Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. v. United States

SlipȱOp.ȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ170ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ
PRODUCTOSȱLAMINADOSȱDEȱ
MONTERREYȱS.A.ȱDEȱC.V.,ȱ
Plaintiff,ȱ
v.ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ
Defendant,ȱ
andȱ
NUCORȱTUBULARȱPRODUCTSȱINC.ȱ
andȱATLASȱTUBEȱANDȱSEARINGȱ
INDUSTRIES,ȱ
DefendantȬIntervenors.ȱ
Before:ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ
OPINIONȱANDȱORDERȱ
[Remandingȱforȱreconsiderationȱanȱagencyȱdecisionȱconcludingȱanȱ
administrativeȱreviewȱofȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorder.]ȱ
Dated:ȱȱDecemberȱ17,ȱ2021ȱ
DavidȱE.ȱBond,ȱWhiteȱandȱCaseȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱplaintiffsȱProductosȱ
LaminadosȱdeȱMonterreyȱS.A.ȱdeȱC.V.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwasȱAllisonȱJ.G.ȱKepkay.ȱ
KaraȱM.ȱWestercamp,ȱTrialȱAttorney,ȱCommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱCivilȱ
Division,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendantȱtheȱUnitedȱ
StatesȱofȱAmerica.ȱȱWithȱherȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwereȱBrianȱM.ȱBoynton,ȱActingȱAssistantȱ
AttorneyȱGeneral,ȱJeanneȱE.ȱDavidson,ȱDirector,ȱandȱClaudiaȱBurke,ȱAssistanceȱDirector.ȱȱ
OfȱcounselȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwasȱAyatȱMujais,ȱAttorney,ȱOfficeȱofȱtheȱChiefȱCounselȱforȱTradeȱ
Enforcementȱ&ȱCompliance,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱCommerce.ȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ2ȱ
ȱ
AlanȱH.ȱPrice,ȱWileyȱReinȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendantȬintervenorȱ
NucorȱTubulorȱProductsȱInc.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwereȱRobertȱE.ȱDeFrancesco,ȱIIIȱandȱ
JakeȱR.ȱFrischknecht.ȱ
ȱ
ChristopherȱT.ȱCloutier,ȱSchagrinȱAssociates,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendantȬ
intervenorsȱAtlasȱTubeȱandȱSearingȱIndustries.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwereȱRogerȱB.ȱ
Schagrin,ȱLukeȱA.ȱMeisner,ȱandȱKelseyȱM.ȱRule.ȱ
ȱ
Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱȱInȱthisȱactionȱbroughtȱunderȱSectionȱ516AȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱofȱ
1930,ȱasȱamendedȱ(theȱ“TariffȱAct”),ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1516a, 1ȱplaintiffȱProductosȱLaminadosȱdeȱ
MonterreyȱS.A.ȱdeȱC.V.ȱ(“Prolamsa”)ȱcontestsȱaȱfinalȱdeterminationȱofȱtheȱInternationalȱ
TradeȱAdministration,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱCommerceȱ(“Commerce”ȱorȱtheȱ
“Department”)ȱthatȱconcludedȱtheȱsecondȱadministrativeȱreviewȱofȱanȱantidumpingȱ
dutyȱorderȱonȱcertainȱheavyȱwalledȱrectangularȱcarbonȱweldedȱsteelȱpipesȱandȱtubesȱ
fromȱMexicoȱ(“HWR,”ȱ“HWRT,”ȱorȱtheȱ“subjectȱmerchandise”).ȱ
BeforeȱtheȱcourtȱisȱProlamsa’sȱmotionȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱagencyȱrecord,ȱ
broughtȱunderȱUSCITȱRuleȱ56.2,ȱinȱwhichȱitȱclaimsȱthatȱCommerceȱerredȱinȱdenyingȱitsȱ
requestȱforȱaȱlevelȬofȬtradeȱadjustmentȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱthatȱitȱsoldȱinȱ
itsȱhomeȱmarketȱofȱMexico.ȱȱOpposingȱtheȱmotionȱareȱdefendantȱUnitedȱStatesȱandȱ
defendantȬintervenorsȱNucorȱTubularȱProductsȱInc.ȱ(“Nucor”)ȱandȱAtlasȱTubeȱandȱ
SearingȱIndustries.ȱȱRulingȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱtoȱdenyȱProlamsa’sȱrequestȱ
forȱaȱlevelȬofȬtradeȱadjustmentȱinȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱreliedȱuponȱaȱfactualȱfindingȱthatȱisȱ
ȱ
1ȱAllȱcitationsȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱCodeȱhereinȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2018ȱeditionȱandȱallȱ
citationsȱtoȱtheȱCodeȱofȱFederalȱRegulationsȱhereinȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2020ȱedition.ȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ3ȱ
ȱ
notȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecordȱofȱtheȱadministrativeȱreviewȱandȱaȱ
secondȱfindingȱthatȱisȱvagueȱandȱconclusory,ȱtheȱcourtȱgrantsȱplaintiff’sȱmotionȱandȱ
remandsȱtheȱcontestedȱdecisionȱtoȱCommerceȱforȱreconsideration.ȱ
I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ
A.ȱȱTheȱContestedȱAgencyȱDeterminationȱ
Theȱcontestedȱadministrativeȱdeterminationȱ(theȱ“FinalȱResults”)ȱwasȱpublishedȱ
asȱHeavyȱWalledȱRectangularȱWeldedȱCarbonȱSteelȱPipesȱandȱTubesȱFromȱMexico:ȱFinalȱ
ResultsȱofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReviewȱandȱFinalȱDeterminationȱofȱNoȱ
Shipments;ȱ2017–2018,ȱ85ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ41,962ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱJulyȱ13,ȱ2020)ȱ
(“FinalȱResults”).ȱȱTheȱFinalȱResultsȱincorporateȱbyȱreferenceȱaȱ“FinalȱIssuesȱandȱ
DecisionȱMemorandum”ȱcontainingȱexplanatoryȱdiscussion.ȱȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱ
MemorandumȱforȱtheȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview:ȱHeavyȱWalledȱRectangularȱ
WeldedȱCarbonȱSteelȱPipesȱandȱTubesȱfromȱMexico;ȱ2017Ȭ2018ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱJulyȱ6,ȱ
2020)ȱ(P.R.ȱ173,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ530)ȱ(“FinalȱI&DȱMem.”).2ȱ
ȱ
2ȱTheȱinformationȱdisclosedȱinȱthisȱOpinionȱandȱOrderȱisȱincludedȱinȱpublicȱ
versionsȱofȱrecordȱdocuments,ȱpublicȱversionsȱofȱtheȱparties’ȱsubmissions,ȱandȱotherȱ
informationȱsubsequentlyȱmadeȱpublicȱinȱissuancesȱbyȱCommerce.ȱȱAllȱcitationsȱtoȱ
recordȱdocumentsȱareȱtoȱtheȱpublicȱversionsȱofȱthoseȱdocuments.ȱȱAllȱcitationsȱtoȱ
“J.ȱApp.”ȱareȱtoȱtheȱpublicȱversionȱofȱtheȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Juneȱ25,ȱ2021),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ47Ȭ1ȱ
(public).ȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ4ȱ
ȱ
B.ȱȱTheȱPartiesȱ
PlaintiffȱisȱaȱMexicanȱproducerȱandȱexporterȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱthatȱ
