PT Enterprise Inc. et al v. United States

Slip Op. 17-135
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
MID CONTINENT STEEL & WIRE, INC.
ET AL.,
Plaintiff and Consolidated
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
PT ENTERPRISE INC. ET AL.,
Defendant-Intervenors and
Consolidated Defendant-
Intervenor.
Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Consol. Court No. 15-00213
PUBLIC VERSION
OPINION
[Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s remand determination concerning the
antidumping duty investigation covering certain steel nails from Taiwan.]
Dated: October 4, 2017
Adam Henry Gordon and Ping Gong, The Bristol Group PLLC, of Washington, DC, for
plaintiff and consolidated defendant-intervenor Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc.
Ned 	Herman 	Marshak 	and 	Andrew Thomas 	Schutz, 	Grunfeld Desiderio 	Lebowitz
Silverman & Klestadt, LLP, of New York, NY, and Washington, DC, for consolidated
plaintiffs and defendant-intervenors PT Enterprise Inc., Pro-Team Coil Nail Enterprise
Inc., Unicatch Industrial Co., Ltd., WTA International Co., Ltd., Zon Mon Co., Ltd., Hor
Liang Industrial Corporation, President Industrial Inc., and Liang Chyuan Industrial Co.,
Ltd.
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 1 of 15

Consol. Court No. 15-00213 	Page 2
PUBLIC VERSION
Mikki Cottet, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. 	With her on the brief were
Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and
Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director. 	Of counsel on the brief was Zachary Scott
Simmons, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance,
U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.
Kelly, Judge: 	Before the court for review is the U.S. Department of Commerce’s
(“Commerce” or “Department”) remand determination in the antidumping duty (“ADD”)
investigation of certain steel nails from Taiwan, filed pursuant to the court’s order in Mid
Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, 41 CIT __, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1326 (2017).
See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, June 21, 2017, ECF
No. 95 (“Remand Results”); see also Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States,
41 CIT __, __, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1326, 1351 (2017) (“Mid Continent”).
The court remanded for Commerce to explain its cost allocation methodology and
calculation of the general and administrative (“G&A”) expense ratio for Pro-Team Coil Nail
Enterprise Inc. (“Pro-Team”), an affiliate of mandatory respondent PT Enterprise, Inc.
(“PT”). Mid Continent, 41 CIT at __, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1351; see generally Certain Steel
Nails From Taiwan, 80 Fed. Reg. 28,959 (Dep’t Commerce May 20, 2015) (final
determination of sales at less than fair value) (“Final Results”) and accompanying Issues
and Decision Mem. for the Affirm. Final Determination in the Less Than Fair Value
Investigation of Certain Nails from Taiwan, A-583-854, (May 13, 2015), ECF No. 17
(“Final Decision Memo”). 	For the reasons that follow, the Remand Results adequately
address the concerns raised in the court’s prior decision and Commerce’s revised
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 2 of 15

Consol. Court No. 15-00213 	Page 3
PUBLIC VERSION
determination is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Remand Results are
sustained.
BACKGROUND
The court assumes familiarity with the facts of this case as set out in full in the
previous opinion ordering remand to Commerce, see Mid Continent, 41 CIT at __, 219 F.
Supp. 3d at 1330–32, and here summarizes the facts relevant to its review of the Remand
Results.
On March 23, 2017, the court sustained in part and remanded in part Commerce’s
final determination in this ADD investigation. 1 	See Mid Continent, 41 CIT at __, 219 F.
Supp. 3d at 1351. The court determined that “Commerce fail[ed] to state or explain how
its cost allocation methodology could result in allocating certain steam-related costs to
G&A expenses, when [Commerce] claims to have allocated all those costs to COGS.”
Id., 41 CIT at __, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1345. 	Given the apparent discrepancy between
Commerce’s description of its cost allocation methodology and its actual methodology for
calculating the G&A expense ratio in this case, the court found Commerce’s calculation
of selling, general, and administrative expenses to be unsupported by substantial
1 Of the challenged issues from the final determination, the court sustained Commerce’s
determinations: (1) that Pro-Team is unaffiliated with the 	tollers in question, see Mid
Continent, 41 CIT __, __, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1326, 1332–35 (2017); (2) to use the Cohen’s d test
within the differential pricing analysis to determine the existence of a pattern of significant price
differences, see id., 41 CIT at __, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1337–40; (3) to use a simple average to
calculate the pooled standard deviation in the Cohen’s d test of the differential pricing analysis,
see id., 41 CIT at __, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1340–43; (4) to not offset dumped sales with non-dumped
sales in calculating the respondent’s antidumping duty margin using the average-to-transaction
methodology, see id., 41 CIT at __, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1343–44; and (5) to disregard transfer
prices paid by Pro-Team to certain affiliated tollers in its calculation of normal value. See id., 41
CIT at __, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1349–51.
[[ 	]]
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 3 of 15

