . . . because of the large number of exporters or producers involved
in the investigation or review[.]” 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(1)–(2). Where the exception
8 	Fengtai 	and 	Weihai 	Xiangguang 	Mechanical 	Industrial 	Co., 	Ltd. 	were 	the
mandatory respondents in the 2013-2014 review. 	See [DSBs] From the [PRC], 81
Fed. Reg. 38,673, 38,674 (Dep’t Commerce June 14, 2016) (final results of [ADD]
admin. rev.; 2013-2014). Before review of Weihai was rescinded, it received a rate of
21.67 percent. 	See id. 	Fengtai received an individually calculated rate of 56.67
percent. See [DSBs] From the [PRC], 84 Fed. Reg. 23,763, 23,765 (Dep’t Commerce
May 23, 2019) (notice of ct. decision not in harmony with the final results of rev.,
rescission of admin. rev. in part, and amended final results of the [ADD] admin. rev.;
2013-2014). 	Commerce explains that “Bosun ignores that other issues remanded by
the CIT increased the margin ultimately calculated based on Weihai’s information.”
Second Remand Results at 18.
Case 1:18-cv-00102-CRK Document 102 Filed 02/24/21 Page 8 of 14

Consol. Court No. 18-00102 	Page 9
is met, Commerce may limit its examination to cover only certain exporters or
producers of the subject merchandise. See id. at § 1677f-1(c)(2). Commerce normally
calculates the rate applicable to non-investigated exporters and producers as the
“weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established
for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de
minimis margins” and margins determined entirely on the basis of facts otherwise
available. 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)(A); see also Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v.
United States, 821 F.3d 1345, 1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Albemarle”) (clarifying that
the methods under 19 U.S.C. § 1673d apply to administrative reviews as well as
investigations). However, where all margins for individually examined exporters and
producers are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available,
Commerce “may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate
. 	. 	. 	, 	including 	averaging 	the 	estimated 	weighted 	average 	dumping 	margins
determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.” 	Id. at
§ 1673d(c)(5)(B). 	The Statement of Administrative Action elaborates that the
“expected method[,]” in this scenario, is “to weight-average the zero and de minimis
margins and margins determined pursuant to the facts available, provided that
volume 	data 	is 	available.” 	Uruguay 	Round 	Agreements 	Act, 	Statement 	of
Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 873 (1994), reprinted in 1994
Case 1:18-cv-00102-CRK Document 102 Filed 02/24/21 Page 9 of 14

Consol. Court No. 18-00102 	Page 10
U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4201. 9 	If the “expected method” is “not feasible” or the method
“results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping
margins for non-investigated exporters or producers,” Commerce may, instead, “use
other reasonable methods.” 	Id. 	Commerce’s determination must be supported by
substantial 	evidence. 	See 	Albemarle, 	821 	F.3d 	at 	1352–53 	(explaining 	that
“Commerce must find based on substantial evidence that there is a reasonable basis
for concluding that the separate respondents’ dumping is different” to depart from
the “expected method[.]”).
Here, Commerce’s application of the “expected method” of weight-averaging
the zero and AFA margins is reasonable because, as Commerce explains on remand,
it is feasible and produces a result that is reasonably reflective of the separate rate
respondents’ potential dumping. See Second Remand Results at 2, 6. Specifically, as
instructed by the court Commerce considered the rates assigned to individually
examined respondents over the preceding four reviews. 	Excluding rates based on
AFA, Commerce calculated the following rates: in 2011-2012, 4.65 percent (Bosun)
and 5.06 percent (Weihai Xiangguang Mechanical Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Weihai”)); in
9 	The 	Statement 	of 	Administrative 	Action 	is 	‘‘recognized 	by 	Congress 	as 	an
authoritative expression concerning the interpretation and application of the Tariff
Act under 19 U.S.C. § 3512(d)[.]’’ Yangzhou, 716 F.3d at 1373.
Case 1:18-cv-00102-CRK Document 102 Filed 02/24/21 Page 10 of 14

Consol. Court No. 18-00102 	Page 11
2012-2013, 3.45 percent (Bosun) 10 and 22.57 percent (Weihai); in 2013-2014, 11 56.67
percent (Fengtai). 	See id. at 8. 12 	Although the relatively lower rates calculated in
2011 and 2012 would suggest that the expected method would not lead to rates
reasonably reflective of separate rate respondents’ dumping, Commerce explains its
position that the more contemporaneous rates reflect an upward trend, suggesting
that the 41.025 percent rate is reasonably reflective of potential dumping by the
separate rate respondents. 	See id. at 8–9, 15. 	The last calculated rate for non-
individually examined respondents in 2013-2014, of 39.66 percent, is only slightly
less than the rate sought to be imposed here. See id. at 15. This calculated rate for
separate rate respondents resulted from the 56.67 percent rate calculated for Fengtai
and the 21.67 percent rate calculated for Weihai, prior to the rescission of the review
for Weihai.
10 In its comments, Bosun states that it received a 1.51 percent rate in the 2012-2013
review. 	See Bosun’s Br. at 3. 	Although this is the rate that it was assigned in the
final results of the 2012-2013 review, see [DSBs] From the [PRC], 80 Fed. Reg. 32,344,
32,344 (Dep’t Commerce June 8, 2015) (final results of [ADD] admin. rev.; 2012-2013),
the final results were subsequently amended, and Bosun’s rate was adjusted to 3.45
percent. See [DSBs] From the [PRC], 83 Fed. Reg. 55,520, 55,521 (Dep’t Commerce
Nov. 6, 2018) (notice of ct. decision not in harmony with the final results of rev. and
amended final results of the [ADD] admin. rev.; 2012-2013)
11 Bosun states that “Weihai, the other mandatory respondent in the 2013-14 appeal,
had the review rescinded on appeal; prior to the rescission, however, the Department
calculated a rate of 21.67%.” Bosun’s Br. at 2. In light of this fact, Bosun asserts that
therefore “the 2013-14 review alone does not support the Department’s conclusion
that 41.025% is reasonably reflective.” Id.
12 In this review, 2014-2015, Fengtai received an AFA rate of 82.05 percent. 	See
Second Remand Results at 8. In the subsequent review for 2015-2016, both Fengtai
and Weihai received an AFA rate of 82.05 percent. See id.
Case 1:18-cv-00102-CRK Document 102 Filed 02/24/21 Page 11 of 14