participatedȱinȱtheȱDepartment’sȱsecondȱadministrativeȱreview.ȱȱCompl.ȱ¶ȱ3ȱ(Sept.ȱ28,ȱ
2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ12.ȱȱDefendantȱisȱtheȱUnitedȱStates.ȱȱDefendantȬintervenorsȱNucorȱandȱ
AtlasȱTubeȱandȱSearingȱIndustriesȱareȱdomesticȱproducersȱofȱHWRȱpipesȱandȱtubes.ȱȱ
ConsentȱMot.ȱtoȱInterveneȱasȱaȱMatterȱofȱRightȱ2ȱ(Oct.ȱ7,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ13;ȱConsentȱ
Mot.ȱtoȱInterveneȱasȱDef.ȬIntervenorȱ1–2ȱ(Oct.ȱ23,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ18.ȱ
C.ȱȱProceedingsȱBeforeȱCommerceȱ
Commerceȱissuedȱtheȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorderȱ(theȱ“Order”)ȱinȱ2016.ȱȱHeavyȱ
WalledȱRectangularȱWeldedȱCarbonȱSteelȱPipesȱandȱTubesȱFromȱtheȱRepublicȱofȱKorea,ȱMexico,ȱ
andȱtheȱRepublicȱofȱTurkey:ȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱOrders,ȱ81ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ62,865ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ
Admin.ȱSept.ȱ13,ȱ2016)ȱ(“Order”).ȱȱInȱtheȱOrder,ȱCommerceȱdescribedȱtheȱsubjectȱ
merchandiseȱasȱ“certainȱheavyȱwalledȱrectangularȱweldedȱsteelȱpipesȱandȱtubesȱofȱ
rectangularȱ(includingȱsquare)ȱcrossȱsection,ȱhavingȱaȱnominalȱwallȱthicknessȱofȱnotȱlessȱ
thanȱ4ȱmm.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ62,865.ȱȱTheseȱproducts,ȱwhichȱtypicallyȱareȱsuppliedȱinȱlengths,ȱ
commonlyȱfromȱ20ȱtoȱ42ȱfeet,ȱtoȱmanufacturersȱwhoȱfurtherȱprocessȱthem,ȱ“areȱusedȱinȱ
constructionȱforȱsupportȱandȱforȱloadȬbearingȱpurposes,ȱasȱwellȱasȱinȱtransportation,ȱ
farm,ȱandȱmaterialȱhandlingȱequipment.”ȱȱHeavyȱWalledȱRectangularȱWeldedȱCarbonȱSteelȱ
PipesȱandȱTubesȱfromȱKorea,ȱMexico,ȱandȱTurkey,ȱInv.ȱNos.ȱ701ȬTAȬ539,ȱ731ȬTAȬ1280Ȭ1282,ȱ
USITCȱPub.ȱ4633,ȱatȱIȬ12ȱ(Sept.ȱ2016)ȱ(Final).ȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 4 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ5ȱ
ȱ
OnȱNovemberȱ15,ȱ2018,ȱCommerceȱinitiatedȱtheȱsecondȱadministrativeȱreviewȱofȱ
theȱOrder,ȱwhichȱcoveredȱentriesȱmadeȱduringȱtheȱperiodȱofȱSeptemberȱ1,ȱ2017ȱtoȱ
Augustȱ31,ȱ2018ȱ(theȱ“periodȱofȱreview”ȱorȱ“POR”).ȱȱInitiationȱofȱAntidumpingȱandȱ
CountervailingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReviews,ȱ83ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ57,411,ȱ57,413ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ
Admin.).ȱȱCommerceȱchoseȱProlamsaȱandȱaȱsecondȱexporter/producer,ȱMaquilaceroȱS.A.ȱ
deȱC.V.,ȱasȱ“mandatory”ȱrespondents,ȱi.e.,ȱrespondentsȱforȱwhichȱCommerceȱintendedȱ
toȱconductȱanȱindividualȱexaminationȱofȱsalesȱandȱdetermineȱindividualȱdumpingȱ
margins,ȱforȱtheȱreview.ȱȱHeavyȱWalledȱRectangularȱWeldedȱCarbonȱSteelȱPipesȱandȱTubesȱ
fromȱMexico;ȱSelectionȱofȱRespondentsȱforȱIndividualȱReviewȱ(Feb.ȱ7,ȱ2019)ȱ(P.R.ȱ21,ȱatȱ1,ȱ
J.ȱApp.ȱatȱ16).ȱ
CommerceȱpublishedȱpreliminaryȱresultsȱforȱtheȱsecondȱreviewȱonȱNovemberȱ18,ȱ
2019ȱ(theȱ“PreliminaryȱResults”),ȱinȱwhichȱCommerceȱpreliminarilyȱcalculatedȱaȱ
dumpingȱmarginȱofȱ0.8%ȱforȱentriesȱofȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱproducedȱandȱexportedȱbyȱ
Prolamsa.ȱȱHeavyȱWalledȱRectangularȱWeldedȱCarbonȱSteelȱPipesȱandȱTubesȱfromȱMexico:ȱ
PreliminaryȱResultsȱofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReviewȱandȱPreliminaryȱ
DeterminationȱofȱNoȱShipments;ȱ2017–2018,ȱ84ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ63,610ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.)ȱ
(“PreliminaryȱResults”).ȱȱIncorporatedȱbyȱreferenceȱinȱtheȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱisȱanȱ
explanatoryȱdocument,ȱtheȱ“PreliminaryȱDecisionȱMemorandum.”ȱȱDecisionȱ
MemorandumȱforȱtheȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱofȱtheȱ2017Ȭ2018ȱAdministrativeȱReviewȱofȱtheȱ
AntidumpingȱDutyȱOrderȱonȱHeavyȱWalledȱRectangularȱWeldedȱCarbonȱSteelȱPipesȱandȱTubesȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 5 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ6ȱ
ȱ
fromȱMexicoȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱNov.ȱ6,ȱ2019)ȱ(P.R.ȱ147,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ479)ȱ(“Prelim.ȱDecisionȱ
Mem.”).ȱȱCommerceȱpreliminarilyȱfoundȱthatȱProlamsaȱhadȱmadeȱsalesȱatȱtwoȱlevelsȱofȱ
tradeȱ(“LOTs”)ȱinȱitsȱhomeȱmarketȱofȱMexicoȱduringȱtheȱperiodȱofȱreviewȱand,ȱonȱthatȱ
basis,ȱmadeȱaȱlevelȬofȬtradeȱadjustmentȱinȱcalculatingȱtheȱ0.8%ȱpreliminaryȱdumpingȱ
margin.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ15,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ483.ȱ
OnȱJulyȱ13,ȱ2020,ȱCommerceȱpublishedȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱinȱwhichȱitȱassignedȱ
Prolamsaȱaȱweightedȱaverageȱdumpingȱmarginȱofȱ7.47%.ȱȱFinalȱResults,ȱ85ȱFed.ȱ
Reg.ȱatȱ41,963.ȱȱInȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱCommerce,ȱchangingȱitsȱpriorȱposition,ȱdeniedȱ
Prolamsa’sȱrequestȱforȱaȱlevelȬofȬtradeȱadjustmentȱuponȱdecidingȱthatȱProlamsaȱsoldȱtheȱ
foreignȱlikeȱproductȱatȱaȱsingleȱLOTȱinȱitsȱhomeȱmarket.ȱȱCommerceȱmadeȱtwoȱotherȱ
changesȱaffectingȱProlamsa’sȱmargin,ȱneitherȱofȱwhichȱProlamsaȱcontestsȱbeforeȱtheȱ
court.ȱȱSeeȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ3,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ533.ȱȱTherefore,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱnotȱ
toȱallowȱaȱlevelȬofȬtradeȱadjustmentȱforȱProlamsaȱisȱatȱissueȱinȱthisȱlitigation.ȱ
D.ȱȱProceedingsȱBeforeȱtheȱCourtȱ
PlaintiffȱbroughtȱthisȱactionȱinȱSeptemberȱ2020.ȱȱSummonsȱ(Sept.ȱ1,ȱ2020),ȱ
ECFȱNo.ȱ1;ȱCompl.ȱ(Sept.ȱ28,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ12.ȱȱOnȱMarchȱ5,ȱ2021,ȱplaintiffȱfiledȱtheȱ
instantȱmotionȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱagencyȱrecordȱandȱaccompanyingȱbrief.ȱȱRuleȱ56.2ȱ
Mot.ȱforȱJ.ȱonȱtheȱAgencyȱR.,ȱECFȱNos.ȱ31ȱ(conf.),ȱ32ȱ(public);ȱMem.ȱofȱP.ȱ&ȱA.ȱinȱSupp.ȱ
