Bio-Lab, Inc. et al v. United States

Slip Op. 20-24
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BIO-LAB, INC. ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL
CO., LTD. AND HEZE HUAYI
CHEMICAL CO., LTD.,
Defendant-Intervenors.
Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Court No. 18-00051
PUBLIC VERSION
OPINION AND ORDER
[Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s remand redetermination in the
2015–2016 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated
isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China.]
Dated: February 26, 2020
James R. Cannon, Jr., Jonathan M. Zielinski, and Ulrika K. Swanson, Cassidy Levy
Kent 	(USA) 	LLP, 	of 	Washington, 	D.C., 	for 	plaintiffs 	Bio-Lab, 	Inc., 	Clearon
Corporation, and Occidental Chemical Corporation.
Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for defendant. With him
on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant
Director, and Sonia M. Orfield, Trial Attorney. 	Of Counsel on the brief was Jessica
Link, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance,
U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 1 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 2
PUBLIC VERSION
Gregory S. Menegaz, J. Kevin Horgan, and Alexandra H. Salzman, deKieffer &
Horgan, 	PLLC, for 	defendant-intervenors 	Heze 	Huayi 	Chemical 	Co., 	Ltd. and
Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd., of Washington, D.C.
Kelly, 	Judge: 	Before 	the 	court 	is 	the 	U.S. 	Department 	of Commerce’s
(“Commerce” or “Department”) remand redetermination filed pursuant to the court’s
order in Bio-Lab, Inc. v. United States, 43 CIT __, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1264 (2019) (“Bio-
Lab I”). See also Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Remand Order, Oct. 11, 2019, ECF
No. 75 (“Remand Results”). In Bio-Lab I, the court sustained in part and remanded
in part Commerce’s final determination in the 2015–2016 administrative review of
the antidumping duty (“ADD”) order on chlorinated isocyanurates from the People’s
Republic of China (“PRC”). See Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the [PRC], 83 Fed.
Reg. 5,243 (Dep’t Commerce Feb. 6, 2018) (final results of [ADD] administrative
review; 2015–2016) (“Final Results”) and accompanying Decision Memo. for the Final
Results of [ADD] Administrative Review: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from [the PRC];
2015–2016, A-570-898, Jan. 29, 2018, ECF No. 25-5 (“Final Decision Memo”).
Plaintiffs 	Bio-Lab, 	Inc., 	Clearon 	Corporation, 	and 	Occidental 	Chemical
Corporation (collectively “Plaintiffs”) challenge Commerce’s remand redetermination
as unsupported by substantial evidence. See Pls.’ Cmts. Opp’n Commerce’s Remand
Results at 1–6, Nov. 12, 2019, ECF No. 77 (“Pls.’ Br.”). 	Defendant and Defendant-
Intervenors Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Kangtai”) and Heze Huayi
Chemical Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Defendant-Intervenors”) request the court to uphold
the Remand Results. 	See Def.’s Resp. [Pls.’ Br.], Dec. 12, 2019, ECF No. 81 (“Def.’s
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 2 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 3
PUBLIC VERSION
Br.”); Def.-Intervenors’ Reply Cmts. Supp. Commerce’s Remand Redetermination,
Dec. 12, 2019, ECF No. 83 (“Def.-Intervenors’ Br.”). 	For the following reasons, the
court sustains Commerce’s Remand Results.
BACKGROUND
The court assumes familiarity with the facts of this case, as set out in the
previous opinion, see Bio-Lab I, 43 CIT at __, 392 F. Supp. 3d at 1266–67, and
recounts those relevant to the court’s review of the Remand Results. 	In the final
results of this administrative review of the ADD order on chlorinated isocyanurates, 1
Commerce relied on Kangtai’s sales to Customer X, 2 a purchaser operating in a third-
country, as export price (“EP”) sales. 	See Final Decision Memo. at 4. 	Commerce
found that Kangtai’s sales were the first sales made to an unaffiliated party outside
of the United States. Id. To reach this conclusion, Commerce evaluated factors that
signpost the existence of a principal-agent relationship (“affiliation”). 	See id. at 5.
Commerce focused its analysis on Kangtai’s statements that it was not affiliated with
Customer X pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33) and record evidence supporting that
position. See id. at 4–5.
1 This administrative review covers the period June 1, 2015 through May 31, 2016.
See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81
Fed. Reg. 53,121, 53,122 (Dep’t Commerce Aug. 11, 2016).