Consol. Court No. 18-00102 	Page 12
In support of its argument that the 56.67 percent rate assigned to Fengtai in
2013-2014 is an “outlier,” Bosun invokes a subsequent review in 2016-2017 where
Fengtai received an even higher rate on the basis of AFA. 	See Bosun’s Br. at 2, 4.
That there is only an AFA rate in a subsequent review does not support Bosun’s
argument that Commerce was unreasonable in citing to Fengtai’s rate in the 2013-
2014 review. Moreover, Bosun invoked rates from the 2017-2018 review, where the
separate rate respondents, including Bosun, received a zero rate, seemingly to
support its argument that Bosun deserves a zero rate here. 	See Bosun’s Br. at 4. 13
However, the results of this subsequent review are not on the record of this case,
compare Second Remand Results (published October 13, 2020), with [DSBs] From the
PRC, 85 Fed. Reg. 71,308 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 9, 2020) (final results of [ADD]
admin. rev.; 2017-2018) (published November 9, 2020), and even if they were
Commerce addresses Bosun’s contention that it should be assigned a zero rate. 14
Commerce finds no support for assigning Bosun a zero rate in this review because,
unlike Chengdu which received a zero rate because it was found to not have sold the
subject merchandise at less than normal value, Bosun when individually examined
13 As noted by Defendant-Intervenor, Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition,
the results of the 2017-2018 review are still subject to appeal. See [Def.-Intervenor]
Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition’s Reply Cmts. on Results of Second
Remand Redetermination at 3, Dec. 14, 2020, ECF No. 99.
14 Bosun claims that under the circumstances, Chengdu’s 0.00 percent rate is the
“only appropriate margin” to assign to Bosun. Bosun’s Br. at 5–6.
Case 1:18-cv-00102-CRK Document 102 Filed 02/24/21 Page 12 of 14

Consol. Court No. 18-00102 	Page 13
in the past, was found to have sold at less than normal value. 	See Second Remand
Results at 13–14.
Bosun nonetheless argues that Commerce’s imposition of the 41.025 percent
rate upon Bosun is unfair because it is based in part on a total AFA rate and Bosun
is a cooperating exporter. See Bosun’s Br. at 4–5. Bosun relies on Changzhou Hawd
Flooring Co. v. United States, 848 F.3d 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Changzhou Hawd”) as
support for its position that Commerce acted unfairly. 	See Bosun’s Br. at 4–5.
Bosun’s reliance is misplaced. In Changzhou Hawd, all of the individually examined
respondents received either a zero or de minimis rate. 	See Changzhou Hawd, 848
F.3d at 1008. 	In calculating the all others separate rate, Commerce departed from
the expected method, which would have resulted in a de minimis rate for the separate
rate respondents and calculated a rate that incorporated the PRC-wide rate for
parties that had not rebutted the presumption of government control. 	See id. at
1008–09, 1011. 	The Court of Appeals held that this departure was unreasonable
absent 	an 	explanation 	by 	Commerce 	as 	to 	why 	the 	individually 	examined
respondents’ rates were not representative of the separate rate respondents potential
dumping. See id. at 1011–13. Changzhou Hawd thus differs from the present case.
Although Bosun attempts to marshal the implication in Changzhou Hawd, that a
separate rate respondent should not be saddled with a rate attributable to a non-
cooperating party, see Bosun’s Br. at 4–5, Commerce here is not deviating from the
expected method, as it did in Changzhou Hawd. Rather, here Commerce assigns the
Case 1:18-cv-00102-CRK Document 102 Filed 02/24/21 Page 13 of 14

Consol. Court No. 18-00102 	Page 14
separate rate respondents a rate derived by the expected method; an average of an
AFA rate and a zero rate. 	Commerce then explains why that rate is reasonably
reflective of separate rate respondents’ potential dumping. Commerce bases its
explanation on record evidence of recent past calculated rates, and Commerce
considers and addresses the record evidence that detracts from its determination.
Commerce’s explanation is reasonable.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Commerce’s Second Remand Results are supported
by substantial evidence and comply with the court’s order in Bosun II, and are
therefore sustained. Judgment will enter accordingly.
/s/ Claire R. Kelly
Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Dated: 	February 24, 2021
New York, New York
Case 1:18-cv-00102-CRK Document 102 Filed 02/24/21 Page 14 of 14