ofȱPl.’sȱRuleȱ56.2ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱuponȱtheȱAgencyȱR.,ȱECFȱNos.ȱ31Ȭ1ȱ(conf.),ȱ32Ȭ1ȱ(public)ȱ
(“Pl.’sȱBr.”).ȱȱOnȱMayȱ4,ȱ2021,ȱAtlasȱTubeȱandȱSearingȱIndustriesȱfiledȱaȱresponseȱinȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 6 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ7ȱ
ȱ
oppositionȱtoȱplaintiff’sȱmotion.ȱȱDef.ȬIntervenorsȱAtlasȱTubeȱandȱSearingȱIndustries’ȱ
Resp.ȱinȱOpp’nȱtoȱRuleȱ56.2ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱonȱtheȱAgencyȱR.,ȱECFȱNos.ȱ37ȱ(conf.),ȱ38ȱ(public)ȱ
(“AtlasȱTube’sȱResp.”).ȱȱNucorȱandȱtheȱgovernmentȱeachȱsubmittedȱtheirȱrespectiveȱ
responsesȱonȱMayȱ7,ȱ2021.ȱȱDef.ȬIntervenorȱNucorȱTubularȱProductsȱInc.’sȱResp.ȱBr.,ȱ
ECFȱNos.ȱ40ȱ(conf.),ȱ41ȱ(public)ȱ(“Nucor’sȱResp.”);ȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱtoȱPl.’sȱRuleȱ56.2ȱMot.ȱforȱ
J.ȱuponȱtheȱAgencyȱR.,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ42ȱ(“Def.’sȱResp.”).ȱȱOnȱJuneȱ11,ȱ2021,ȱProlamsaȱfiledȱitsȱ
replyȱbrief.ȱȱReplyȱBr.ȱinȱSupp.ȱofȱPl.’sȱRuleȱ56.2ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱuponȱtheȱAgencyȱR.,ȱECFȱ
No.ȱ45.ȱ
OnȱJulyȱ2,ȱ2021,ȱplaintiffȱfiledȱanȱunopposedȱmotionȱforȱoralȱargumentȱonȱitsȱRuleȱ
56.2ȱmotion.ȱȱPl.’sȱUnopposedȱMot.ȱforȱOralȱArg.,ȱECFȱNo.ȱ49.ȱ
II.ȱȱDISCUSSIONȱ
A.ȱȱJurisdictionȱandȱStandardȱofȱReviewȱ
ȱ
Theȱcourtȱexercisesȱjurisdictionȱunderȱsectionȱ201ȱofȱtheȱCustomsȱCourtsȱActȱofȱ
1980,ȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1581(c),ȱpursuantȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱcourtȱreviewsȱactionsȱcommencedȱ
underȱsectionȱ516AȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1516a,ȱincludingȱanȱactionȱcontestingȱaȱ
finalȱdeterminationȱthatȱCommerceȱissuesȱtoȱconcludeȱanȱadministrativeȱreviewȱofȱanȱ
antidumpingȱdutyȱorder.ȱ
Inȱreviewingȱaȱfinalȱdetermination,ȱtheȱcourtȱ“shallȱholdȱunlawfulȱanyȱ
determination,ȱfinding,ȱorȱconclusionȱfoundȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtoȱbeȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱ
evidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱorȱotherwiseȱnotȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlaw.”ȱȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 7 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ8ȱ
ȱ
§ȱ1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).ȱȱSubstantialȱevidenceȱrefersȱtoȱ“suchȱrelevantȱevidenceȱasȱaȱ
reasonableȱmindȱmightȱacceptȱasȱadequateȱtoȱsupportȱaȱconclusion.”ȱȱSKFȱUSA,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱ
UnitedȱStates,ȱ537ȱF.3dȱ1373,ȱ1378ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2008)ȱ(quotingȱConsol.ȱEdisonȱCo.ȱv.ȱNLRB,ȱ
305ȱU.S.ȱ197,ȱ229ȱ(1938)).ȱ
B.ȱȱLevelsȱofȱTradeȱinȱCalculationsȱofȱDumpingȱMarginsȱ
Sectionȱ751(a)(1)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱrequiresȱCommerce,ȱuponȱaȱproperȱrequest,ȱtoȱ
conductȱaȱperiodicȱadministrativeȱreviewȱatȱleastȱonceȱduringȱeachȱ12Ȭmonthȱperiodȱ
beginningȱonȱtheȱanniversaryȱofȱtheȱdateȱofȱpublicationȱofȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorder.ȱȱ
19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1675(a)(1).ȱȱInȱaȱreview,ȱCommerceȱisȱdirectedȱtoȱmakeȱcomparisonsȱbetweenȱ
theȱnormalȱvalueȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandiseȱandȱtheȱ“U.S.ȱprice”ȱ(i.e.,ȱtheȱ“exportȱprice”ȱ
(“EP”)ȱorȱ“constructedȱexportȱprice”ȱ(“CEP”))ȱandȱdetermineȱtheȱdumpingȱmarginȱforȱ
“eachȱentry”ȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱmerchandise.ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1675(a)(2)(A)(i),ȱ(ii).ȱ
TheȱTariffȱActȱdirectsȱthatȱCommerce,ȱinȱtheȱordinaryȱinstanceȱinȱwhichȱnormalȱ
valueȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱpriceȱofȱtheȱforeignȱlikeȱproductȱinȱtheȱhomeȱmarket,ȱdetermineȱ
normalȱvalueȱbeginningȱwithȱtheȱpriceȱ(oftenȱreferredȱtoȱasȱtheȱ“startingȱprice”)ȱ
“atȱwhichȱtheȱforeignȱlikeȱproductȱisȱfirstȱsoldȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱforȱconsumptionȱinȱtheȱexportingȱ
country,ȱinȱtheȱusualȱcommercialȱquantitiesȱandȱinȱtheȱordinaryȱcourseȱofȱtradeȱand,ȱtoȱ
theȱextentȱpracticable,ȱatȱtheȱsameȱlevelȱofȱtradeȱasȱtheȱexportȱpriceȱorȱconstructedȱexportȱ
price.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677b(a)(1)(B)(i)ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱTheȱstatuteȱprovidesȱforȱvariousȱtypesȱ
ofȱadjustmentsȱtoȱtheȱstartingȱpriceȱinȱtheȱdeterminationȱofȱnormalȱvalue.ȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 8 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ9ȱ
ȱ
Oneȱofȱtheȱtypesȱofȱadjustmentsȱtoȱtheȱstartingȱpriceȱisȱknownȱasȱaȱ“levelȬofȬ
trade”ȱadjustment,ȱwhichȱCommerceȱmustȱmakeȱaccordingȱtoȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677b(a)(7)ȱ
underȱcertainȱconditions.ȱȱWhenȱcalculatingȱnormalȱvalue,ȱCommerceȱisȱrequiredȱtoȱ
makeȱanȱupwardȱorȱdownwardȱadjustmentȱtoȱtheȱstartingȱpriceȱ“toȱmakeȱdueȱallowanceȱ
forȱanyȱdifferenceȱ(orȱlackȱthereof)ȱbetweenȱtheȱexportȱpriceȱorȱconstructedȱexportȱ
price”ȱandȱtheȱstartingȱpriceȱ“(otherȱthanȱaȱdifferenceȱforȱwhichȱallowanceȱisȱotherwiseȱ
madeȱunderȱthisȱsection)ȱthatȱisȱshownȱtoȱbeȱwhollyȱorȱpartlyȱdueȱtoȱaȱdifferenceȱinȱlevelȱ
ofȱtradeȱbetweenȱtheȱexportȱpriceȱorȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱandȱnormalȱvalue”ȱifȱbothȱ
ofȱtwoȱconditionsȱareȱmet.ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677b(a)(7)(A).ȱ
Theȱfirstȱconditionȱisȱmetȱifȱtheȱdifferenceȱinȱtheȱlevelȱofȱtradeȱbetweenȱtheȱexportȱ
priceȱorȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱandȱnormalȱvalueȱ“involvesȱtheȱperformanceȱofȱ
differentȱsellingȱactivities.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677b(a)(7)(A)(i).ȱȱTheȱsecondȱconditionȱisȱmetȱifȱtheȱ
differenceȱinȱtheȱlevelȱofȱtradeȱbetweenȱtheȱEPȱorȱtheȱCEPȱandȱnormalȱvalueȱ“isȱ
