Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. et al v. United States

Slip Op. 21-161
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COLAKOGLU 	METALURJI 	A.S. 	AND
COLAKOGLU DIS TICARET A.S.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
REBAR TRADE ACTION COALITION,
Defendant-Intervenor.
Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Court No. 20-00153
OPINION
[Denying plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the agency record and sustaining
Commerce’s final results of its fourth administrative review of its countervailing duty
order covering steel concrete reinforcing bar from the Republic of Turkey.]
Dated: December 2, 2021
Jessica R. DiPietro, Arent Fox, LLP, of Washington, D.C. argued for Plaintiffs. Also
on the brief was Matthew M. Nolan.
Ann C. Motto, Trial Attorney, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S.
Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C. argued for Defendant. Also on the brief
were Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson,
Director, and L. Misha Preheim, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Reza
Karamloo, Senior Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.
Maureen E. Thorson, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, D.C. argued for Defendant-
Intervenor. Also on the brief were Alan H. Price and John R. Shane.
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 1 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 2
Kelly, Judge: 	%HIRUH WKH FRXUW LV SODLQWLIIV dRODNRùOX 0HWDOXUML $6·V DQG
dRODNRùOX 'LV 7LFDUHW $6·V FROOHFWLYHO\ ´dRODNRùOX”) motion for judgment on the
agency record pursuant to U.S. Court of International Trade Rule 56.2. >dRODNRùOX·V@
Mot. for J. on Agency R., Jan. 26, 2021, ECF No. 22- ´3O0RWμ ; see also [Pl. Mot.]
and Memo. of Law in Supp. of [Pl. Mot.], Jan. 26, 20 (&) 1R  ´3O %Uμ .
dRODNRùOXDVNVWKHFRXUWWRUHMHFWWKH86'HSDUWPHQWRI&RPPHUFH·V ´&RPPHUFHμ 
LPSRVLWLRQ RI D FRXQWHUYDLOLQJ GXW\ ´&9'μ  RQ dRODNRùOX SXUVXDQW WR &RPPHUFH·V
final results of its fourth administrative review of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
From the Republic of Turkey, 79 Fed. Reg. 65, 'HS·WRI&RPPHUFH1RY 
>&9'@ RUGHU 	´Rebar from Turkey”). 	Pl. Br. 	at 2, 10; see also Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey)HG5HJ, 'HS·WRI Commerce
-XO\    ILQDO UHVXOWV DQG SDUWLDO UHVFLVVLRQ RI >&9'@ DGPLQ. review; 2017),
PD138, 1 ECF No. 19- ´Final Results”), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memo., C--819 -XO\ , PD135, ECF No. 19- ´Final Decision Memo”).
SpecifiFDOO\ dRODNRùOX argues 	that 	Commerce’s 	decision 	to 	pull 	forward
dRODNRùOX·V&9'UDWHIURP&RPPHUFH·VSULRUDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZZDVFRQWUDU\WR
ODZLQWKDWDFFRUGLQJWRdRODNRùOX&RPPHUFHZDVREOLJDWHGWRFDOFXODWHdRODNRùOX·V
rate by averaging the de minimis rates of the two mandatory respondents. Pl. Br. at
1 On October 21, 2020, Defendant filed indices to the public and confidential
administrative records underlying Commerce’s final determination. See ECF No. 19-
1–2. Citations to administrative record documents in this opinion are to the numbers
Commerce assigned to such documents in the indices, and all references to such
documents are preceded b\´3'μor ´&'μWRGHQRWHSXEOLFRUFRQILGHQWLDOGRFXPHQWV
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 2 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 3
5–8; see also 5HSO\%URI>dRODNRùOX@–-XQH(&)1R ´5HSO\%Uμ 
dRODNRùOX IXUWKHU DVVHUWV WKDW its rate is unsupported by substantial evidence
because the record lacks any information that would support the imposition of its
rate. Pl. Br. at 8–10; Reply Br. at 6–9.
