Rebar Trade Action Coalition v. United States

Slip Op. 21-37
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
REBAR TRADE ACTION COALITION,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
ICDAS CELIK ENERJI TERSANE VE
ULASIM SANAYI A.S.,
Defendant-Intervenor.
Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge
Court No. 20-00071
Public Version
OPINION
[Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in the first administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from the Republic
of Turkey.]
Dated: April 6, 2021
John R. Shane, Wiley Rein, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for Plaintiff. With him on
the brief was Maureen E. Thorson.
Ann C. Motto, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for Defendant. With her on the brief
were Jeffrey B. Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director,
and L. Misha Preheim, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was David W.
Richardson, Senior Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.
Matthew M. Nolan and Leah N. Scarpelli, Arent Fox, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued
for Defendant-Intervenor.
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 1 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 2
Barnett, Chief Judge: The agency determination at issue here is the first
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar
(“rebar”) from the Republic of Turkey (“Turkey”). While most administrative reviews
cover a 12-month period preceding the anniversary month of the order, the first
administrative review of an order may cover a longer period, beginning with the
preliminary determination in the investigation and ending on the last day of the month
before the first anniversary of the order. In this case, the first administrative review
covered a 16-month period of review.
In order to determine whether dumping occurred during this period, the U.S.
Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or “the agency”) compares U.S. price to normal
value. Normal value is generally based on home market sales, subject to various
conditions. One of those conditions involves determining whether the home market
sales were made at prices that were less than the cost of production. For these
purposes, Commerce often uses costs averaged over the entire period of review, unless
there are significant cost variations and those variations are linked to changes in sales
prices. When those conditions are met, Commerce will normally use quarterly costs1 in
its cost analysis rather than period-wide average costs.
Here, Commerce addressed a situation in which the respondent argued that
there were significant cost variations linked to price changes such that quarterly costs
1 Commerce refers to the three-month periods as quarters, however, the periods do not
necessarily correlate to calendar quarters. Instead, Commerce begins the first quarter
with the first month of the period of investigation or review. The court similarly refers to
these three-month periods as quarters.
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 2 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 3
should be used in Commerce’s dumping analysis, but the period of review did not divide
evenly into three-month quarters. Rather, the 16-month period of review was divided
into five three-month quarters and one remaining month, which Commerce determined
to treat as the sixth quarter. When analyzing the costs based on those quarters,
Commerce found that the variations exceeded its threshold for deviating from period-
wide cost averages and used the reported quarterly costs. It is against this backdrop
that the instant case arises.
Plaintiff Rebar Trade Action Coalition (“RTAC”) moves, pursuant to United States
Court of International Trade Rule 56.2, for judgment on the agency record, challenging
Commerce’s final results in the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order
on rebar from Turkey for the period of review March 7, 2017, to June 30, 2018.2 See
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey, 85 Fed. Reg. 15,765
(Dep’t Commerce Mar. 19, 2020) (final results of antidumping duty admin. review;
2017–2018) (“Final Results”), ECF No. 20-4, and accompanying Issues and Decision
Mem., A-489-829 (Mar. 13, 2020) (“I&D Mem.”), ECF No. 20-5.
RTAC challenges Commerce’s cost averaging methodology and reliance on one
month’s data for one of the quarters for purposes of determining whether to depart from
using period-wide average costs in its antidumping analysis for Defendant-Intervenor
2 The administrative record is divided into a Public Administrative Record (“PR”), ECF
No. 20-1, and a Confidential Administrative Record (“CR”), ECF No. 20-2. Parties
submitted joint appendices containing record documents cited in their briefs. See Public
J.A. (“PJA”), ECF No. 38; Confidential J.A. (“CJA”), ECF No. 39. The court references
the confidential versions of the relevant record documents unless indicated otherwise.
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 3 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 4
Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (“Icdas”). See Confidential [RTAC]’s
Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 26, and accompanying Confidential
[RTAC]’s Mem. in Supp. of its Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. Upon the Agency R. (“RTAC’s
Mem.”), ECF No. 26-1;3 Confidential Reply Br. of Pl. [RTAC] (“RTAC’s Reply”), ECF No.
35. Defendant United States (“the Government”) and Icdas filed responses supporting
the Final Results. See Confidential Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. for J. on the Agency R.