demonstratedȱtoȱaffectȱpriceȱcomparability,ȱbasedȱonȱaȱpatternȱofȱconsistentȱpriceȱ
differencesȱbetweenȱsalesȱatȱdifferentȱlevelsȱofȱtradeȱinȱtheȱcountryȱinȱwhichȱnormalȱ
valueȱisȱdetermined.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677b(a)(7)(A)(ii).ȱȱTheȱstatuteȱprovidesȱthatȱ“[i]nȱaȱcaseȱ
describedȱinȱtheȱprecedingȱsentence,ȱtheȱamountȱofȱtheȱadjustmentȱshallȱbeȱbasedȱonȱtheȱ
priceȱdifferencesȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱlevelsȱofȱtradeȱinȱtheȱcountryȱinȱwhichȱnormalȱvalueȱ
isȱdetermined.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677b(a)(7)(A).ȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 9 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ10ȱ
ȱ
TheȱDepartment’sȱregulationsȱexplainȱthatȱ“[i]nȱcomparingȱUnitedȱStatesȱsalesȱ
withȱforeignȱmarketȱsalesȱ[i.e.,ȱsalesȱinȱtheȱcomparisonȱmarket,ȱwhichȱtypicallyȱisȱtheȱ
homeȱmarketȱofȱtheȱexportingȱcountry],ȱtheȱSecretaryȱmayȱdetermineȱthatȱsalesȱinȱtheȱ
twoȱmarketsȱwereȱnotȱmadeȱatȱtheȱsameȱlevelȱofȱtrade,ȱandȱthatȱtheȱdifferenceȱhasȱanȱ
effectȱonȱcomparabilityȱofȱtheȱprices,”ȱaddingȱthatȱ“[t]heȱSecretaryȱisȱauthorizedȱtoȱ
adjustȱnormalȱvalueȱtoȱaccountȱforȱsuchȱaȱdifference.”ȱȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.412(a).ȱȱTheȱ
regulationsȱprovideȱthatȱ“[t]heȱSecretaryȱwillȱdetermineȱthatȱsalesȱareȱmadeȱatȱdifferentȱ
levelsȱofȱtradeȱifȱtheyȱareȱmadeȱatȱdifferentȱmarketingȱstagesȱ(orȱtheirȱequivalent).”ȱȱId.ȱ
§ȱ351.412(c)(2)ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱTheȱCommerceȱregulationsȱdoȱnotȱincludeȱaȱ
definitionȱforȱtheȱtermȱ“marketingȱstages”ȱorȱtheȱtermȱ“equivalentȱofȱmarketingȱstages”ȱ
inȱtheȱ“definitions”ȱsectionȱofȱtheȱregulations,ȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.102(b).ȱȱTheȱpreambleȱtoȱ
theȱDepartment’sȱ1997ȱpromulgationȱofȱtheȱregulationsȱexplainsȱthatȱ“Sectionȱ351.412(c)ȱ
statesȱthatȱanȱLOTȱisȱaȱmarketingȱstageȱ‘orȱtheȱequivalent’ȱ(whichȱmeansȱthatȱtheȱ
merchandiseȱdoesȱnotȱnecessarilyȱhaveȱtoȱchangeȱhandsȱmoreȱthanȱtwiceȱinȱorderȱtoȱ
reachȱtheȱmoreȱremoteȱLOT).”ȱȱAntidumpingȱDuties;ȱCountervailingȱDuties,ȱ62ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ
27,296,ȱ27,371ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱMayȱ19,ȱ1997).ȱȱWhileȱaddressingȱlevelȬofȬtradeȱissuesȱ
involvingȱaȱremoteȱLOT,ȱtheȱpreambleȱinstructsȱthatȱ“[s]ubstantialȱdifferencesȱinȱtheȱ
amountȱofȱsellingȱexpensesȱassociatedȱwithȱtwoȱgroupsȱofȱsalesȱalsoȱmayȱindicateȱthatȱ
theȱtwoȱgroupsȱareȱatȱdifferentȱlevelsȱofȱtrade,”ȱid.,ȱbutȱtheȱregulationsȱfurtherȱprovide,ȱ
inȱ§ȱ351.412(c)(2),ȱthatȱ“[s]ubstantialȱdifferencesȱinȱsellingȱactivitiesȱareȱaȱnecessary,ȱbutȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 10 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ11ȱ
ȱ
notȱsufficient,ȱconditionȱforȱdeterminingȱthatȱthereȱisȱaȱdifferenceȱinȱtheȱstageȱofȱ
marketing.”ȱȱId.ȱȱItȱalsoȱexplainsȱthatȱ“[s]omeȱoverlapȱinȱsellingȱactivitiesȱwillȱnotȱ
precludeȱaȱdeterminationȱthatȱtwoȱsalesȱareȱatȱdifferentȱstagesȱofȱmarketing.”ȱȱId.ȱ
C.ȱȱTheȱDepartment’sȱPreliminaryȱDeterminationȱofȱTwoȱLevelsȱofȱTradeȱinȱ
Prolamsa’sȱHomeȱMarketȱSalesȱandȱitsȱLevelȬofȬTradeȱAdjustmentȱtoȱNormalȱValueȱ
ȱ
Inȱquestionnaireȱresponsesȱitȱsubmittedȱduringȱtheȱreview,ȱProlamsaȱinformedȱ
Commerceȱthatȱitsȱhomeȱmarketȱsalesȱoccurredȱinȱfourȱchannelsȱofȱdistribution,ȱ
identifyingȱitsȱsalesȱinȱwhatȱitȱtermedȱ“HMȱ[homeȱmarket]ȱChannelȱ4”ȱasȱsalesȱofȱ
customȬdesignedȱpartsȱthatȱwereȱmadeȱfromȱHWRȱpipesȱandȱtubesȱandȱthatȱwereȱ
producedȱfor,ȱandȱsoldȱto,ȱoriginalȱequipmentȱmanufacturersȱ(“OEMs”).ȱȱHeavyȱWalledȱ
RectangularȱWeldedȱCarbonȱSteelȱPipesȱandȱTubesȱfromȱMexico:ȱResponseȱtoȱSectionȱAȱofȱtheȱ
Questionnaireȱ(Mar.ȱ15,ȱ2019)ȱ(P.R.ȱ46–56,ȱatȱAȬ18,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ34)ȱ(“SectionȱAȱResp.”).ȱȱ
ProlamsaȱcontrastedȱitsȱHMȱChannelȱ4ȱsales,ȱtoȱwhichȱitȱreferredȱasȱitsȱ“industrial”ȱ
sales,ȱwithȱthoseȱsoldȱthroughȱitsȱotherȱthreeȱchannelsȱofȱdistribution,ȱtoȱwhichȱitȱ
referredȱasȱitsȱ“commercial”ȱsalesȱofȱHWRȱpipesȱandȱtubes,ȱandȱwhichȱitȱdescribedȱasȱ
follows:ȱdirectȱsalesȱtoȱunaffiliatedȱcustomersȱfromȱinventoryȱstoredȱatȱitsȱplantsȱ(“HMȱ
Channelȱ1”);ȱdirectȱsalesȱtoȱunaffiliatedȱcustomersȱfromȱinventoryȱstoredȱatȱitsȱ
warehousesȱ(“HMȱChannelȱ2”);ȱandȱsalesȱtoȱaffiliatedȱresellers,ȱwhichȱproductsȱ
subsequentlyȱwereȱresoldȱtoȱunaffiliatedȱhomeȱmarketȱcustomersȱ(“HMȱChannelȱ3”).ȱȱ
Pl.’sȱBr.ȱ7–9.ȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 11 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ12ȱ
ȱ
Prolamsaȱpointsȱtoȱrecordȱevidenceȱinȱarguingȱthatȱ“salesȱthroughȱHMȱChannelȱ4ȱ
requiredȱsubstantiallyȱmoreȱsellingȱactivities”ȱthanȱdidȱitsȱsalesȱthroughȱtheȱotherȱthreeȱ
channels.ȱȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ8.ȱ
Onȱtheȱissueȱofȱpriceȱcomparability,ȱProlamsaȱinformedȱCommerceȱthatȱitsȱ
“[h]omeȱmarketȱsalesȱpricesȱdidȱnotȱvaryȱbasedȱonȱwhetherȱtheȱHWRTȱwasȱsoldȱ
throughȱHMȱChannelȱ1,ȱHMȱChannelȱ2,ȱorȱHMȱChannelȱ3,”ȱthatȱ“[h]omeȬmarketȱsalesȱ
pricesȱinȱHMȱChannelȱ4ȱwereȱsignificantlyȱhigherȱthanȱsalesȱthroughȱHMȱChannelȱ1,ȱ
HMȱChannelȱ2,ȱandȱHMȱChannelȱ3”ȱandȱthatȱ“[t]heȱhigherȱpricesȱreflectedȱtheȱ
significant,ȱadditionalȱsellingȱactivitiesȱperformedȱinȱrelationȱtoȱsalesȱthroughȱ
HMȱChannelȱ4,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱadditionalȱproductionȱcostsȱincurredȱtoȱmanufactureȱtheȱ
parts.”ȱȱSectionȱAȱResp.ȱatȱAȬ22,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ38.ȱ
WithȱrespectȱtoȱitsȱU.S.ȱsalesȱofȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱProlamsaȱexplainedȱtoȱ
CommerceȱduringȱtheȱreviewȱthatȱitȱsoldȱHWRȱpipesȱandȱtubesȱthroughȱthreeȱchannelsȱ
ofȱdistribution. 3ȱȱProlamsaȱarguedȱthatȱallȱofȱitsȱU.S.ȱsalesȱwereȱmoreȱsimilar,ȱinȱtermsȱofȱ
ȱ