Defendant 	United 	States 	and 	Defendant-Intervenor 	Rebar 	Trade 	Action
&RDOLWLRQ ´57$&μ 	oppose the motion on the grounds that Commerce could use any
reasonablH PHWKRG WR FDOFXODWH dRODNRùOX·V UDWH DYHUDJLQJ WKH PDQGDWRU\
respondents’ 	de 	minimis 	rates 	would 	not 	have 	been 	reasonably 	reflective 	of
dRODNRùOX·V DFWXDO UDWH and 	Commerce 	followed 	its 	past 	practice 	in 	pulling
dRODNRùOX·VUDWHIRUZDUGIURPWKHSULRUDdministrative review. 	See Def.’s Resp. to
[Pl. Mot.], 5–0D\(&)1R ´'HI%Uμ ; [RTAC’s] Resp. Br., 7–11, May
(&)1R ´57AC Br.”). Defendant further argues that dRODNRùOX·V rate
is supported by substantial evidence becausHdRODNRùOXpreviously availed itself of a
subsidy program in the prior administrative review and offers no evidence that it has
stopped using that program. Def. Br. at 12–13; see also RTAC Br. at 11–13.
For the following reasons, Commerce’s Final Results are sustained.
BACKGROUND
&RPPHUFH SXEOLVKHG D &9' RUGHU FRYHULQJ VWHHO FRQFUHWH UHLQIRUFLQJ EDU
´UHEDU” IURPWKH5HSXEOLFRI7XUNH\ ´7XUNH\μ RQ1RYHPEHUSee Rebar
from Turkey. Commerce administratively reviewed Rebar from Turkey on an annual
basis IRUWKH\HDUVDQGSULRUWRLQLWLDWLQJWKHIRXUWKDGPLQLVWUDWLYH
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 3 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 
review, which is the subject of this action. 	See [Rebar] from [Turkey], 82 Fed. Reg.
26, 'HS·W RI &RPPHUFH -XQH    ILQDO UHVXOWV DQG SDUWLDO Uescission of
>&9'@ DGPLQ rHYLHZ   ´ )LQDO 5HVXOWV”) and accompanying Issues and
Decision 	Memo., 	C--819, 	bar 	code 	3578880-01 	´ ,'0μ ; 	[Rebar] 	from
[Turkey], 83 Fed. Reg. 16,051 	'HS·WRI&RPPHUFHApril 13, 2018) 	final results and
partial 	UHVFLVVLRQ RI >&9'@ DGPLQ UHYLHZ   	´2015 	Final 	Results”) 	and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memo., C--819, bar code 3692588-01 	´
IDM”); [Rebar] from [Turkey])HG5HJ, 'HS·WRI&RPPHUFH-XO\)
final results and partiaO UHVFLVVLRQ RI >&9'@ DGPLQ UHYLHZ   ´2016 Final
Results”) 	and 	accompanying 	Issues 	and 	Decision 	Memo., 	C--819, 	bar 	code
3866067-01 ´6 IDM”); see also Final Results.
In two of three prior administrative reviews, Commerce selected dRODNRùOX as
a mandatory respondent, but did not select it as a mandatory respondent in the fourth
administrative review. See )LQDO5HVXOWV, 82 Fed. Reg. at 26, dRODNRùOXQRW
selected as mandatory respondent); 2015 Final Results, 83 Fed. Reg. at 16,051–52
dRODNRùOXVHOHFWHGDVPDQGDWRU\UHVSRQGHQW ; 2016 Final Results, 8 Fed. Reg. at
36,051 	dRODNRùOX VHOHFWHG DV PDQGDWRU\ UHVSRQGHQW  Memo. from C. Monks to E.
<DQJUH>5HEDU@IURP>7XUNH\@5HVSRQGHQW6HOHFWLRQLQ>&9'@$GPLQ5HYLHZIRU
2017, 1–3, PD2&'EDUFRGHV-01, 3830691-01 0D\  ´5HVSRQGHQW
Selection Memo”). ,QERWKWKHDQGDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZVRIRebar from
TurkeydRODNRùOXUHFHLYHGGHPLQLPLVUDWHVSee )LQDO5HVXOWV, 82 Fed. Reg.
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 4 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 5
at 26,908; 2015 Final Results, 83 Fed. Reg. at 16,051–53. ,QWKHDGPLQVLWUDWLYH
review, Commerce assigned all non-selected respondents de minimis rates because
all mandatory respondents received de minimis rates. 	)LQDO5HVXOWV, 82 Fed.
Reg. at 26,908–09. 	In the 2015 administrative review, Commerce determined that
dRODNRùOX purchased 	natural 	gas 	from 	Born 	Hatlan 	Ile 	Petrol 	Tasima 	A.S.