2 Customer X is [[ 	]].
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 3 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 4
PUBLIC VERSION
In Bio-Lab I, the court ordered Commerce to reconsider or further explain its
reliance on Kangtai’s sales to Customer X as EP sales, because Commerce failed to
consider all relevant factors bearing on an affiliation determination, to adequately
analyze the record evidence, and ultimately to support its determination with
substantial evidence. 	See 43 CIT at __, 392 F. Supp. 3d at 1267–72, 1276.
Specifically, the court faulted Commerce for exclusively relying on two factors in
reaching its determination, and, further, for not considering detracting evidence in
its analysis of those factors. 	See id., 43 CIT at __, 392 F. Supp. 3d at 1269–71.
Therefore, given that Commerce had not analyzed all relevant factors or considered
detracting evidence, the court concluded that “[w]ithout more evidence supporting its
determination, or an explanation after at least considering all relevant factors,”
Commerce’s finding that the two entities were unaffiliated was unreasonable. Id. 43
CIT at __, 392 F. Supp. 3d at 1271. 	On remand, Commerce continues to find no
principal-agent relationship exists between Kangtai and Customer X and treats
Kangtai’s sales as EP sales in the calculation of normal value. See Remand Results
at 1–2.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 28
U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2012), 3 which grant the court authority to review actions contesting
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 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 4 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 5
PUBLIC VERSION
the final determination in an administrative review of an ADD order. The court will
uphold Commerce’s determination unless it is “unsupported by substantial evidence
on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
“The results of a redetermination pursuant to court remand are also reviewed ‘for
compliance with the court’s remand order.’” Xinjiamei Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co. v.
United States, 38 CIT __, __, 968 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1259 (2014) (quoting Nakornthai
Strip Mill Public Co. v. United States, 32 CIT 1272, 1274, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1306
(2008)).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs 	challenge 	as 	unsupported 	by 	substantial 	evidence 	Commerce’s
decision on remand to rely on Kangtai’s sales to Customer X as EP sales, because
necessary evidence is missing from the record for Commerce to conclude Kangtai and
Customer 	X are 	unaffiliated. 	See Pls.’ Br. 	at 5–14. 	Plaintiffs 	contend that
Commerce’s determination is unreasonable because Commerce did not collect more
information and does not offer new substantive explanations on remand. 	See id. at
1–5. 	Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors respond that Commerce complied with
the court’s order by re-examining the relationship between Kangtai and Customer X
based on all factors that signpost the existence of a principal-agent relationship, and,
in doing so, Commerce reasonably finds that the record evidence indicates an absence
of a principal-agent relationship. 	See Def.’s Br. at 5–15; Def.-Intervenors’ Br. at 1–
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 5 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 6
PUBLIC VERSION
11. 	For the reasons that follow, Commerce reasonably concludes that Kangtai and
Customer X were not in a principal-agent relationship.
To calculate a respondent’s dumping margin, Commerce determines the
“amount by which the normal value exceeds the [EP] (or constructed export price) for
the merchandise.” 	19 U.S.C. § 1673. 	Export price is the price at which the subject
merchandise is sold “outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States.”
Id. at § 1677a(a). Thus, Commerce may use sales to a purchaser operating in a third
country as EP sales, so long as the purchaser is unaffiliated with the exporter and
the purchase is for exportation to the United States. 	Otherwise, if that purchaser
and exporter are affiliated, Commerce determines a constructed EP using the price
at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United States to a purchaser not
affiliated with the producer or exporter. See id. at § 1677a(b).
A purchaser is affiliated with the producer if, inter alia, the producer controls
the purchaser. 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)(G). 	The statute provides that one party
controls the other if it “is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or
direction over the other” party. Id. Commerce has found control where a principal-
agent relationship exists between the foreign producer and purchaser. 	See, e.g.,
Engineered 	Process 	Gas 	Turbo-Compressor 	Systems, 	Whether 	Assembled 	or
Unassembled, and Whether Complete or Incomplete, from Japan, 62 Fed. Reg.
24,394, 24,403 (Dep’t Commerce May 5, 1997) (notice of final determination of sales
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 6 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 7
PUBLIC VERSION
at less than fair value) (“Engineered Process Gas”). 	In determining whether a
principal-agent relationship exists, no bright line test exists, id., and Commerce will
consider the totality of the circumstances. See Remand Results at 18.