Consol. Court No. 15-00213 	Page 4
PUBLIC VERSION
evidence. 	See id., 41 CIT at __, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1344 –48. 	The court remanded for
Commerce to “explain how it allocates different costs to the respective components [of
the] G&A expense ratio and explain why its determination is supported by the record
evidence or reconsider its determination.” 	Id., 41 CIT at __, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1345.
Pending such clarification, the court deferred deciding whether Commerce’s decision to
allow income from a subsidy to offset cost of goods sold (“COGS”), i.e., the denominator
of the G&A expense ratio, was reasonable and supported by the record. 	Id., 41 CIT at
__, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1348.
Commerce filed the Remand Results on June 21, 2017. On remand, Commerce
clarified that it treats costs and expenses related to Pro-Team’s steam line of business
consistently with how they are reported in Pro-Team’s books and records (i.e., its audited
financial statements). 	See Remand Results 8–11, 14–15. 	Commerce explained that it
assigns costs and expenses on a company-wide, and not product-specific, basis. Id. at
6–7, 14–15. 	Therefore, a given company-wide expense is assigned to either the
numerator or denominator of the G&A expense ratio based on whether it is directly related
to the manufacture of products during the period of investigation or review, and not based
on whether the expense is itemized as either steam-related or nail-related. See id. at 6–
7, 14–15. Commerce explained that it determines whether an expense directly relates to
manufacturing based upon how Pro-Team classifies such costs in its books and records.
See id. at 6–7, 10–11 (citing PT Enterprise Supp. Section D Resp. at Ex. SD-21, CD 79–
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 4 of 15

Consol. Court No. 15-00213 	Page 5
PUBLIC VERSION
84, bar codes 3237002-01–06 (Oct. 21, 2014) (“PT Supp. D Resp.”)), 2 14–15. As a result,
Commerce clarifies that expenses allocated to G&A in Pro-Team’s financial statements
were not allocated to COGS in the G&A expense ratio calculation. See id. at 11, 14.
On remand Commerce reconsidered its determination to offset COGS expenses
with subsidy income attributable to Pro-Team’s steam business. 	Remand Results 15.
Instead, on remand Commerce treated the subsidy income relating to Pro-Team’s steam
business as an offset to G&A expenses (i.e., the numerator of the G&A expense ratio).
Id. 	Accordingly, Commerce recalculated the G&A expense ratio to reduce the ratio’s
numerator, resulting in a reduction of the G&A ratio and, consequently, a reduction of
PT’s selling, general, and administrative expenses. 	See id. at 16. 	This change in
methodology resulted in a revised final margin of 2.16 percent for PT. 	Id. at 23–24.
Commerce explained that, “[b]ecause the all others rate was based on PT’s final margin,”
this change in methodology resulted in a revised all others rate of 2.16 percent. Id. at 24.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court continues to have jurisdiction pursuant to Section 516a(a)(2)(B)(i) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012), 3 and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1581(c) (2012), which grant the court authority to review actions contesting the final
2 On October 16, 2015, Defendant submitted indices to the public and confidential administrative
records, 	which 	identify 	the 	documents 	that 	comprise 	the 	records 	to 	Commerce’s 	final
determination. These indices are located on the docket at ECF No. 17. All further references to
documents from the administrative records of the final determination are identified by the numbers
assigned by Commerce in these indices.
3 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant provisions of Title 19
of the U.S. Code, 2012 edition.
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 5 of 15