(“Gov’t’s Resp.”), ECF No. 31; Confidential Resp. Br. of Def.-Int. [Icdas] to Pl.’s Rule
56.2 Mot. for J. on the Agency R. (“Icdas’s Resp.”), ECF No. 33.
For the following reasons, the court denies RTAC’s motion and sustains
Commerce’s Final Results.
JURISDICTION A ND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 516A(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) (2018) 4 and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c)
(2018). The court will uphold an agency determination that is supported by substantial
evidence and otherwise in accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
BACKGROUND
Commerce initiated this first administrative review on September 10, 2018, see
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 83 Fed. Reg.
45,596, 45,604 (Dep’t Commerce Sept. 10, 2018), PR 10, CJA Tab 1, and selected
3 On September 4, 2020, the court granted RTAC’s motion for errata to correct a citation
in its brief. See Order (Sept. 4, 2020), ECF No. 30.
4 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 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 4 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 5
Icdas and Kaptan Demir Celik Endüstrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (“Kaptan Demir”) as mandatory
respondents, see Respondent Selection for the Antidumping Duty Admin. Review of
Steel Concrete [Rebar] from [Turkey] (Oct. 30, 2018) at 5, CR 3, PR 13, CJA Tab 2.
In response to section D of Commerce’s initial questionnaire, Icdas requested “a
quarterly comparison of prices as well as usage of quarterly costs in its margin
calculation.” Questionnaire Resp. of [Icdas] and its Affiliates to Sec. D of the [Agency’s]
Antidumping Duty Questionnaire (Feb. 5, 2019) (“DQR”) at D-11, CR 143–72, PR 43–
44, CJA Tab 4. Icdas explained that costs for three significant inputs consumed in
producing rebar changed substantially during the period of review. See id. Icdas
reported its monthly consumption and associated costs for inputs consumed in
producing the top-five selling CONNUMs 5 in the U.S. and home markets. See id., Ex.
D-4; Suppl. Sec. D Questionnaire Resp. of [Icdas] and its Affiliates, (July 22, 2019)
(“SDQR”) at S2-1, Ex. S2-1, CR 351–73, PR 147, CJA Tab 7. Icdas also reported the
total cost of manufacturing and total direct material costs for each CONNUM, broken
down by quarters, and identified the changes between the highest and lowest quarters
for those costs. See DQR, Ex. D-4; SDQR, Ex. S2-2. Icdas broke down its costs into
the following periods:
Quarter One: March 2017–May 2017;
Quarter Two: June 2017–August 2017;
Quarter Three: September 2017–November 2017;
Quarter Four: December 2017–February 2018;
5 CONNUM refers to “control number,” which is a number designed to reflect the
“hierarchy of certain characteristics used to sort subject merchandise into groups” and
allow Commerce to match identical and similar products across markets. Bohler Bleche
GmbH & Co. KG v. United States, 42 CIT ___, ___, 324 F. Supp. 3d 1344, 1347 (2018).
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 5 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 6
Quarter Five: March 2018–May 2018; and
Quarter Six: June 2018.
See SDQR at S2-1. Quarter six contained cost information only for June 2018, the last
month of the period of review. See id. RTAC objected that the June 2018 data were
unsuitable for consideration as representative of a full quarter in the quarterly cost
averaging analysis. [RTAC’s] Pre-Prelim. Results Cmts. on [Icdas] (Aug. 9, 2019) at
13–14, CR 376, PR 154, CJA Tab 9.
For the Preliminary Results, Commerce adopted Icdas’s proposed quarterly cost
breakdown for the antidumping analysis. See Decision Mem. for Prelim. Results of
Antidumping Duty Admin. Review, A-489-829 (Sept. 6, 2019) (“Prelim. Decision Mem.”)
at 14, PR 167, CJA Tab 11. Commerce explained that the difference “between [Icdas’s]
high and low quarterly [costs of manufacturing] during the [period of review]” exceeded
the threshold required to rely on quarterly averages. Id. at 14 & n.60 (citations
omitted).6 Commerce also found a link between “changing sales prices and costs
during the [period of review].” Id. at 14 & n.65 (citations omitted). Thus, Commerce
relied on quarterly cost averages to determine Icdas’s cost of manufacturing. Id. at 14.
Commerce preliminarily calculated margins of 1.57 percent for Icdas, 0.91 percent for
6 For a 12-month period, Commerce normally uses a 25 percent threshold to determine
whether “the changes in [cost of manufacturing] are significant enough to warrant a
departure from [its] standard annual-average approach.” Prelim. Decision Mem. at 14 &
n.58 (citation omitted); see also Habaú Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.ù. v.