To do so, Commerce considers a variety of factors, probative of a foreign
producer’s interaction with downstream U.S. customers and the purchaser’s control
over merchandise, that guide an analysis of whether the foreign producer, as a
principal, restrains or directs the purchaser, as its agent. Those factors include: (1)
the foreign producer’s role in negotiating prices with the downstream U.S. customers,
(2) the extent to which the foreign producer interacts with such downstream
customers, (3) the extent to which the purchaser maintains inventory of the product,
(4) whether the purchaser takes title to goods, (5) the extent to which the purchaser
further processes the goods or adds value, (6) the methods of marketing a product by
the 	producer 	to 	the 	U.S. 	customer 	in 	the 	pre-sale 	period, 	and 	(7) 	whether
identification 	of 	the 	producer 	on 	the 	sales 	documentation 	implies 	an 	agency
relationship during the transactions (collectively, “India Threaded Rod factors” or
“factors”). See Steel Threaded Rod from India, 79 Fed. Reg. 9,164 (Dep’t Commerce
Feb. 18, 2014) (prelim. determination of sales at less than fair value, affirmative
prelim. determination of critical circumstances, in part, and postponement of final
determination) and accompanying Decision Memo. for the Prelim. Determination of
the [ADD] Investigation of Steel Threaded Rod from India at 14–15, A-533-855, (Feb.
10, 2014), available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/india/2014-03483-
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 7 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 8
PUBLIC VERSION
1.pdf (last visited Feb. 21, 2020) (“India Threaded Rod Decision Memo.”). Commerce’s
analysis focuses on “whether it is agreed that the agent is to act primarily for the
benefit of the principal, not for itself.” 	Engineered Process Gas, 62 Fed. Reg. at
24,403.
On remand, Commerce reasonably determines that Kangtai and Customer X
were unaffiliated. In Bio-Lab I, the court ordered Commerce to reconsider or further
explain its reliance on Kangtai’s sales to Customer X as EP sales, because Commerce
failed to adequately analyze the record evidence and support its determination. See
43 CIT at __, 392 F. Supp. 3d at 1267–72, 1276. 	Although Commerce could have
reopened 	the 	record 	on 	remand, Commerce 	declined 	to 	do so, 	and 	makes 	its
determination by analyzing the same record evidence and by offering further
explanation. 	Remand Results at 20–22. 	Commerce recounts in detail why, in
consideration of each of the seven India Threaded Rod factors, it continues to find a
principal-agent relationship absent, from the totality of the circumstances. See id. at
5–19.
Although Commerce evaluates each India Threaded Rod factor sequentially,
its analysis focused, in large part, on four factors that are probative of whether, and
the extent to which, Kangtai interacted with downstream U.S. customers. 4 	Unlike
4 The four India Threaded Rod factors that examine a foreign producer’s relationship
(footnote continued)
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 8 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 9
PUBLIC VERSION
its analysis in the Final Results, Commerce, on remand, specifically considers record
evidence 	concerning 	price 	negotiations, 	methods 	of 	marketing, 	and 	sales 	that
corroborated Customer X’s and Kangtai’s statements that Kangtai’s interactions with
Customer X do not extend to the downstream U.S. customers of Customer X. 5 	See
Remand Results at 6–14. 6 Commerce examines Kangtai’s sales trace and accounting
documents, provided by Kangtai in its questionnaire and verification responses,
which revealed how Customer X requests a price quote from Kangtai and then
with downstream U.S. customers are: the foreign producer’s role in negotiating prices
with the downstream U.S. customers, the extent to which the foreign producer
interacts with such downstream customers, the methods of marketing a product by
the producer to the U.S. customer in the pre-sale period, and whether identification
of the producer on the sales documentation implies an agency relationship during the
transactions. See Remand Results at 6–15.
5 	Commerce 	refers 	to 	Customer 	X’s 	statement 	that 	it 	negotiates 	prices
with Kangtai based on 	and
Kangtai’s statement that it “does not determine the ultimate customer or market.”
See Remand Results at 7 n.33 (citing Kangtai SQRA at 14, Ex. A-4; Kangtai Supp.
Questionnaire Resp. at 2, CD 58–61, barcodes 3563243-01–04 (Apr. 14, 2017)
(internal quotations omitted).