3ȱProlamsaȱhadȱbothȱexportȱpriceȱ(“EP”)ȱandȱconstructedȱexportȱpriceȱ(“CEP”)ȱ
salesȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱduringȱtheȱperiodȱofȱreviewȱforȱtheȱsecondȱreview.ȱȱAsȱstatedȱ
inȱtheȱPreliminaryȱDecisionȱMemorandum:ȱ
WithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱU.S.ȱmarket,ȱProlamsaȱreportedȱthatȱitȱmadeȱ
salesȱthroughȱthreeȱchannelsȱofȱdistribution:ȱ(1)ȱdirectȱEPȱsalesȱofȱHWRȱ
pipeȱandȱtubeȱtoȱunaffiliatedȱU.S.ȱcustomersȱforȱwhichȱProlamsaȱknewȱtheȱ
finalȱdestinationȱwasȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱ(i.e.,ȱU.S.ȱchannelȱ1);ȱ(2)ȱdirectȱCEPȱ
salesȱofȱHWRȱpipeȱandȱtubeȱtoȱunaffiliatedȱU.S.ȱcustomersȱfromȱ
Prolamsa’sȱinventoryȱsoldȱthroughȱitsȱU.S.ȱaffiliate,ȱProlamsa,ȱInc.ȱ(i.e.,ȱ
U.S.ȱchannelȱ2);ȱandȱ(3)ȱdirectȱCEPȱsalesȱofȱHWRȱpipeȱandȱtubeȱtoȱ
(continuedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.)ȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 12 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ13ȱ
ȱ
characteristicsȱandȱsellingȱfunctions,ȱtoȱitsȱHMȱChannelsȱ1,ȱ2,ȱandȱ3ȱsales,ȱi.e.,ȱitsȱ
“commercial”ȱsales,ȱthanȱtheyȱwereȱtoȱitsȱ“industrial”ȱsalesȱofȱHMȱChannelȱ4.ȱȱHeavyȱ
WalledȱRectangularȱWeldedȱCarbonȱSteelȱPipesȱandȱTubesȱfromȱMexico:ȱResponseȱtoȱSectionsȱBȱ
andȱCȱofȱtheȱQuestionnaireȱ(Apr.ȱ8,ȱ2019)ȱ(P.R.ȱ69–71,ȱatȱBȬ35,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ202).ȱȱProlamsaȱ
contendedȱthatȱitsȱU.S.ȱsalesȱshouldȱbeȱcomparedȱtoȱHMȱChannelsȱ1–3,ȱandȱthatȱ
HMȱChannelȱ4ȱsalesȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱusedȱforȱcomparisonȱpurposesȱunlessȱsalesȱinȱ
HMȱChannelsȱ1–3ȱareȱunavailable,ȱandȱthatȱinȱsuchȱanȱinstanceȱCommerceȱshouldȱmakeȱ
aȱlevelȬofȬtradeȱadjustment.ȱȱId.ȱ
Forȱpurposesȱofȱcalculatingȱtheȱ0.8%ȱpreliminaryȱdumpingȱmarginȱforȱProlamsaȱ
inȱtheȱPreliminaryȱResults,ȱCommerceȱagreed.ȱȱCommerceȱpreliminarilyȱdetermined,ȱ
first,ȱthatȱallȱofȱProlamsa’sȱU.S.ȱsalesȱoccurredȱatȱaȱsingleȱLOT.ȱȱPrelim.ȱDecisionȱ
Mem.ȱatȱ15,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ483.ȱȱItȱpreliminarilyȱdetermined,ȱnext,ȱ“thatȱsalesȱtoȱtheȱhomeȱ
marketȱnonȬOEMȱcustomersȱ(i.e.,ȱinȱHMȱchannelsȱ1ȱthroughȱ3)ȱduringȱtheȱPORȱwereȱnotȱ
madeȱatȱaȱdifferentȱLOTȱthanȱsalesȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱStates.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ16,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ484.ȱȱ
RegardingȱtheȱrequestedȱlevelȬofȬtradeȱadjustment,ȱCommerceȱstatedȱthatȱ“[i]nȱ
instancesȱwhereȱweȱwereȱunableȱtoȱmakeȱpriceȬtoȬpriceȱcomparisonsȱatȱtheȱsameȱLOTȱ
ȱ
(.ȱ.ȱ.ȱcontinued)ȱ
unaffiliatedȱU.S.ȱcustomersȱsoldȱfromȱProlamsaȱInc.’sȱwarehouseȱthroughȱ
Prolamsa,ȱInc.ȱ(i.e.,ȱU.S.ȱchannelȱ3).ȱȱȱ
DecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱtheȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱofȱtheȱ2017Ȭȱ2018ȱAdministrativeȱ
ReviewȱofȱtheȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱOrderȱonȱHeavyȱWalledȱRectangularȱWeldedȱCarbonȱSteelȱ
PipesȱandȱTubesȱfromȱMexicoȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱNov.ȱ6,ȱ2019)ȱ(P.R.ȱ147,ȱatȱ15,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱ
atȱ485).ȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 13 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ14ȱ
ȱ
(i.e.,ȱcomparisonsȱinvolvingȱOEMȱsalesȱinȱHMȱchannelȱ4)ȱweȱmadeȱanȱLOTȱadjustment.”ȱȱ
Id.ȱȱInȱsummary,ȱforȱtheȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱCommerceȱusedȱProlamsa’sȱHMȱChannelȱ4ȱ
salesȱforȱpriceȱcomparisonsȱwithȱU.S.ȱsalesȱonlyȱwhenȱnoȱHMȱChannelȱ1,ȱ2,ȱorȱ3ȱsalesȱ
wereȱavailableȱforȱcomparisonȱwithȱU.S.ȱsales,ȱandȱwhenȱitȱusedȱanȱHMȱChannelȱ4ȱsaleȱ
forȱthatȱpurpose,ȱitȱmadeȱanȱadjustment,ȱi.e.,ȱaȱreduction,ȱinȱnormalȱvalueȱtoȱaccountȱforȱ
theȱdifferenceȱinȱlevelȱofȱtrade.ȱ
D.ȱȱTheȱDepartment’sȱDecisionȱinȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱtoȱDenyȱProlamsa’sȱRequestȱforȱaȱ
LevelȬofȬTradeȱAdjustmentȱ
ȱ
FollowingȱtheȱDepartment’sȱissuanceȱofȱtheȱPreliminaryȱResults,ȱPetitionersȱ
IndependenceȱTubeȱCorporation,ȱaȱNucorȱcompany,ȱandȱSouthlandȱTube,ȱInc.,ȱaȱNucorȱ
company,ȱ(theȱcorporateȱpredecessorsȱtoȱdefendantȬintervenorȱNucor)ȱfiledȱaȱcaseȱbriefȱ
withȱCommerceȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱopposedȱtheȱdecisionȱinȱtheȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱthatȱ
wouldȱallowȱProlamsaȱaȱlevelȬofȬtradeȱadjustment.ȱȱSeeȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ16–20,ȱ
J.ȱApp.ȱatȱ546–50.ȱȱTheyȱcharacterizedȱtheȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱHMȱChannelȱ4ȱsalesȱandȱ
theȱsalesȱinȱHMȱChannelsȱ1ȱthroughȱ3ȱasȱdemonstratingȱonlyȱ“minorȱdifferences”ȱinȱtheȱ
customerȱbasesȱandȱmerchandiseȱthatȱtheyȱarguedȱdidȱnotȱamountȱtoȱaȱdifferentȱstageȱofȱ
marketing.ȱȱOverall,ȱtheyȱarguedȱthatȱProlamsaȱprovidedȱinsufficient,ȱandȱinadequatelyȱ
documented,ȱproofȱforȱitsȱrequestȱthatȱCommerceȱrecognizeȱaȱsecondȱlevelȱofȱtradeȱinȱitsȱ
homeȱmarket.ȱȱInȱitsȱcaseȱbrief,ȱProlamsaȱmadeȱargumentsȱinȱrebuttal.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ20–23,ȱ
J.ȱApp.ȱatȱ550–53.ȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 14 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ15ȱ
ȱ
Commerce,ȱreversingȱitsȱpreliminaryȱdecisionȱinȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱstatedȱthatȱ
“[b]asedȱuponȱtheȱparties’ȱcommentsȱandȱourȱreexaminationȱofȱtheȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱ
record,ȱweȱfindȱthatȱProlamsaȱhasȱnotȱdemonstratedȱthatȱitȱsoldȱHWRȱpipeȱandȱtubeȱatȱ
twoȱdifferentȱLOTsȱinȱtheȱhomeȱmarket.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ23,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ553.ȱȱ“Accordingly,ȱforȱ
theseȱfinalȱresultsȱweȱhaveȱtreatedȱallȱsalesȱmadeȱinȱtheȱhomeȱmarketȱatȱaȱsingleȱLOTȱ
duringȱtheȱPOR.”ȱȱId.ȱ