´%27$6μ  D VWDWH-run company through which the Turkish government provides
subsidies to Turkish companies by selling natural gas for less than adequate
UHPXQHUDWLRQ ´/7$5μ . 2015 Final Results; 2015 IDM at 5; see also Final Decision
Memo at 13, 35. However, Commerce determined that dRODNRùOXSDLGPDUNHWUDWHV
and thus was not subject to countervailing duties. 2015 Final Results; 2015 IDM at
5, 15. 	,Q WKH  DGPLQLVWUDWLYH UHYLHZ &RPPHUFH DJDLQ IRXQG WKDW dRODNRùOX
SXUFKDVHGQDWXUDOJDVIURP%27$6EXWDOVRGHWHUPLQHGWKDWdRODNRùOXSXUFKDVHG
the gas for LTAR. 2016 Final Results; 2016 IDM at 8. Therefore, Commerce assigned
dRODNRùOXD&9'UDWHIRUWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZ2016 Final Results,
)HG5HJat 36,052.
dRODNRùOX QRZ EULQJV WKLV FKDOOHQJH WR WKH Final Results of the fourth
administrative review of Rebar from Turkey, which covers the period of January 1,
WKURXJK'HFHPEHU WKH´325μ . Pl. Br. at 1; see also Final Results, 85
)HG5HJDW,353. dRODNRùOX, which was not selected as a mandatory respondent,
VSHFLILFDOO\FKDOOHQJHV&RPPHUFH·VGHFLVLRQWRDVVLJQWRdRODNRùOXDVXEVLG\
rate when both examined respondents received de minimis rates. Pl. Br. at 3––
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 5 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 6
9; Final Results, 85 Fed Reg. at ,355. 	&RPPHUFH FDOFXODWHG dRODNRùOX·V rate by
SXOOLQJIRUZDUGdRODNRùOX·VUDWHIURPWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZ)LQDO'HFLVLRQ
0HPR DW   +RZHYHU dRODNRùOX DUJXHV WKDW the statutory scheme precludes
&RPPHUFHIURPSXOOLQJIRUZDUGdRODNRùOX·VSULRUUDWHDQG that there is no record
evideQFH WR VXSSRUW WKH  UDWH EHFDXVH dRODNRùOX ZDV QRW VHOHFWHG DV D
mandatory 	respondent 	and 	thus 	the 	record 	is 	devoid of 	any 	company-specific
LQIRUPDWLRQWRVXSSRUWdRODNRùOX·VUDWH. 	Pl. Br. at 8–10; Reply Br. at 6–7. 	For the
following reasons, CommerFH·V GHFLVLRQ WR DVVLJQ dRODNRùOX D  &9' UDWH LV
sustained.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930,
DVDPHQGHG86&†D D 	 	% 	LLL  8), 2 and 28 U.S.C. §  F  8),
which grant the court authority to review actions contesting the final determination
in an administrative review of a &9' order. The court will uphold Commerce’s
GHWHUPLQDWLRQ XQOHVV LW LV ´XQVXSSRUWHG E\ VXEVWDQWLDO HYLGHQFH RQ WKH UHFRUG or
RWKHUZLVHQRWLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKODZμ86&†D E 	 	% 	L 
DISCUSSION
7KHUH DUH WZR LVVXHV EHIRUH WKH FRXUW  )LUVW dRODNRùOX FRQWHQGV WKDW
Commerce acted contrary to ODZE\DVVLJQLQJdRODNRùOXD&9'UDWHEHFDXVH
2 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant
provisions of Title 19 of the U.S. Code, 2018 edition.
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 6 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 7
Commerce was obligated to calculate its rate pursuant to the so-FDOOHG ´H[SHFWHG
method” 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	Uruguay 	Round 	Agreements 	Act, 	Statement 	of
Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-YRO,DW  UHSULQWHGLQ
86&&$1 ´6$$μ . 	See PO%UDW6HFRQGdRODNRùOXDVVHUWVWKDW
even if Commerce did not err as a matter of law, the &9'UDWHLVQRWVXSSRUWHG
by substantial evidence on the record. Id. at 9. Defendant and RTAC each argue that
dRODNRùOXPLVLQWHUSUHWVWKHUHOHYDQWODZ, that the expected method is only presumed
LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI DQWLGXPSLQJ GXW\ ´$''μ  LQYHVWLJDWLRQV and that the statute
empowers &RPPHUFH WR XVH DQ\ UHDVRQDEOH PHWKRG WR FDOFXODWH dRODNRùOX·V UDWH
Def. Br. at 6–12; RTAC Br. at 7–11. 	Defendant and RTAC further argue that
Commerce reasonably chose not to use the ADD expected method in calculating
dRODNRùOX·V UDWH EHFDXVH WKH PDQGDWRU\ UHVSRQGHQWV· UDWHV ZHUH QRW UHDVRQDEO\
UHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIdRODNRùOX’s experience LQOLJKWRIdRODNRùOX·VKLVWRU\RISXUFhasing
gas from BOTAS for LTAR. Def. Br. at 11; RTAC Br. at 11. Finally, Defendant and
57$&DUJXHWKDW&RPPHUFH·VUDWHIRUdRODNRùOXLVVXSSRUWHGE\VXEVWDQWLDOHYLGHQFH
because it is based on the 2016 Final Results. Def. Br. at 12–13; RTAC Br. at 11–13.