Consol. Court No. 15-00213 	Page 6
PUBLIC VERSION
determination in an investigation of an ADD order. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i); 28
U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2012). 	“The court shall hold unlawful any determination, finding, or
conclusion found . . . to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or
otherwise not in accordance with law.” 	19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). 	“The results of a
redetermination pursuant to court remand are also reviewed ‘for compliance with the
court’s remand order.’” Xinjiamei Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co. v. United States, 38 CIT __,
__, 968 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1259 (2014) (quoting Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Co. v. United
States, 32 CIT 1272, 1274, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1306 (2008)).
DISCUSSION
I. 	Expense Allocation Methodology and Calculation
The court held that Commerce’s calculation of the G&A expense ratio for PT was
not supported by substantial evidence because Commerce failed to explain how it
allocated specific costs associated with the steam business of PT’s affiliate, Pro-Team,
to the respective components of the G&A expense ratio. 4 See Mid Continent, 41 CIT at
__, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1345–48. Specifically, the court observed that “Commerce fails to
state or explain how its cost allocation methodology could result in allocating certain
steam-related expenses to G&A expenses, when it claims to have allocated all those
costs to COGS.” 	Id. 	Therefore, the court remanded Commerce’s G&A expense ratio
4 In Mid Continent, the court noted that Commerce stated that “‘[t]he costs associated with the
steam line of business were properly included in the denominator of the G&A expense ratio
calculation (i.e., COGS).’” Mid Continent, 41 CIT at __, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1347 (quoting Final
Decision Memo at 55). 	Yet, the court noted that Commerce did not allocate all expenses
attributable to steam to the COGS denominator, but rather allocated research and development
and depreciation costs to G&A expenses and allocated other expenses attributable to steam to
COGS. Id., 41 CIT at __, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1347.
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 6 of 15

Consol. Court No. 15-00213 	Page 7
PUBLIC VERSION
calculation for further explanation of how the Department allocates costs to the respective
components of a G&A expense ratio calculation and for further explanation as to why its
cost allocation is supported by the record here or to reconsider its determination. Id., 41
CIT at __, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1351. For the reasons that follow, on remand Commerce
has adequately explained its expense allocation methodology and its determination on
remand is supported by substantial evidence.
Commerce calculates a respondent’s dumping margin by determining “the amount
by which the normal value exceeds the export price . . . of the subject merchandise.” 19
U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A). Normal value typically is calculated based on “the price at which
the foreign like product is first sold . . . for consumption in the exporting country, in the
usual 	commercial 	quantities 	and 	in 	the 	ordinary 	course 	of 	trade.” 	19 	U.S.C.
§ 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i). However, when Commerce determines that the respondent does not
have viable home or third-country market sales, the statute directs that Commerce may
use a constructed value (“CV”) to calculate a normal value for respondent. 5 	See 19
5 The statute provides that CV of imported merchandise is equal to the sum of: (1) the cost of
materials of fabrication or other processing of any kind in producing the merchandise; (2) some
representation of the amounts incurred and realized for selling, general, and administrative
expenses and for profits in connection with the production and sale of merchandise for
consumption in the foreign country; and (3) packing and other expenses incidental to placing the
subject merchandise in condition packed and ready for shipment to the United States. 19 U.S.C.
§§ 1677b(e)(1)–(3). 	If actual data are not available for selling, general, and administrative
expenses, then Commerce may calculate selling, general and administrative expenses based on:
(1) the actual amounts incurred and realized by the specific exporter or producer for selling,
general, and administrative expenses in connection with the production and sale, for consumption
in the foreign country, of merchandise of the same general category of products as the subject
merchandise; (2) the weighted-average of the actual amounts actually incurred and realized by
other exporters or producers subject to the investigation; or (3) based on any other reasonable
method. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677b(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii).
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 7 of 15