United States, 43 CIT ___, ___, 361 F. Supp. 3d 1314, 1324 (2019) (discussing the
circumstances under which Commerce departs from relying on period-wide average
costs). In this case, Commerce used a 37.5 percent threshold because the period of
review consisted of six quarters. Prelim. Decision Mem. at 14 n.59.
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 6 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 7
Kaptan Demir, and 1.41 percent for the non-individually-examined respondents. See
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey, 84 Fed. Reg. 48,588,
48,589 (Dep’t Commerce Sept. 16, 2019) (prelim. results of antidumping duty admin.
review; 2017–2018), PR 183, CJA Tab 14.
RTAC challenged Commerce’s acceptance of the June 2018 data as the sixth
quarter data. Pet’r’s Case Br. (Feb. 11, 2020) (“RTAC’s Case Br.”) at 13–19, CR 417–
18, PR 198, CJA Tab 15. RTAC contended that Commerce prefers quarterly averages
to monthly averages in determining whether to depart from using a single, period-wide
cost average “to ensure the change in cost is sustained for a reasonable time rather
than for only an isolated month or two.” Id. at 18 & n.62 (citation omitted). RTAC
further argued that distortions in the June 2018 data demonstrated that Commerce’s
reliance on the data was unreasonable. See id. at 14–17.
For the Final Results, Commerce continued to rely on quarterly averages based
upon the methodology used in the Preliminary Results. I&D Mem. at 22–23.
Commerce explained:
[t]he months of the [period of review] do not allow for them to be divided
equally into quarters. Therefore, Commerce reasonably relied on the
partial quarter [i.e., June 2018]. To do otherwise would have required
Commerce to rely on data outside the [period of review] or to ignore data
inside the [period of review]. As there is no reason to believe that Icdas[’s]
costs, as recorded in [its] normal books and records for the month of June
2018 are unreliable, [Commerce] will continue to rely on the reported June
2018 [cost of manufacturing] data for these final results.
Id. at 23. Commerce also rejected RTAC’s arguments that variances in Icdas’s June
2018 production experience rendered the data unreliable. See id.; Final Results
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 7 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 8
Analysis Mem. [for] [Icdas], (Mar. 13, 2020) (“Icdas Final Analysis Mem.”) at ECF pp.
218–19, CR 430–36, PR 210, CJA Tab 18.7 Based on changes to Icdas’s and Kaptan
Demir’s margin programs which are not relevant here, Commerce calculated final
antidumping margins of 0.00 percent for both mandatory respondents and assigned the
non-examined companies a rate of 0.00 percent. See Final Results, 85 Fed. Reg. at
15,766.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Legal Framework
Commerce calculates the normal value of the subject merchandise based on
home market sales that are made “in the ordinary course of trade.” 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i). Commerce disregards sales at prices that are less than the cost of
production, id. § 1677b(b)(1), because those sales are not made in the ordinary course
of trade, id. § 1677(15)(A). A major component of the cost of production is the cost of
manufacturing. Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Pub.) Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1335, 1338
(Fed. Cir. 2011). The cost of manufacturing equals the sum of “the cost of materials
and of fabrication or other processing of any kind employed in producing the foreign like
product, during a period which would ordinarily permit the production of that foreign like
product in the ordinary course of business.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(3)(A). The cost of
production is the cost of manufacturing plus “selling, general, and administrative
expenses” incurred during production and sale of the foreign like product and “the cost
7 The Icdas Final Analysis Memorandum lacks internal pagination; thus, the court refers
to the ECF page numbers provided in the confidential joint appendix.
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 8 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 9
of all containers and coverings . . . and all other expenses incidental to placing the
foreign like product in condition packed and ready for shipment.” Id. § 1677b(b)(3)(B)–
(C).
“The statute does not define the time period over which cost of production is to
be calculated and over which respondent’s various costs must therefore be averaged.