E.ȱȱTheȱDepartment’sȱDenialȱofȱtheȱRequestedȱLevelȬofȬTradeȱAdjustmentȱIsȱNotȱ
SupportedȱbyȱSubstantialȱEvidenceȱ
ȱ
InȱtheȱFinalȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionsȱMemorandum,ȱCommerceȱstatedȱasȱ
backgroundȱthatȱ“relianceȱonȱqualitativeȱevidence,ȱsuchȱasȱnarrativeȱdescriptionsȱofȱ
differencesȱinȱsellingȱfunctions,ȱcustomerȱcorrespondence,ȱsampleȱsalesȱrecords,ȱ
meetingȱpresentationsȱandȱtheȱlike,ȱwithoutȱsupportingȱquantitativeȱevidenceȱ
frequentlyȱdoesȱnotȱpresentȱaȱcompleteȱunderstandingȱofȱaȱrespondent’sȱsellingȱ
activities.”ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ25,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ555.ȱȱCommerceȱcitedȱaȱchangeȱofȱpracticeȱ
underȱwhichȱ“[s]inceȱ2018,ȱCommerceȱhasȱrequiredȱrespondentsȱtoȱprovideȱquantitativeȱ
evidenceȱinȱsupportȱofȱtheirȱLOTȱclaims.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ26,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ556.ȱȱItȱfurtherȱexplainedȱ
thatȱ“[s]ignificantly,ȱCommerce’sȱrequirementȱthatȱrespondentsȱsupportȱLOTȱclaimsȱ
withȱquantitativeȱevidenceȱinȱallȱproceedingsȱwasȱimplementedȱinȱ2018ȱtoȱenhanceȱ
Commerce’sȱabilityȱtoȱdetermineȱwhetherȱreportedȱdifferencesȱinȱsellingȱfunctionsȱareȱ
substantialȱenoughȱtoȱwarrantȱaȱfindingȱthatȱsalesȱwereȱmadeȱatȱdifferentȱLOTs.”ȱȱ
Id.ȱatȱ25,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ555ȱ(footnoteȱomitted).ȱȱCommerceȱaddedȱthatȱ“[a]lthoughȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 15 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ16ȱ
ȱ
qualitativeȱinformationȱisȱhelpfulȱandȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱLOTȱanalysis,ȱrelianceȱonȱthisȱ
informationȱaloneȱlimitsȱCommerce’sȱabilityȱtoȱanalyzeȱsellingȱfunctionsȱtoȱdetermineȱifȱ
LOTsȱidentifiedȱbyȱaȱpartyȱareȱmeaningfulȱandȱtoȱevaluateȱwhetherȱaȱrespondent’sȱLOTȱ
claimsȱareȱreasonableȱandȱaccurate.”ȱȱId.ȱ
Afterȱdiscussingȱitsȱgeneralȱrequirementȱforȱ“quantitativeȱinformation,”ȱ
CommerceȱbasedȱitsȱdecisionȱdenyingȱProlamsa’sȱrequestȱforȱaȱlevelȬofȬtradeȱ
adjustmentȱonȱaȱfindingȱthatȱ“[w]hileȱProlamsaȱassertsȱthatȱitȱfullyȱdemonstratedȱthatȱ
thereȱwereȱsignificantȱdifferencesȱinȱtheȱsellingȱactivitiesȱperformedȱbetweenȱhomeȱ
marketȱchannelsȱduringȱtheȱPOR,ȱnoneȱofȱtheȱdocumentsȱprovidedȱdemonstrateȱdirectȱ
quantitativeȱsupportȱforȱsuchȱclaims.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ27,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ557.ȱȱ“Therefore,ȱforȱtheseȱ
finalȱresults,ȱCommerceȱfindsȱthatȱProlamsaȱhasȱnotȱshownȱthatȱitȱmadeȱsalesȱinȱtheȱ
homeȱmarketȱatȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱLOTȱbecauseȱitȱhasȱnotȱsupportedȱitsȱLOTȱclaimsȱwithȱ
quantitativeȱevidence.”ȱȱId.ȱ
Beforeȱtheȱcourt,ȱProlamsaȱarguesȱthatȱCommerceȱ“completelyȱoverlookedȱtheȱ
quantitativeȱinformationȱsubmittedȱbyȱProlamsa.”ȱȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ14.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱagrees.ȱȱ
EvidenceȱonȱtheȱrecordȱcontradictsȱtheȱDepartment’sȱfindingȱthatȱnoneȱofȱtheȱ
documentsȱProlamsaȱprovidedȱ“demonstrateȱdirectȱquantitativeȱsupport”ȱforȱ
Prolamsa’sȱassertionȱ“thatȱthereȱwereȱsignificantȱdifferencesȱinȱtheȱsellingȱactivitiesȱ
performedȱbetweenȱhomeȱmarketȱchannelsȱduringȱtheȱPOR.”ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ27,ȱ
J.ȱApp.ȱatȱ557.ȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 16 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ17ȱ
ȱ
WithȱitsȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱsupplementalȱSectionȱAȱquestionnaire,ȱ
Prolamsaȱprovidedȱquantitativeȱdataȱillustratingȱdifferencesȱbetweenȱtheȱstaffingȱandȱ
expensesȱitȱincurredȱinȱmakingȱitsȱhomeȱmarketȱ“industrial”ȱsales,ȱi.e.,ȱitsȱOEMȱsalesȱofȱ
partsȱmadeȱfromȱHWRȱpipeȱandȱtubeȱinȱHMȱChannelȱ4,ȱandȱitsȱsalesȱofȱstandardȱHWRȱ
pipeȱandȱtubeȱinȱtheȱotherȱthreeȱchannels,ȱtoȱwhichȱitȱreferredȱinȱtheȱresponseȱasȱitsȱ
“commercial”ȱsales.ȱȱHeavyȱWalledȱRectangularȱWeldedȱCarbonȱSteelȱPipesȱandȱTubesȱfromȱ
Mexico:ȱResponseȱtoȱtheȱFirstȱSectionȱAȱSupplementalȱQuestionnaireȱ(Oct.ȱ21,ȱ2019)ȱ(P.R.ȱ135–
37,ȱatȱ7–8,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ307–08)ȱ(“Supp.ȱSectionȱAȱResp.”).ȱȱInȱcolumnsȱinȱSupplementalȱ
ExhibitȱAȬ4,ȱProlamsaȱpresentedȱdataȱforȱtheȱ“Commercial”ȱandȱ“Industrial”ȱsalesȱ
activities,ȱbrokenȱdownȱbyȱ“TotalȱSalesȱPersonnelȱ(Directors,ȱManagers,ȱStaff)ȱ
(Headcount),”ȱ“TotalȱSellingȱExpensesȱ(MXNȱ[apparently,ȱ‘Mexican’]),”ȱandȱ“Salesȱ
Team’sȱSalariesȱ&ȱBenefitsȱ(MXN).”ȱȱId.ȱatȱEx.ȱSupp.ȱAȬ4,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ325.ȱȱProlamsaȱ
summarizedȱthisȱconfidentialȱbusinessȱdataȱonȱpageȱ8ȱofȱtheȱresponse.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ8,ȱ
J.ȱApp.ȱatȱ308.ȱȱTheȱdataȱshowȱgenerallyȱthatȱtheȱindustrialȱsalesȱaccountedȱforȱstaffingȱ
andȱstaffingȱexpensesȱ(salaryȱandȱbenefits)ȱandȱtotalȱsellingȱexpensesȱthat,ȱwhenȱrelatedȱ
toȱtotalȱhomeȱmarketȱ(“MXN”)ȱsalesȱinȱeachȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱcategories,ȱwereȱ
proportionallyȱhigherȱbyȱaȱsubstantialȱamountȱthanȱthoseȱofȱtheȱcommercialȱsales.ȱȱId.ȱȱ
Describingȱtheseȱquantitativeȱdataȱtoȱtheȱcourt,ȱProlamsaȱdescribesȱthisȱsupplementalȱ
questionnaireȱresponseȱasȱpresentingȱ“comparisonsȱofȱsellingȱexpenses,ȱ
salaries/benefits,ȱandȱheadcount,ȱallȱdemonstratingȱtheȱsubstantiallyȱhigherȱexpensesȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 17 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ18ȱ
ȱ
incurredȱforȱsalesȱmadeȱthroughȱHMȱChannelȱ4ȱdueȱtoȱtheȱhigherȱintensityȱofȱsellingȱ
activities,ȱsuchȱasȱthoseȱrequiredȱtoȱqualifyȱasȱaȱsupplierȱandȱtoȱcoordinateȱcustomerȬ
specificȱinventoryȱandȱjustȬinȬtimeȱdelivery.”ȱȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ10ȱ(citingȱSupp.ȱSectionȱAȱResp.ȱ