Consol. Court No. 15-00213 	Page 8
PUBLIC VERSION
U.S.C. 	§§ 	1677b(a)(1)(B)–(C), 	(a)(4); 	see 	also 	Decision 	Mem. 	for 	the 	Prelim.
Determination in the [ADD] Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from Taiwan at 13, PD
225, bar code 3247845-01 (Dec. 17, 2014) (stating that Commerce used CV as the basis
for normal value because PT did not have a viable comparison market).
In calculating CV, Commerce must include selling, general, and administrative
expenses. 	See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677b(e)(3)(1)–(3). 	The statute does not define selling,
general, 	and 	administrative 	expenses. 	However, 	“G&A 	expenses 	are 	generally
understood to mean expenses which relate to the activities of the company as a whole
rather than to the production process.” Torrington Co. v. United States, 25 CIT 395, 431,
146 F. Supp. 2d 845, 885 (2001) (internal quotations omitted). 	The court affords
Commerce significant deference in developing a methodology for determining this
component of CV because it is a determination “involv[ing] complex economic and
accounting decisions of a technical nature.” 	Fujitsu Gen. Ltd. v. United States, 88 F.3d
1034, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 	However, Commerce “must cogently explain why it has
exercised its discretion in a given manner.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of United States v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 48–49 (1983).
To compute the per-unit amount of selling, general, and administrative expenses,
Commerce multiplies a G&A expense ratio by the total costs of manufacture for each
product assigned a control number by Commerce. 	See, e.g., Commerce Request for
Information: [ADD] Investigation, PT Enterprise Inc., Taiwan, Certain Steel Nails at D-14,
PD 63, bar code 3217476-02 (July 24, 2014). According to Commerce’s stated practice,
the numerator for the G&A expense ratio is the respondent’s expenses attributable to
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 8 of 15

Consol. Court No. 15-00213 	Page 9
PUBLIC VERSION
general operations of the company and the denominator is the respondent’s company-
wide COGS. 	Remand Results 1 n.2, 6–7. Thus, the G&A expense ratio, expressed as
an equation is as follows:
ܩ&ܣ ݁ݏ݊݁݌ݔܧ	ܴܽ 	 	݋݅ݐ 	= ܩ&ܣ ݏ݁ݏ݊݁݌ݔܧ 	(ܿ ݕ݊ܽ݌݉݋ 	݁݀݅ݓ 	)
ܵܩܱܥ 	(ܿ ݕ݊ܽ݌݉݋ 	݁݀݅ݓ 	)
See id. at 6–7.
Here, Commerce clarifies that it allocated all company-wide costs, whether
attributable to production of steam or nails, to the G&A (i.e., numerator) portion of the
G&A expense ratio where those expenses are not directly attributable to the manufacture
of products. 	See Remand Results 6–7, 11, 14. 	Likewise, Commerce clarifies that it
classified those company-wide expenses that are directly related to the manufacture of
products, whether attributable to the production of steam or nails, to COGS (i.e., the
denominator portion of the expense ratio). See id. at 7, 11, 14. Thus, the costs were not
allocated based on whether those costs are attributable to subject or non-subject
merchandise, see id. at 11, 14, as the court understood Commerce’s explanation of its
practice in its final determination. 	Citing its practice of generally relying upon the
classifications of expenses as recorded on a company’s audited financial statements so
long as those financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles (“GAAP”) in the respondent’s home country, Commerce clarified
that it allocates non-production costs to G&A and production costs to COGS based upon
how Pro-Team treated those expenses in its financial statements. 	Id. at 10, 14. 	Here,
Commerce explains that it allocated expenses attributable to steam production to G&A
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 9 of 15

Consol. Court No. 15-00213 	Page 10
PUBLIC VERSION
and COGS, respectively, by looking at how PT allocated such costs in its audited financial
statements. 	Id. at 11, citing PT Enterprise Section A Response: [ADD] Investigation of
Certain Steel Nails from Taiwan at Ex. A-12, at Pro Team Coil Nail Enterprise Inc.
Financial Statements Independent Auditors’ Report Dec. 31, 2013 and 2012, at 3, bar
code 3224544-04 (Aug. 28, 2014) (“PT’s Section A Resp. Audited Income Statement
2013 and 2012”)), 14. 	Specifically, Commerce allocated non-manufacturing-related
expenses, like research and development and depreciation, regardless of whether those
costs relate to manufacture of subject merchandise or non-subject merchandise, to G&A.
See id. at 10–11, 14–15. Commerce allocated manufacturing-related expenses, including
expenses attributable to steam production, to COGS. 	See id. at 10–11, 14–15.
Furthermore, Commerce explains that including expenses attributable to steam is
consistent with Commerce’s practice of calculating the G&A expense ratio on a company-
wide basis, and not “based on a consolidated, divisional, or product-specific basis,
because the G&A expenses relate to the general operations of the producing company
as a whole, are associated with the period of time, and are not related to specific
products.” Id. at 9, 14–15.
No party continues to challenge on remand Commerce’s methodology used to
calculate the G&A expense ratio or to assert that Commerce’s methodology reflects an
unreasonable and unlawful application of the statute and regulations. See [PT and Pro-
Team] Remand Comments, July 21, 2017, ECF No. 99; Comments of Pl./Consol. Def.-
Intervenor Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. on Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand 1, July 21, 2017, ECF No. 98 (“Mid Continent Comments”). Commerce
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 10 of 15