Consequently, Commerce must select an appropriate time period for averaging the
costs involved.” Pastificio Lucio Garofalo, S.p.A. v. United States, 35 CIT 630, 633, 783
F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1234 (2011), aff’d 469 F. App’x 901 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Commerce is
afforded considerable discretion in formulating its practices in this regard.” SeAH Steel
Corp. v. United States, 34 CIT 605, 617, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1363 (2010) (citation
omitted). Commerce’s practice is to calculate the cost of production using a single
averaging period covering the entire period of investigation or review. See Issues and
Decision Mem. for the Final Results of the Second Admin. Review of Carbon and
certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada, A-122-840, (Jan. 24, 2006) at 17–18,
available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/canada/E6-823-1.pdf (last
visited Apr. 6, 2021). In many situations, this results in Commerce using a 12-month
average. Cf. Habaú, 361 F. Supp. 3d at 1324 (“Commerce’s usual methodology is to
rely on an annual weight-average cost for the period of investigation.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted). However, Commerce will depart from its normal practice “and
employ[] shorter (usually quarterly) cost-averaging periods” when two conditions are
met: “(1) consistent and significant cost variation during the period of review, and (2)
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 9 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 10
evidence of linkage between the cost variation and changes in sales prices within the
shorter averaging period.” SeAH Steel, 34 CIT at 610–11, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 1358.
II. 	Analysis
A. RTAC’s Challenge to Commerce’s Methodology
1. 	Parties’ Contentions
RTAC challenges Commerce’s methodology in conducting the quarterly cost
averaging analysis on two grounds. First, RTAC contends that Commerce has a
practice of not examining monthly averages in determining whether to depart from using
period-wide average costs and that Commerce deviated from this practice without
providing sufficient explanation. See RTAC’s Mem. at 13, 15, 18, 20, 23–24; Oral Arg.
at 3:27–4:19, available at https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/030821-20-00071-
MAB.mp3 (last accessed Apr. 6, 2021) (approximate time stamp from recording). In
support of this assertion, RTAC cites four Commerce determinations in which
Commerce allegedly stated that monthly averages were not appropriate for
consideration in determining whether to depart from period-wide average costs. See
RTAC’s Mem. at 13; RTAC’s Reply at 3–4.8 Second, RTAC contends that Commerce
8 RTAC cites the following determinations: Issues and Decision Mem. for the Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty Admin. Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils from Mexico, A-201-822 (Feb. 3, 2010) (“Mexican Steel IDM”) at 32, available at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/mexico/2010-2987-1.pdf (last visited Apr. 6,
2021); Issues and Decisions for the Final Results of the Twelfth Admin. Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy (2007–2008), A-475-818 (Feb. 2,
2010) (“Italian Pasta IDM”) at 18, available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/
summary/italy/2010-2802-1.pdf (last visited Apr. 6, 2021); Antidumping Duty Admin.
Review of Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes from the Republic of Korea: Issues and
Decision Mem. for the Final Results, A-580-810, (June 22, 2009) (“Korean Pipe IDM”) at
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 10 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 11
did not support its conclusion that relying on the June 2018 data as the sixth quarter
was necessary to avoid including data outside the period of review or excluding data
inside the period of review. See RTAC’s Mem. at 12.
The Government and Icdas counter that Commerce does not have the practice
RTAC describes and that the agency determinations RTAC cites are inapposite. See
Gov’t’s Resp. at 11; Icdas’s Resp. at 8. Next, the Government avers that Commerce
reasonably explained its decision not to exclude the June 2018 data or include non-
contemporaneous data. Gov’t’s Resp. at 14–15; see also Icdas’s Resp. at 9–10. The
Government contends that Commerce adhered to the statutory language directing it to
consider all manufacturing costs incurred during the period of review. Gov’t’s Resp. at
14; cf. Icdas’s Resp. at 9.
2. 	Commerce’s Methodology in Conducting the Quarterly Cost
Averaging Analysis is in Accordance with the Law.
a. 	Agency Practice
When Commerce considers whether to use quarterly cost averages, it is often
able to divide the period of review into four three-month quarters, because each review
of an antidumping duty order, excluding the first, normally covers a period of 12 months.
See 19 C.F.R. § 351.213(e)(1)(i). However, the first administrative review period may
exceed 12 months because the agency’s regulations provide a different starting point
9, available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/korea-south/E9-15492-1.pdf
(last visited Apr. 6, 2021); Issues and Decision Mem. for the Antidumping Duty Admin.
Review on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey – April 1, 2006,
through March 31, 2007, A-489-807 (Nov. 3, 2008) (“Turkish Rebar IDM”) at 18,
available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/turkey/E8-26623-1.pdf (last
visited Apr. 6, 2021).