I. 	Commerce’s Methodology
,QD&9'DGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZ&RPPHUFHJHQHUDOO\FDOFXODWHVWKHUDWHIRU
companies that are not individually examined by calculaWLQJWKH´ZHLJKWHGDYHUDJH
countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually
investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates, and
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 7 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 8
any 	rates 	entirely 	determined 	[using 	facts 	otherwise 	available].” 	19 	U.S.C.
§ 1671d F 	 	$ 	L +RZHYHUZhen all mandatory respondents in an administrative
UHYLHZ RI D &9' RUGHU DUH DVVLJQHG GH PLQLPLV UDWHV &RPPHUFH ´PD\ XVH DQ\
reasonable method to establish [rates] for exporters and producers not individually
investigated, including averaging the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates
determined 	for 	the 	exporters 	and 	producers 	individually 	investigated.” 	Id.
§ G F 	 	$ 	LL  	The SAA reiterates that ´>Z@KHUH WKH FRXQWHUYDLODEOH VXEVLG\
rates for all exporters and producers examined are zero or de minimis . . . [19 U.S.C.
†G F 	 	$ 	LL @DXWKRUL]HV&RPPHUFHWRXVHDQ\UHDVRQDEOHPHWKRGμWRFDOFXODWH
rates for non-examined companies. 3 6$$DW
Despite the apparently broad discretion the statute grants to Commerce in
calculating non-examined companies’ rates when all examined respondents are
DVVLJQHG GH PLQLPLV UDWHV DV LV WKH FDVH KHUH dRODNRùOX SRLQWV WR WKH VLPLODU
provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 which cover antidumping investigations to argue
that Congress also imposed a reqXLUHPHQWWKDW&RPPHUFHXVHDQ´H[SHFWHGPHWKRGμ
in such situations LQ&9'LQYHVWLJDWLRQVDQGUHYLHZV. 	See Pl. Br. at 6–7 	FLWLQJ
86& † G F 	 	A) and SAA at 873); see also Reply Br. at 3–5. 	Although
3 7KH 6$$ ´VKDOO EH UHJDUGHG DV DQ DXWKRULWDWLYH H[SUHVVLRQ E\ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV
concerning the interpretation and application of the Uruguay Round Agreements and
this Act in any judicial proceeding in which a question arises concerning such
interpretation RUDSSOLFDWLRQμ86&† G 
 dRODNRùOXFLWHV86&†G F 	 	$ EXWWKHUHOHYDQWVXEVHFWLRQLV86&
†G F 	 	% 
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 8 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 9
dRODNRùOX is correct that the sections of the Tariff Act of 1930 applicable to
Commerce’s calculations of non-VHOHFWHGUHVSRQGHQWV·$''DQG&9'UDWHVZKHQDOO
mandatory 	respondents 	receive 	de 	minimis 	rates 	are 	nearly 	identical, 	the
corresponding explanations of those sections in the SAA are not. Compare 19 U.S.C.
† G F 	 	$ 	LL  &9'V  with id. † G F 	 	%  $''V  compare 6$$ DW 
&9'V with id. DW $''V 
Both sections of the U.S. Code state that when all mandatory respondents
receive de minimis UDWHV &RPPHUFH ´PD\ XVH DQ\ UHDVRQDEOH PHWKRG WR HVWDEOLVK
the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually examined,
LQFOXGLQJ 	DYHUDJLQJ 	WKH 	HVWLPDWHG 	ZHLJKWHG 	DYHUDJH 	>&9'$''@ 	PDUJLQV
determined 	for 	the 	exporters 	and 	producers 	individually 	examined.” 	Id.