atȱ7–8ȱ&ȱEx.ȱSupp.ȱAȬ4,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ307–08ȱ&ȱ325).ȱ
Prolamsaȱprovidedȱaȱsecondȱsetȱofȱquantitativeȱdataȱonȱinventoryȱturnoverȱtoȱ
illustrateȱthatȱtheȱindustrialȱsalesȱinvolvedȱsubstantiallyȱlongerȱaverageȱinventoryȱ
turnoverȱperiodsȱthanȱtheȱcommercialȱsales.ȱȱProlamsaȱarguesȱthatȱtheseȱdataȱ“supportȱ
theȱconclusionȱthatȱtheȱsalesȱthroughȱHMȱChannelȱ4ȱhadȱaȱslowerȱinventoryȱturnover,ȱ
whichȱresultedȱinȱhigherȱinventoryȱcosts,ȱasȱcomparedȱtoȱsalesȱthroughȱHMȱchannelsȱ
1ȱthroughȱ3”ȱandȱthatȱ“[t]heȱslowerȱinventoryȱturnoverȱwasȱbecauseȱofȱadditionalȱ
inventoryȱrequirementsȱforȱjustȬinȬtimeȱdeliveryȱrequirementsȱofȱOEMsȱandȱtoȱ
compensateȱforȱspecificȱcustomerȱneeds.”ȱȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ15ȱ(citingȱSupp.ȱSectionȱAȱResp.ȱatȱ17ȱ
&ȱEx.ȱSupp.ȱAȬ8,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ317ȱ&ȱ360).ȱ
TheȱFinalȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱdoesȱnotȱspecificallyȱaddressȱtheȱ
quantitativeȱdataȱonȱsellingȱexpensesȱandȱinventoryȱturnover.ȱȱInstead,ȱtheȱ
Department’sȱanalysisȱproceedsȱdirectlyȱfromȱitsȱinvalidȱfindingȱthatȱProlamsaȱfailedȱtoȱ
provideȱdocumentsȱthatȱ“demonstrateȱdirectȱquantitativeȱsupport”ȱforȱProlamsa’sȱ
assertionȱ“thatȱthereȱwereȱsignificantȱdifferencesȱinȱtheȱsellingȱactivitiesȱperformedȱ
betweenȱhomeȱmarketȱchannelsȱduringȱtheȱPOR.”ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ27,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ557.ȱȱ
Inȱadditionȱtoȱthatȱspecificȱfinding,ȱCommerceȱofferedȱonlyȱoneȱotherȱfindingȱinȱsupportȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 18 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ19ȱ
ȱ
ofȱitsȱultimateȱconclusion.ȱȱReferringȱtoȱitsȱ“analyticalȱframework”ȱsinceȱtheȱ2018ȱchangeȱ
ofȱpractice,ȱCommerceȱconcludedȱthatȱ“[i]nȱapplyingȱthisȱanalyticalȱframeworkȱtoȱtheȱ
recordȱevidence,ȱCommerceȱhasȱreachedȱaȱdifferentȱconclusionȱinȱtheȱfinalȱresultsȱofȱthisȱ
reviewȱthanȱitȱreachedȱinȱtheȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱbecauseȱitȱhasȱfoundȱthatȱtheȱtotalityȱofȱ
theȱrecordȱevidenceȱcontainsȱinadequateȱsupportȱforȱProlamsa’sȱLOTȱclaims.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ27Ȭ
28,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ557–58.ȱȱThisȱsecondȱfindingȱisȱunsatisfactoryȱinȱtwoȱrespects.ȱȱFirst,ȱitȱisȱ
entirelyȱconclusory,ȱhidingȱbehindȱaȱvagueȱandȱunexplainedȱ“totalityȱofȱtheȱrecordȱ
evidence.”ȱȱSecond,ȱtheȱactualȱ“totalityȱofȱtheȱrecordȱevidence”ȱwouldȱappearȱtoȱincludeȱ
circumstancesȱCommerceȱdescribedȱinȱaȱnumberȱofȱspecificȱfactualȱfindingsȱthatȱ
Commerceȱstated,ȱandȱgroundedȱinȱrecordȱevidence,ȱinȱtheȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱbutȱdidȱ
notȱidentifyȱinȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱasȱfindingsȱthatȱitȱwasȱreversingȱorȱabandoning.ȱ
Forȱexample,ȱregardingȱ“intensity”ȱofȱsellingȱactivities,ȱCommerceȱstatedȱinȱtheȱ
PreliminaryȱResultsȱthatȱProlamsaȱhadȱ“providedȱcertainȱadditionalȱdocumentationȱ
adequatelyȱdemonstratingȱthatȱitȱperformedȱ9ȱoutȱofȱ14ȱsellingȱactivitiesȱforȱitsȱHMȱ
channelȱ4ȱsalesȱatȱaȱhighȱlevelȱofȱintensityȱ(i.e.,ȱpersonalȱtraining/exchange,ȱengineeringȱ
services,ȱqualificationȱrequirements,ȱorderȱinput/processing,ȱinventoryȱmaintenance,ȱ
freightȱandȱdelivery,ȱjustȬinȬtimeȱdelivery,ȱtechnicalȱassistance,ȱandȱafterȬsalesȱ
services).”ȱȱPrelim.ȱDecisionȱMem.ȱatȱ14,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ482ȱ(footnoteȱomitted).ȱȱForȱtheȱ
PreliminaryȱResults,ȱCommerceȱalsoȱfoundȱthatȱProlamsaȱperformedȱcertainȱsellingȱ
activitiesȱforȱitsȱ“industrial”ȱsalesȱofȱHMȱChannelȱ4,ȱwhichȱwereȱsalesȱofȱcustomȱ“HWRȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 19 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ20ȱ
ȱ
pipeȱandȱtubeȱparts,”ȱthatȱitȱdidȱnotȱperformȱforȱitsȱother,ȱi.e.,ȱ“commercial”ȱsalesȱofȱHMȱ
Channelsȱ1–3,ȱwhichȱwereȱofȱ“standardȱHWRȱpipeȱandȱtube.”ȱȱId.ȱȱCommerceȱdevotedȱ
detailedȱdiscussionȱinȱtheȱPreliminaryȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱtoȱtheseȱ“OEMȬspecificȱ
sellingȱactivitiesȱnotȱperformedȱforȱtheȱrestȱofȱProlamsa’sȱhomeȱmarketȱsales.”ȱȱSeeȱid.ȱȱInȱ
theȱPreliminaryȱDecisionȱMemorandum,ȱCommerceȱstatedȱthatȱ“Prolamsaȱundertakesȱ
significantȱsellingȱactivitiesȱwhenȱsellingȱHWRȱpipeȱandȱtubeȱpartsȱtoȱOEMsȱandȱthatȱ
“[b]ecauseȱcertainȱofȱtheseȱOEMȬspecificȱsellingȱactivitiesȱareȱnotȱperformedȱforȱtheȱrestȱ
ofȱProlamsa’sȱhomeȱmarketȱsales,ȱitȱisȱclearȱthatȱsubstantialȱdifferencesȱinherentlyȱexistȱ
betweenȱhomeȱmarketȱsalesȱofȱstandardȱHWRȱpipeȱandȱtubeȱandȱHWRȱpipeȱandȱtubeȱ
parts.”ȱȱId.ȱȱCommerceȱfound,ȱspecifically,ȱthatȱ“[c]riticalȱtoȱtheseȱsalesȱisȱtheȱsuccessfulȱ
completionȱofȱtheȱProductionȱPartsȱApprovalȱProcessȱ(PPAP),ȱanȱindustryȬspecificȱ
qualificationȱprocessȱthatȱensuresȱqualityȱandȱestablishedȱprocessesȱforȱOEMȱcustomersȱ
toȱcertifyȱmanufacturersȱonȱaȱcustomȬ‘part’ȱbasis.”ȱȱId.ȱ(footnoteȱomitted).ȱȱCommerceȱ
alsoȱstatedȱthatȱ“ProlamsaȱprovidedȱcontemporaneousȱPPAPȱdocumentationȱ
supportingȱcertainȱactivitiesȱperformedȱinȱHMȱchannelȱ4ȱthatȱareȱnotȱperformedȱwithȱ
respectȱtoȱotherȱhomeȱmarketȱsales.”ȱȱId.ȱȱ“Forȱexample,ȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱengineeringȱ
services,ȱweȱfindȱthatȱtheȱPPAPȱdocumentationȱprovidedȱisȱrepresentative”ȱandȱthatȱ
“withȱrespectȱtoȱtechnicalȱassistance,ȱProlamsaȱprovidedȱdocumentationȱdetailingȱwaysȱ
toȱreȬengineerȱproductsȱorȱproductionȱprocessesȱinȱorderȱtoȱreduceȱproductionȱprocessȱ
costsȱasȱrequiredȱbyȱanȱOEMȱcustomersȱ[sic].”ȱȱId.ȱ(footnoteȱomitted).ȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 20 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ21ȱ
ȱ
Inȱsummary,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱanalysisȱrestsȱonȱoneȱfindingȱthatȱisȱcontradictedȱ
byȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱandȱanotherȱthatȱisȱvagueȱandȱconclusoryȱinȱinvokingȱtheȱ
“totalityȱofȱtheȱrecordȱevidence.”ȱȱTheȱcourt,ȱtherefore,ȱmustȱremandȱforȱreconsiderationȱ
theȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱthatȱallȱhomeȱmarketȱsalesȱoccurredȱatȱaȱsingleȱLOTȱandȱtoȱ
rejectȱProlamsa’sȱrequestȱforȱaȱlevelȬofȬtradeȱadjustment.ȱ
DefendantȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱshouldȱsustainȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱonȱtheȱ
groundȱthatȱ“inȱreachingȱitsȱconclusionȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱwasȱinsufficientȱtoȱ
supportȱProlamsa’sȱlevelȱofȱtradeȱclaim,ȱCommerceȱexplainedȱinȱtheȱfinalȱresultsȱthatȱ
thereȱwasȱnoȱquantitativeȱevidenceȱthatȱwouldȱallowȱCommerceȱtoȱdetermineȱifȱ
Prolamsa’sȱclaimedȱlevelsȱofȱtradeȱwereȱmeaningful.”ȱȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱ12ȱ(citingȱ
FinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ23,ȱ25,ȱJ.ȱApp.ȱatȱ553,ȱ555)ȱ(emphasisȱinȱoriginal).ȱȱThisȱisȱnotȱanȱ
accurateȱparaphraseȱofȱtheȱdiscussionȱinȱtheȱFinalȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandum.ȱȱ
CommerceȱruledȱasȱitȱdidȱuponȱaȱfindingȱthatȱProlamsaȱfailedȱtoȱprovideȱdocumentsȱ
thatȱdemonstratedȱdirectȱquantitativeȱsupportȱforȱProlamsa’sȱassertionȱthatȱthereȱwereȱ
significantȱdifferencesȱinȱtheȱsellingȱactivitiesȱperformedȱbetweenȱtheȱindustrialȱandȱtheȱ
commercialȱhomeȱmarketȱsalesȱandȱuponȱaȱconclusionȱthatȱtheȱtotalityȱofȱtheȱrecordȱ
evidenceȱwasȱinsufficientȱtoȱsupportȱaȱlevelȬofȬtradeȱadjustment.ȱ
Evenȱwereȱdefendant’sȱcharacterizationȱofȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱcorrect,ȱtheȱ
courtȱwouldȱnotȱagreeȱwithȱdefendant’sȱargument.ȱȱTheȱrecordȱevidenceȱdefendantȱ
impliesȱisȱnotȱ“meaningful”ȱincludes,ȱinterȱalia,ȱquantitativeȱandȱqualitativeȱevidenceȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 21 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ22ȱ
ȱ
concerningȱaȱnumberȱofȱsellingȱactivitiesȱthat,ȱaccordingȱtoȱfindingsȱinȱtheȱPreliminaryȱ
ResultsȱthatȱCommerceȱdidȱnotȱabandon,ȱuniquelyȱcharacterizedȱtheȱhomeȱmarketȱ
industrialȱsalesȱandȱdistinguishedȱthemȱfromȱtheȱotherȱhomeȱmarketȱsalesȱandȱtheȱU.S.ȱ
sales.ȱȱInȱsummary,ȱthereȱisȱrecordȱevidenceȱthatȱsalesȱinȱHMȱChannelȱ4ȱinvolvedȱ
differentȱandȱmoreȱintenseȱsellingȱactivities,ȱaȱdifferentȱtypeȱofȱcustomerȱ(OEMs),ȱandȱ
differentȱproductsȱ(whatȱCommerceȱinȱtheȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱtermedȱcustomȱ“HWRȱ
pipeȱandȱtubeȱparts”)ȱthanȱdidȱtheȱ“commercial”ȱsalesȱofȱHMȱChannelsȱ1–3ȱ(whichȱwereȱ
ofȱ“standardȱHWRȱpipeȱandȱtube”).ȱ
DefendantȬintervenors’ȱargumentsȱparallelȱdefendant’sȱinȱsomeȱrespectsȱbutȱalsoȱ
restȱuponȱcertainȱotherȱfindingsȱandȱconclusionsȱuponȱwhichȱCommerceȱdidȱnotȱbaseȱitsȱ
decision.ȱȱSeeȱNucor’sȱResp.ȱ11–24;ȱseeȱalsoȱAtlasȱTube’sȱResp.ȱ9–10.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱcannotȱ
sustainȱanȱagencyȱdeterminationȱuponȱpostȱhocȱreasoning.ȱȱBurlingtonȱTruckȱLines,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱ
UnitedȱStates,ȱ371ȱU.S.ȱ156,ȱ168ȱ(1962)ȱ(“Theȱcourtsȱmayȱnotȱacceptȱappellateȱcounsel’sȱ
postȱhocȱrationalizationsȱforȱagencyȱactionȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”).ȱȱInstead,ȱ“[t]heȱgroundsȱuponȱwhichȱanȱ
administrativeȱorderȱmustȱbeȱjudgedȱareȱthoseȱuponȱwhichȱtheȱrecordȱdisclosesȱthatȱ
[agency]ȱactionȱwasȱbased.”ȱȱSECȱv.ȱCheneryȱCorp.,ȱ318ȱU.S.ȱ80,ȱ87ȱ(1943).ȱ
III.ȱȱCONCLUSIONȱANDȱO RDERȱ
Commerce,ȱonȱremand,ȱmustȱreconsiderȱitsȱdecisionȱfindingȱaȱsingleȱhomeȱ
marketȱlevelȱofȱtradeȱandȱdecliningȱtoȱmakeȱaȱlevelȬofȬtradeȱadjustment.ȱȱThatȱdecisionȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 22 of 23

CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00166ȱ 	Pageȱ23ȱ
ȱ
restsȱsolelyȱuponȱaȱfactualȱfindingȱthatȱisȱnotȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱandȱaȱ
vagueȱandȱconclusoryȱstatementȱdirectedȱtoȱtheȱ“totalityȱofȱtheȱrecordȱevidence.”ȱ
Therefore,ȱuponȱconsiderationȱofȱallȱpapersȱandȱproceedingsȱherein,ȱandȱuponȱ
dueȱdeliberation,ȱitȱisȱherebyȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱplaintiff’sȱRuleȱ56.2ȱMotionȱforȱJudgmentȱonȱtheȱAgencyȱRecord,ȱ
ECFȱNos.ȱ30ȱ(initialȱconf.)ȱ(Mar.ȱ5,ȱ2021),ȱ31ȱ(conf.)ȱ(Mar.ȱ8,ȱ2021),ȱ32ȱ(public)ȱ(Mar.ȱ8,ȱ
2021),ȱbe,ȱandȱherebyȱis,ȱgranted;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ
ȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱCommerce,ȱwithinȱ90ȱdaysȱfromȱtheȱdateȱofȱissuanceȱofȱthisȱ
OpinionȱandȱOrder,ȱshallȱsubmitȱaȱredeterminationȱuponȱremandȱ(“Remandȱ
Redetermination”)ȱthatȱcompliesȱwithȱthisȱOpinionȱandȱOrder;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ
ȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱplaintiffȱandȱdefendantȬintervenorsȱshallȱhaveȱ30ȱdaysȱfromȱtheȱ
filingȱofȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱinȱwhichȱtoȱsubmitȱcommentsȱtoȱtheȱcourt;ȱitȱisȱ
furtherȱ
ȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱshouldȱplaintiffȱorȱdefendantȬintervenorsȱsubmitȱcomments,ȱ
defendantȱshallȱhaveȱ15ȱdaysȱfromȱtheȱdateȱofȱfilingȱofȱtheȱlastȱcommentȱtoȱsubmitȱaȱ
response;ȱandȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ
ȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱplaintiff’sȱUnopposedȱMotionȱforȱOralȱArgumentȱ(Julyȱ2,ȱ2021),ȱ
ECFȱNo.ȱ49,ȱbe,ȱandȱherebyȱis,ȱdenied.ȱ
ȱ
ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	/s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceuȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ
ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	ȱ 	TimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ
ȱ
Dated:ȱȱDecemberȱ17,ȱ2021ȱ
ȱȱNewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ
Case 1:20-cv-00166-TCS Document 53 Filed 12/17/21 Page 23 of 23