Consol. Court No. 15-00213 	Page 11
PUBLIC VERSION
has provided further explanation of its expense allocation methodology, and Commerce’s
Remand Results therefore comply with the court’s order. 	See Mid Continent, 41 CIT at
__, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1351. Accordingly, the Remand Results are sustained with respect
to Commerce’s allocation of costs in the calculation of Pro-Team’s G&A expense ratio.
II. 	Allocation of Steam-Related Income Offset
The 	court 	deferred 	consideration 	of 	Pro-Team’s 	challenge 	to 	Commerce’s
allocation of income attributable to steam production until Commerce had clarified the
apparent inconsistencies in Commerce’s expense allocation methodology. 	See Mid
Continent, 41 CIT at __, 219 F. Supp. 3d at 1348. Mid Continent claims that Commerce
lacks substantial evidence to apply the subsidy income as an offset to COGS (i.e., the
denominator of the G&A expense ratio) because this determination is inconsistent with
Pro-Team’s explanation that the purpose of the subsidy was to reduce the production
costs related to steam production products. 	Mid Continent Comments 2 (internal
quotations omitted). 	For the reasons that follow, Commerce’s allocation of subsidy
income attributable to production of steam is supported by substantial evidence.
As discussed, Commerce is required to include selling, general, and administrative
expenses in its CV calculation. 	See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677b(e)(3)(1)–(3). 	However, the
statute does not define selling, general, and administrative expenses. 	“G&A expenses
are generally understood to mean expenses which relate to the activities of the company
as a whole rather than to the production process.” Torrington Co., 25 CIT at 431, 146 F.
Supp. 2d at 885 (internal quotations omitted); see also Remand Results 6–7. Neither the
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 11 of 15

Consol. Court No. 15-00213 	Page 12
PUBLIC VERSION
statute nor Commerce’s regulation further define how expenses and income offsets are
to be allocated in calculating the G&A expense ratio within Commerce’s CV calculation.
On remand, Commerce reconsidered its prior decision and included the subsidy
income attributable to Pro-Team’s separate steam line of business in G&A expenses (i.e.,
the numerator of the G&A expense ratio) instead of assigning the subsidy as an offset to
the operating expenses (i.e., non-manufacturing related expenses) for steam production
products to COGS (i.e., the denominator of the G&A expense ratio), as it had in its final
determination. 6 Remand Results 15–16. Commerce explains that it revised its treatment
of the subsidy income because Pro-Team’s financial statements “indicate that the subsidy
did not relate to operating expenses, but, rather, to general operations.” 	Id. at 16.
Commerce supports its determination by citing Pro-Team’s audited financial statements
and the revised cost allocation worksheet submitted by Pro-Team, which Commerce
explains records the subsidy as part of “non-operating other income.” 	Id. at 15.
Commerce explains that both of these documents record the subsidy as part of Pro-
Team’s non-operating other income and show that Pro-Team did not apply the subsidy
as an offset to COGS of steam production products nor its operating costs. Id. (citing PT
Supp. D Resp. at Exs. SD-21, SD-24; PT’s Section A Resp. Audited Income Statement
2013 and 2012). Commerce further explains its determination by referencing its normal
6 The court recognizes that Commerce, on remand, reconsidered how to treat the allocation of
income attributable to the energy subsidy. See Remand Results 15; see generally Final Results.
The court did not remand this issue; rather, the court deferred it pending clarification by
Commerce of its cost allocation methodology. See Mid Continent, 41 CIT at __, 219 F. Supp. 3d
at 1348. 	Although the issue was not remanded for reconsideration, the court will nevertheless
review Commerce’s redetermination on this issue. 	All parties had the opportunity to comment
and did not object to Commerce proceeding in this manner. See Remand Results 16–23.
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 12 of 15