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 11 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 12
for that period. See id. § 351.213(e)(1)(ii) (providing that the first administrative review
“will cover . . . entries, exports, or sales during the period from the date of suspension of
liquidation under this part or suspension of investigation to the end of the month
immediately preceding the first anniversary month”). Consequently, in a first
administrative review, the number of months in the period of review may not be evenly
divisible by three, leaving a remainder period of less than a full quarter.
This combination of circumstances—a request to use quarterly costs during a
first administrative review when the period of review is not evenly divisible by three—
occurs infrequently, and thus, Commerce has limited practice regarding such remainder
periods. Cf. Oral Arg. at 28:24–29:45 (wherein the Government explained that
determinations involving the factual and procedural circumstances at issue are few;
discussing Issues and Decision Mem. for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
Admin. Review of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan, 2016–2017,
A-583-856 (Dec. 10, 2018) (“Taiwan Steel IDM”) at 8, available at https://enforcement.
trade.gov/frn/summary/taiwan/2018-27244-1.pdf (last visited Apr. 6, 2021)).
The rarity with which this scenario occurs underscores the flaw in RTAC’s
agency-practice argument. RTAC cites four Commerce determinations in an effort to
demonstrate that the agency has a practice of finding monthly averages unsuitable for
consideration in determining whether to depart from using period-wide average costs.
See RTAC’s Mem. at 13 (citations omitted); supra note 8. But in all the determinations
RTAC cites, the periods of review were 12 months long and, therefore, could be evenly
divided into quarters. Thus, Commerce did not consider the issue presented in this
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 12 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 13
case: whether the agency may consider a remainder period of one month as
representative of a three-month quarter when the period of review cannot be evenly
divided into quarters. 9 Rather, Commerce expressed its preference for using quarterly
averages over monthly averages for the entire period of review in situations in which the
period of review could be evenly divided into quarters. See, e.g., Mexican Steel IDM at
32. Despite RTAC’s argument to the contrary, Commerce has not indicated that this
preference extends to remainder-period data covering one month. See RTAC’s Reply
at 8–9. Consequently, RTAC has failed to establish that Commerce has a practice of
finding remainder-period data covering one month unsuitable for consideration to
determine whether to depart from period-wide average costs.10 Thus, the court rejects
RTAC’s argument that Commerce deviated from established practice and failed to
provide an explanation for so doing.11
9 In fact, in the determinations cited by RTAC, the interested parties did not argue for
monthly averages to be used. See Mexican Steel IDM at 17–18 (respondent
challenged Commerce’s reliance on quarterly averages instead of annual averages);
Italian Pasta IDM at 12 (respondent challenged Commerce’s reliance on quarterly
averages as opposed to annual averages or six-month averages); Korean Pipe IDM at 2
(respondent asserted that Commerce lacked “grounds for inferring that quarterly
average costs are more accurate than are annual averages costs . . . if there is no direct
linkage between changes in costs and changes in selling prices during the same
quarter”); Turkish Rebar IDM at 12 (respondent argued that Commerce should use
quarterly averages instead of annual averages).
10 As a methodological issue, RTAC also has failed to establish that Commerce has a
practice of considering the “suitability” of data in evaluating whether to depart from
period-wide average costs. See, e.g., RTAC’s Mem. at 11. To the extent that RTAC
contends that the June 2018 data were not suitable as a factual matter, the court
explains below that substantial evidence supports Commerce’s reliance on the data.
11 The Government contends that RTAC did not exhaust its administrative remedies in
challenging Commerce’s alleged deviation from agency practice in relying on the June
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 13 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 14
b. 	Excluding the June 2018 Data or Considering Non-Contemporaneous
Data
RTAC argues that Commerce failed to explain its decision to use the June 2018
data. See RTAC’s Mem. at 14–15. However, Commerce stated that it relied on the
June 2018 data because the period of review could not be evenly divided into quarters
and it had no reason to believe that the data were unreliable. 12 I&D Mem. at 23. This
explanation is sufficient in light of the discretion afforded to Commerce “to develop a
suitable methodology for calculating the costs of production.” Ere÷li Demir ve Çelik
Fabrikalari T.A.ù. v. United States, 42 CIT ___, ___, 308 F. Supp. 3d 1297, 1322
(2018). Moreover, the mere existence of an alternative methodology for determining
whether to depart from using a single, period-wide average does not establish that the
methodology used by Commerce was unreasonable. See, e.g., JMC Steel Grp. v.