†† G F 	 	$ 	LL  DQG G F 	 	%  	However, the SAA provides that, in the
antidumping context, when all mandatory respondents receive a de minimis rate,
[t]he expected method [for calculating an all-others rate] will be to
weight-average 	the 	zero 	and 	de 	minimis 	margins 	and 	margins
determined pursuant to the facts available, provided that volume data
is available. 	However, if this [expected] method is not feasible, or if it
results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential
dumping 	margins 	for 	non-investigated 	exporters 	or 	producers,
Commerce may use other reasonable methods.
SAA at 873. Although the SAA does not contain any similar language regarding an
expected method for calculating all otKHUV UDWHV LQ WKH &9' FRQWH[W dRODNRùOX
nonetheless 	contends 	that 	because 	the 	sections 	of 	the 	U.S. 	Code 	governing
Commerce’s role in calculating an all-others rate when all mandatory respondents
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 9 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 10
receive de minimis rates are so similar, the court should read into the SAA’s section
on all-RWKHUV&9'UDWHVWKHVDPHH[SHFWHGPHWKRGLQFOXGHGLQWKH$''FRQWH[W3O
Br. at 6–7; Reply Br. at 3–5.
&RQWUDU\WRdRODNRùOX·VDUJXPHQWWKDWWKH6$$FRQWDLQVDQH[SHFWHGPHWKRG
in the ADD context and not in WKH &9' FRQWH[W GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW WKHUH LV QR
H[SHFWHGPHWKRGLQWKH&9'FRQWH[W&RQJUHVVFRXOGKDYHHDVLO\LQFOXGHGWKHVDPH
language in both sections or even combined the sections into one if it had intended to
place the exact same restrictions on Commerce in both contexts. 	Instead, Congress
chose to elucidate an expected method of calculating an all-others rate when all
mandatory respondents receive de minimis rates only in the ADD context. Compare
SAA at 873 with id. DW:KHUH&Rngress chooses to include certain language in
one section of a statute and not in another similar section, courts must interpret that
choice as intentionally excluding the wording where it is absent. 	See, e.g., I.N.S. v.
Cardoza-Fonseca  86    . 	Although the relevant sections of the
U.S. Code are quite similar, the SAA is the authoritative interpretation of those
sections of Code, and there is an explicit difference in the SAA’s description of how
Commerce may calculate all-RWKHUVUDWHVLQWKH&9'FRQWext as opposed to the ADD
context. 	Compare  86& † G F 	 	$ 	LL  &9'V  with id. † G F 	 	% 
$''V compare 6$$DW &9'V with id. DW $''V  Even though the SAA
is not a statute, it is reasonable to interpret the explicit difference between the ADD
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 10 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 11
DQG&9'VHFWLRQVRIWKH6$$LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHWUDGLWLRQDOFDQRQRIstatutory
construction that the difference is intentional. Cardoza-Fonseca86DW
Such 	an 	interpretation 	reflects 	the 	GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ $'' DQG &9'
investigations. As Commerce explains, as opposed to an ADD investigation in which
&RPPHUFH DQDO\]HV FRPSDQLHV· ´SULFLQJ EHKDYLRUμ 	LQ D &9' LQYHVWLJDWLRQ,
´&RPPHUFH·V FRQFHUQ LV ZLWK JRYHUQPHQW VXEVLGL]DWLRQ DQG WKH H[WHQW to which
different companies may use or benefit from subsidy programs.” 	Final Decision
0HPRDW7KXV&9'UDWHVGHSHQGRQLQGLYLGXDOFRPSDQLHV’ use of specific subsidy
programs. 	In the ADD context, on the other hand, Commerce must assess pricing
behavior based on a comparison between U.S. prices and the respondent’s home
country prices. Id.; see also 86&†E D 7KHGLIIHUHQWLQTXLULHV&RPPHUFH
PXVWPDNHLQWKH$''DQG&9'FRQWH[WVVXSSRUW&RPPHUFH·VLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRIWKH
SAA’s differing explanations for how to calculate rates for non-selected respondents.
dRODNRùOXDUJXHs that the relevant provisions of the U.S. Code and the SAA
are ambiguous. Pl. Br. at 5–8. However, even if that were true, unless Commerce’s
interpretation of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the SAA is unreasonable, the court will
defer to Commerce. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Def. Council
86  –   	To the extent any ambiguity exists as a result of the
differing explanations in the SAA, Commerce’s interpretation of Congress’ decision
not to include the requirement to first consider using the ADD expected method in
WKH&9'SURYLVLRQWRPHDQWKDW&RPPHUFHZDVQRWUHTXLUHGWRXVHWKHADD expected
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 11 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 12
method is reasonable. 	That Congress wrote the two sections differently is reason
enough to interpret the sections as imposing different requirements on Commerce.
7KHGLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQ$''DQG&9'LQYHVWLJDWLRQVfurther support Commerce’s
interpretation. 	Moreover, Congress provided in both the Tariff Act of 1930 and the
SAA that Commerce may ´XVHDQ\UHDVRQDEOHPHWKRGμLQWKH&9'FRQWH[WZLWKRXW
any reference to a specific method. 	See 19 U.S.C. § G F 	 	$ 	LL  6$$ DW
Thus, absent a specific indication to the contrary, as there is in the ADD context, it
is reasonable to conclude that Commerce is not bound to use any particular
PHWKRGRORJ\LQWKH&9'FRQWH[WRQO\WKDWWKHFKRVHQPHWKRGRORJ\EHUHDVRQDEOH
Neither of the cases that dRODNRùOX FLWHV FKDQJH WKLV DQDO\VLV EHFDXVH each
FDVHdRODNRùOXFLWHVLQVXSSRUWRIUHVWULFWLQJ&RPPHUFHWRWKH ADD expected method
LQWKH&9'FRQWH[Wrelates to $''VQRW&9'VSee Albemarle Corp. v. United States,
)G )HG&LU Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States
)G )HG&LU dRODNRùOXKDVQRWLGHQWLILHGDQ\FDVHZKHUH&RPPHUFH
has been required to follow the ADD H[SHFWHGPHWKRGLQWKH&9'FRQWH[W7KHUHIRUH
Commerce’s interpretation that it is not obligated to use or consider using the ADD
expected method LQWKH&9'FRQWH[WLVUHDVRQDEOH.
Furthermore, that Commerce used the ADD expected method in the )LQDO
Results does not require Commerce to do so now. 	See Final Decision Memo at 31.
Commerce’s reliance here on the 2016 Final Results for a rate renders it reasonably
GLVFHUQLEOHWKDW&RPPHUFHGLVWLQJXLVKHGLWVFKRLFHLQWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZ
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 12 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 13
EHFDXVHLQWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZWKHUHZDVQRSUHYLRXVO\FDOFXODWHGQRQ-de
PLQLPLVUDWHIURPdRODNRùOXWRSXOOIRUZDUGCompare )LQDO5HVXOWV, 82 Fed.
Reg. at 26,908–09, with Rebar from Turkey)HG5HJDW–7REHVXUH
the ADD expected method may be a reasonable way to calculate an all-others rate, as
it was for the )LQDO5HVXOWV. But the reasonableness of Commerce’s methodology
LQWKHUHYLHZGRHVQRWUHQGHULWVPHWKRGRORJ\XQUHDVRQDEOHin this review, nor
does it constrain Commerce where Commerce encounters a new context supporting a
different approach. See 86&†G F 	 	$ 	LL 6$$DW
Moreover, even if the statute obligated Commerce to consider using the ADD
expected method for calculation of all-others rates in the &9' context, Commerce
VXIILFLHQWO\ H[SODLQHG WKDW FDOFXODWLQJ dRODNRùOX·V UDWH XVLQJ WKH ADD expected
method of averaging the mandatory respondents’ de minimis rates would not be
UHDVRQDEO\UHIOHFWLYHRIdRODNRùOX·VDFWXDO&9'UDWH)LQDO 'HFLVLRQ0HPRDW–35.
Commerce found that neither mandatory respondent purchased natural gas for
LTAR from the BOTAS program during the POR or in the prior review. Id. Yet there
is no dispute that the BOTAS program to sell natural gas for LTAR still exists. See
id. DWdRODNRùOXGLGQRWSURYLGHDQ\HYLGHQFHWKDWLWQRORQJHUSXUFKDVHVQDWXUDO
gas from BOTAS for LTAR. 	Id. DW–35; see 49')RRG&RY8QLWHG6WDWHV, 658
)G )HG&LU 	LWLVWKHSDUWLHV·REOLJDWLRQWRGHYHORSWKe record, not
&RPPHUFH·V %HFDXVH&9'UDWHVGHSHQGXSRQWKHVSHFLILFVXEVLG\SURJUDPVXVHG
and dRODNRùOXKDGDKLVWRU\RISXUFKDVLQJQDWXUDOJDVIURP%27$6GXULQJWKHWZR
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 13 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 
prior reviews, both for market rates and for LTAR, Commerce concluded that the
mandDWRU\UHVSRQGHQWV·UDWHVZRXOGQRWUHDVRQDEO\UHIOHFWdRODNRùOX·VUDWHFinal
'HFLVLRQ0HPRDW–35. 	Thus, even if Commerce was obligated to consider using
the ADD expected method, it adequately explained why using the ADD expected
method was not UHDVRQDEO\ UHIOHFWLYH RI dRODNRùOX·V UDWHin this case. 	See SAA at
873.