Consol. Court No. 15-00213 	Page 13
PUBLIC VERSION
practice of relying on the books and records of the exporter or producer, “if such records
are kept in accordance with the GAAP of the exporting country and reasonably reflect the
costs associated with the production and sale of the merchandise.” Id. at 22.
Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (“Mid Continent”) claims that the record does not
support Commerce’s decision to reallocate steam-related subsidy income to offset G&A
expenses (i.e., the numerator of the G&A expense ratio) because nothing on the record
supports a change from Commerce’s initial determination to offset COGS (i.e., the
denominator of the G&A expense ratio) by income attributable to the steam-related
subsidy. 	Mid Continent Comments 2–3. 	However, Commerce’s determination to
reallocate the income attributable to the steam subsidy is based on Pro-Team’s audited
financial statements and revised financial documents. See Remand Results 15–16 (citing
PT Supp. D Resp. at Exs. SD-21, SD-24; PT’s Section A Resp. Audited Income Statement
2013 and 2012). Commerce references Pro-Team’s treatment of the income attributable
to the subsidy as part of “non-operating other income” in both its audited financial
statements and the revised cost allocation worksheet, and Commerce notes that Pro-
Team did not treat this income as an offset to COGS of steam production products or to
the company’s operating costs. Id. at 15, 23. Mid Continent concedes that Pro-Team’s
books and records did not indicate that the subsidy was applied as an offset to COGS.
See Mid Continent Comments 3.
Mid Continent further argues that Commerce should treat the subsidy consistent
with Pro-Team’s explanation that the subsidy’s purpose was to reduce the production
costs related to steam production products, and consistent with Commerce’s treatment in
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 13 of 15

Consol. Court No. 15-00213 	Page 14
PUBLIC VERSION
the final determination. 	Mid Continent Comments 3. 	Commerce notes that its initial
determination to allocate this income as an offset to COGS was based upon Pro-Team’s
explanation “that the purpose of the subsidy was to reduce the production costs related
to steam production products.” 	Remand Results 15. 	Commerce indicates that the
underlying support for Pro-Team’s explanation was cost allocation worksheets created
for the purposes of the investigation. 	Id.; see PT Supp. D Resp. at 11–12, Exs. SD-21,
SD-24. Commerce explains that, although these cost allocation worksheets do “identif[y]
certain costs and expenses related to steam production products separately, the
company’s audited financial statements . . . ma[k]e no such distinction.” Remand Results
19. In fact, they are “reported in [Pro-Team’s] financial statements as period costs along
with all other G&A expenses, indicating that they are general in nature and not product-
specific.” 	Id. at 22. 	Commerce’s practice is to rely upon the books and records of an
exporter if such records are in accordance with GAAP and reasonably reflect the costs of
production, pursuant to the directive of 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A) for constructing value. 7
See id.; 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A). 	Mid Continent offers no evidence that Pro-Team’s
financial statements were inconsistent with Taiwanese GAAP or do not accurately reflect
costs. 	Commerce is entitled to significant deference in determinations “involv[ing]
complex economic and accounting decisions of a technical nature.” 	Fujitsu, 88 F.3d at
7 The Remand Results provide ample support that such methodology has been consistently
applied in prior determinations. See Remand Results 7 n.27. Furthermore, this court recognized
Commerce’s practice of calculating the G&A expense ratio by using a company’s audited financial
statements in Ass’n of Am. Sch. Paper Suppliers v. United States, 33 CIT 1742, 1745–47,1751–
52 (2009) (discussing the methodology to decide whether it was proper to depart from its use).
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 14 of 15

Consol. Court No. 15-00213 	Page 15
PUBLIC VERSION
1039. 	Mid Continent merely urges a different result, but the court declines to disturb
Commerce’s weighing of the evidence on a determination that is uniquely within the
Department’s expertise. 	Commerce’s treatment of the subsidy income in its Remand
Results is supported by substantial evidence.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, for the reasons discussed, the court sustains the Remand Results.
Judgment will enter accordingly.
/s/ Claire R. Kelly
Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Dated:October 4, 2017
New York, New York
Case 1:15-cv-00220-CRK Document 27 Filed 10/11/17 Page 15 of 15