United States, 38 CIT ___, ___, 24 F. Supp. 3d 1290, 1321 (2014) (deferring to the
agency’s reasonable and factually supported methodologies).
RTAC also seeks to analogize its argument to Commerce’s use of “window
period” sales in an attempt to explain how Commerce could have considered non-
contemporaneous cost data. The term “window period” refers to home market sales
made up to 90 days before or 60 days after the U.S. sales that may be matched if there
are no comparable home market sales during the same month(s). See 19 C.F.R.
2018 data. See Gov’t’s Resp. at 11–12. However, the court need not resolve this issue
because RTAC fails to demonstrate that Commerce has such a practice.
12 RTAC does not challenge Commerce’s finding that Icdas’s normal books and records
accurately reflect its June 2018 production experience. See RTAC’s Reply at 11
(“RTAC’s claim is not that Icdas’s June 2018 costs were unreliable in the sense of not
reflecting Icdas’s cost experience in that month.”); Oral Arg. at 22:07–22:35.
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 14 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 15
§ 351.414(f); Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria & Agricultura v. United States, 36 CIT
1604, 1605, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1370 (2012). The regulation covering window
period sales does not contemplate, much less provide for, Commerce’s consideration of
non-contemporaneous data to determine a respondent’s cost of manufacturing and it
only allows Commerce to consider window period sales data when there are no more-
contemporaneous sales. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(f). Thus, RTAC’s argument lacks
merit because there is contemporaneous cost data and the regulation is otherwise
inapplicable.
For the foregoing reasons, Commerce’s quarterly cost averaging methodology is
in accordance with the law.
B. RTAC’s Challenge Based on Variances in the June 2018 Data
1. 	Parties’ Contentions
RTAC contends that Commerce’s consideration of the June 2018 data in the
quarterly cost averaging analysis was unsupported by substantial evidence in light of
variances in Icdas’s June 2018 production experience as compared to the rest of the
period of review. See RTAC’s Mem. at 15–24. RTAC contends that Icdas’s June 2018
scrap purchases, usage of self-produced billets, production volume, and the divergence
between Icdas’s imported scrap purchase prices and its total cost of manufacturing
indicate that Icdas’s cost data are likely distorted. See id. at 16–22.
The Government and Icdas contend that Commerce sufficiently explained that
RTAC’s analyses of the variances were flawed, and thus, the agency appropriately
rejected RTAC’s claims that the data were distorted. Gov’t’s Resp. at 19–25; see also
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 15 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 16
Icdas’s Resp. at 7–9. The Government also contends that RTAC’s assessment of the
divergence should be rejected as new factual information not submitted to Commerce.
Gov’t’s Resp. at 22.
2. 	Substantial Evidence Supports Commerce’s Finding that the June
2018 Data were Reliable
In finding Icdas’s June 2018 cost data reliable, Commerce rejected RTAC’s
contentions that the data were unsuitable given the abovementioned variances. See
I&D Mem. at 22–23; Icdas Final Analysis Mem. at ECF pp. 218–19. Specifically,
Commerce found that RTAC’s comparison of Icdas’s scrap purchases to Icdas’s total
raw material costs was flawed because Icdas’s total raw material costs consisted of
more than just scrap and because RTAC compared scrap purchases determined on
different bases. See Icdas Final Analysis Mem. at ECF pp. 218–19.13 Commerce
explained that a small variance in Icdas’s use of self-produced billets in June 2018 did
not disqualify the data from consideration.14 See id. at ECF p. 219. Similarly,
Commerce concluded that the June 2018 data were reliable despite a minor difference
in production volume. 15 See id.
13 RTAC’s assertion that Commerce did not engage with the substance of its argument
ignores the reasoned explanation Commerce provided for assigning the arguments little
weight. See Icdas Final Analysis Mem. at ECF pp. 218–19.
14 Specifically, Commerce concluded that Icdas’s [[ 	]] reliance on self-produced
billets in June 2018 was not representative of a [[ 	]] in the company’s
production processes because “Icdas self-produced more than [[ 	]] percent of billets
used . . . during the [period of review].” Id. at ECF p. 219.
15 Commerce explained that the volume of rebar that Icdas produced in June 2018
([[ 	]]) was similar to the average-monthly production quantities
in the [[ 	]] quarters of the period of review, [[
]]. Id. (citation omitted).