Not being bound to use the ADD expected method and, in any case, having
sufficiently explained why the ADD expected method would not lead to a rate
UHDVRQDEO\UHIOHFWLYHRIdRODNRùOX·s actual rate, Commerce was entitled to use any
UHDVRQDEOHPHWKRGWRFDOFXODWHdRODNRùOX·VUDWH86&†1671d F 	 	$ 	LL 6$$
DW   &RPPHUFH H[SODLQHG WKDW LW GHWHUPLQHG WKDW ´D UHDVRQDEOH PHWKRGμ WR
calculate all-RWKHUV UDWHV LQ WKH &9' FRQWH[W where all mandatory respondents
UHFHLYHGHPLQLPLVUDWHV´LVWRDVVLJQWRWKHQRQ-selected respondents the average of
the most recently determined rates that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely
on facts available.” 5 )LQDO'HFLVLRQ0HPRDWComPHUFHIXUWKHUH[SODLQHGWKDW´LI
a non-selected respondent has its own calculated rate that is contemporaneous with
or more recent than such previous rates, Commerce has found it appropriate to apply
that calculated rate to the non-selected respondent, even when that rate is zero or de
minimis.” Id.
5 Commerce calculated the rates for the other non-selected respondents in this review
by averaging the non-de minimis rates calculated during the 2016 review. 	The all-
RWKHUVUDWHIRUWKRVHFRPSDQLHVLVId. DW
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 14 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 15
Given 	that 	Commerce 	will 	generally 	not 	have 	any 	company-specific
information about non-selected respondents and the broad statutory authority to use
´DQ\UHDVRQDEOHPHWKRGμWRFDOFXODWHUDWHVZKHQWKHPDQGDWRry respondents received
de minimis rates, the court concludes that Commerce’s chosen method is reasonable.
Only mandatory respondents are required to respond to Commerce’s requests for
information. 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1677f- H &)5† F  	Therefore, unless
non-selected 	respondents 	voluntarily 	supply 	information 	to 	Commerce, 	which
Commerce can either accept or decline, the only information on the record would be
the information that led Commerce to assign de minimis rates to the mandatory
respondents. See id. § 1677f- H 19 C.F.R. §  G . Thus, by specifically carving
out an exception to the general rule that Commerce should calculate all-others rates
by using a weighted average of the mandatory respondents’ rates for situations such
as this when all mandatory respondents receive de minimis rates, see 19 U.S.C.
†G F 	 	$ 	L – LL Congress contemplated Commerce pulling forward previously
determined rates. 	In light of this record, it is reasonable for Commerce to use the
most recent company-VSHFLILF LQIRUPDWLRQ WR FDOFXODWH dRODNRùOX·V UDWH  See Final
'HFLVLRQ0HPRDW–35.
II. 	Evidence Supporting Commerce’s Rate
dRODNRùOXDUJXHVWKDWHYHQLI&RPPHUFH·VPHWKRGLQFDOFXODWLQJdRODNRùOX·V
rate was reasonable, the record does not VXSSRUWD&9'UDWHIRUWKLV325 Pl.
Br. at 8–10. Defendant and RTAC assert that any lack of record evidence stems from
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 15 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 16
dRODNRùOX·V IDLOXUH WR VHHN YROXQWDU\ UHVSRQGHQW VWDWXV RU RWKHUZLVH attempt to
populate the record. 	Def. Br. at 13; RTAC Br. at 12. 	In any case, Defendant and
RTAC contend that Commerce need not have relied on any evidence other than the
2016 Final Results EHFDXVHWKHUHZDVQRHYLGHQFHLQGLFDWLQJWKDWdRODNRùOX no longer
purchased natural gas from BOTAS for LTAR. Def. Br. at 13; RTAC Br. at 12. For
WKHIROORZLQJUHDVRQV&RPPHUFH·VGHFLVLRQWRDVVLJQdRODNRùOXD&9'UDWHLV
supported by substantial evidence.