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 16 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 17
Before the court, RTAC repeats the contentions Commerce rejected. Compare
id. at ECF pp. 216, 218–19, with RTAC’s Mem. at 15–21. Thus, RTAC does little more
than ask the court to reweigh the evidence considered by Commerce. This the court
will not do. See Haixing Jingmei Chem. Prods. Sales Co. v. United States, 42 CIT ___,
___, 335 F. Supp. 3d 1330, 1346 (2018) (citing Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United
States, 776 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Additionally, Commerce dismissed RTAC’s claim that the June 2018 data were
distorted based on the divergence between Icdas’s cost of manufacturing and import
scrap prices for June 2018 as compared to the full quarters of the period of review
because RTAC’s analysis “compare[d] scrap prices in [U.S. dollars] to Icdas’s reported
costs in Turkish lira.” Icdas Final Analysis Mem. at ECF p. 219. Commerce concluded
that the actual divergence was smaller than RTAC claimed. Id. While RTAC asserts
that the agency’s finding concerning comparisons of values in different currencies
misses the mark, see RTAC’s Mem. at 21–22 & n.8, it does not point to record evidence
undermining the agency’s conclusion that RTAC overstated the divergence,16 see Icdas
16 RTAC argues that Commerce’s formula for computing the divergence was inaccurate.
See RTAC’s Mem. at 21–23. But Commerce considered the calculations provided
during the administrative review and explained that RTAC inaccurately calculated the
divergence. See Icdas Final Analysis Mem. at ECF p. 219. RTAC now offers the court
alternative calculations not provided to Commerce in an attempt to undermine the
agency’s conclusion. Compare Rebuttal Br. of [Icdas], (Feb. 18, 2020) at 16, CR 419,
CJA Tab 16, with RTAC’s Mem. at 23. Although the data underlying RTAC’s new
calculations were in the record, the calculations and revised arguments based on these
calculations were not. Thus, RTAC’s argument highlights its own failure develop the
record, not a failure in Commerce’s assessment of the record before it. “It is the
responsibility of interested parties—not Commerce—to build the factual record
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 17 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 18
Final Analysis Mem. at ECF p. 219. The court is satisfied that substantial evidence
supports Commerce’s conclusion on this issue.17
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Commerce’s reliance on the June
2018 cost data as the sixth quarter for purposes of its quarterly cost averaging analysis
is supported by substantial evidence.
C. RTAC’s Challenge to the Rate for Non-Individually Examined
Respondents
Finally, RTAC asks the court to remand the rate Commerce assigned non-
individually examined respondents. RTAC’s Mem. at 24. According to RTAC,
Commerce erred in conducting the quarterly cost averaging analysis, and, as a result,
the rate assigned to non-individually examined respondents, which is based in part on
Icdas’s rate, is unsupported by substantial evidence and not in accordance with the law.
See id. at 24–25; see generally Final Results, 85 Fed. Reg. at 15,766 (explaining that
Commerce determined the dumping margin for non-individually examined respondents
by averaging “the weighted-average dumping margin[s] calculated for the mandatory
respondents (i.e., Kaptan Demir and Icdas)”). As discussed above, Commerce’s
quarterly cost averaging analysis is supported by substantial evidence and in
supporting its position.” Calgon Carbon Corp. v. United States, 44 CIT ___, ___, 443 F.
Supp. 3d 1334, 1345 (2020) (citing QVD Food Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318,
1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
17 RTAC also contends that the fact that Commerce calculated a divergence in scrap
prices in June 2018 (albeit a smaller divergence than RTAC calculated) demonstrates
the unreasonableness of Commerce’s reliance on the June 2018 data. See RTAC’s
Mem. at 21. But, as the Government points out, RTAC’s logic would lead to an absurd
result in which “any divergence (no matter how small)” would undermine reliance on
remainder-period data. Gov’t’s Resp. at 21–22.
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 18 of 19

Court No. 20-00071 	Page 19
accordance with the law; consequently, the court rejects RTAC’s challenge to the rate
assigned to non-individually examined respondents.
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Commerce’s Final Results are sustained. Judgment will enter
accordingly.
/s/ 	Mark A. Barnett
Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge
Dated: April 6, 2021
New York, New York
Case 1:20-cv-00071-MAB Document 48 Filed 04/14/21 Page 19 of 19