&RPPHUFHGHWHUPLQHGWKDWdRODNRùOXXWLOL]HGDsubsidy program provided by
the Turkish government by purchasing natural gas from BOTAS in both 2015 and
2016. 	See 2015 IDM at 5, 10; 2016 IDM at 8, 16. 	Commerce explained that in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, Commerce will assume that a company continues
to avail itself of subsidy programs that it has been found to have previously used.
Final Decision Memo at +HUHdRODNRùOXRIIHUHGQRHYLGHQFHWKDWLWGLVFRQWLQXHG
its use of the BOTAS subsidy program, or that it continued to purchase natural gas
from BOTAS but for adequate remuneration. See id. at –35dRODNRùOXGRHVQRW
dispute that it failed to offer any evidence to contradict Commerce’s rate. 	Pl. Br. at
9. 	,QVWHDGdRODNRùOX claims that it was not obligated to place any information on
the record and that in the absence of any company-specific information Commerce
was prohibited from looking to past reviews and instead was obligated to use the
H[SHFWHG PHWKRG ZKLFK dRODNRùOX asserts is the only reasonable method in the
absence of record evidence. 	Id. at 9–10; Oral Argument, 18:10, October 7, 2021, see
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 16 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 17
(&)1R ´2UDO$UJμ . This argument simply re-packages dRODNRùOX·VDUJXPHQW
that Commerce’s method was contrary to law and is therefore rejected for the same
reasons.
Moreover, the obligation to populate the record is the parties’, not Commerce’s.
49' )RRG &R  )G DW   dRODNRùOX FRQFHGHG DV PXFK DW RUDO DUJXPHQW
Oral Arg. at 21:0. 	1RQHWKHOHVVdRODNRùOXadmits that it did not even attempt to
place any relevant information on the record. Oral Arg. at 16:. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the availability of voluntarily submitted
information of non-selected respondents cautions against pulling forward a rate from
a prior review in lieu of adopting the de minimis rate of the examined respondents.
See Albemarle, 821 F.3d at 135 GUDZLQJDGLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQDQRQ-cooperating
party and a party that volunteered for investigation and tried to submit data but was
rejected in both instances by Commerce); Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United
States)G– )HG&LU  ILQGLQJWKDW´HIIRUWVLQYROXQWHHULQJIRU
investigation [and providing extensive information aimed at enabling such review]
offer some reason to think that for those firms, unlike for non-volunteer firms, there
is no more need for continuing coverage than there is for individually investigated
firms” with de minimis rates). 	The court need not opine on whether Commerce’s
determination would be reasonable had Commerce rejected voluntarily submitted
evidence of a de minimis or lower rate. 	Although Commerce would not have been
required to accept or review any such information, WKH IDFW WKDW dRODNRùOX GLG QRW
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 17 of 18

Court No. 20-00153 	Page 18
offer any leaves it unable to contest &RPPHUFH·VFRQFOXVLRQWKDWdRODNRùOXFRQWLQXHV
to purchase natural gas from BOTAS for LTAR. Although Commerce may not justify
´WKHDEVHQFHRIHYLGHQFHE\LQYRNLQJSURFHGXUDOGLIILFXOWLHVWKDWZHUHDWOHDVWLQSDUW
a creature of its own making,” Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. United States,
 )G   )HG &LU   WKH DEVHQFH RI HYLGHQFH ZDV entirely due to
dRODNRùOX·VIDLOXUHWRSURYLGHDQ\GDWD
In light of the record in this case that Commerce determined that BOTAS
FRQWLQXHGWRVXSSO\QDWXUDOJDVIRU/7$5GXULQJWKH325dRODNRùOX was found to
have utilized that subsidy program in each of the prior two periods of review, and
dRODNRùOXIDLOHGWRPDNHDQ\DWWHPSWWRSODFHDQ\FRQWUDGLFWRU\LQIRUPDWLRQRQWKH
record, Commerce’s decision to pull forward dRODNRùOX·V prior rate is supported by
substantial evidence.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasonsdRODNRùOX·VPRWLRQIRUMXGJPHQWXSRQWKHDJHQF\
record is denied, and Commerce’s Final Results are sustained. 	Judgment for
defendant will enter accordingly.
VClaire R. Kelly
Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Dated: 	December 2, 2021
New York, New York
Case 1:20-cv-00153-CRK Document 35 Filed 12/02/21 Page 18 of 18