6 By contrast, in its Final Decision Memo., Commerce did not engage with the record
evidence and stated, without further explanation, that its “examination of the
Kangtai’s [sic] financial statements, sales contract, bill of lading, and payment
records during verification[] confirmed that Kangtai played no role in communicating
with the ultimate downstream customers of Customer X.” See Final Decision Memo.
at 5. 	Similarly, Commerce noted that its “examination during verification of
Kangtai’s sales traces and accounting and sales records all identified Customer X as
the importer of record that took title to the products upon importation and made
payments to Kangtai for these U.S. sales.” 	Id. 	Given the paucity of analysis, this
court observed that Commerce appeared to have taken Kangtai’s statements of non-
affiliation at “face value despite record evidence potentially detracting from this
conclusion.” Bio-Lab I, 43 CIT at __, 392 F. Supp. 3d at 1270.
[[ 	]] 	[[ 	]]
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 9 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 10
PUBLIC VERSION
negotiates with Kangtai to reach a mutually agreed price. 	Id. at 8 (citing Kangtai’s
Verification Report at VE-6–8, VE-11, CD 135, bar code 3642610-01 (Nov. 17, 2017)
(“Kangtai Verification Report); Kangtai Section A Questionnaire Response at Ex. A-
8, CD 8–10, bar codes 3523067-01–03 (Nov. 16, 2016) (“Kangtai SQRA”)). Commerce
reasons that such negotiations would be unnecessary if Kangtai were, as a principal,
dictating the sales terms to Customer X, its agent. See id. at 10. 7 	Commerce notes
that the sales trace documents between Kangtai and Customer X—i.e., purchase
orders, sales contracts, and invoices—reflect documentation typical of independently
negotiated sales. Id. at 15–16. Further, the sales contracts and invoices do not refer
to Customer X as an agent, indicate a commission, or reference sales revenue from
Kangtai’s downstream U.S. customers. 	Id. 	Although the sales documents provided
to the downstream U.S. customer, specifically the bill of lading, identified Kangtai as
the producer, Commerce explains that the identity of a producer on such documents
7 By contrast, in India Threaded Rod, Commerce found a principal-agent relationship
existed because the foreign producer negotiated directly with downstream U.S.
customers and limited the purchaser’s price negotiations. 	See India Threaded Rod
Decision Memo at 17. Similarly, in Engineered Process Gas, Commerce determined
that the foreign producer controlled the price, and other terms of sale, of the
purchaser’s transactions with downstream U.S. customers, by communicating with
the downstream customer. 	See id., 62 Fed. Reg. at 24,403. 	Here, by contrast,
Commerce did not find a “paper trail” reflecting a principal-agent relationship
between Kangtai and Customer X. See Remand Results at 22.
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 10 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 11
PUBLIC VERSION
does not, taken alone, indicate a principal-agent relationship. 8 	See id. at 15 (citing
India Threaded Rod Decision Memo. at 57). In consideration of the sales documents
between Kangtai and Customer X as well as between Customer X and its downstream
U.S. customer, Commerce reasonably infers that Kangtai did not direct, restrain, or
control Customer X in its interactions with and sales to downstream U.S. customers.
Id. 9
In addition, Commerce addresses the court’s concern that Kangtai’s U.S.
customers encompassed Customer X’s customers in its analysis of record evidence.
See Bio-Lab I, 43 CIT at __, 392 F. Supp. 3d at 1270–71. Even though Kangtai had
attended U.S. trade shows, 10 where customers of Customer X were also likely present,
8 Specifically, the 	identifies Kangtai as the 	Customer
X as the 	and another customer as 	Given that
Customer X made its sales on an 	basis, meaning that Customer X
Remand Results at 13, 	would
arrange shipping. Therefore, the inclusion of another customer supports Commerce’s
inference that the sales documents do not suggest that Kangtai acts on Customer X’s
behalf. See Remand Results at 15–16.
9 Commerce considers that this factor “strongly weighs in favor” of finding no
affiliation between Kangtai and Customer X. 	Remand Results at 10. 	Unlike India
Threaded Rod and Engineered Process Gas, Commerce explains there was no
evidence that Kangtai negotiated prices with downstream customers or that Kangtai
controlled the prices Customer X charged to downstream customers. 	See Remand
Results at 11 (citing India Threaded Rod Decision Memo. at 15; Engineered Process
Gas, 62 Fed. Reg. at 24,403).
10 Kangtai explained that it had met Customer X at a trade show in 	and
began selling to Customer X in 	during the POR. See Kangtai Verification
Report at 2.
[[ 	]] 	[[ 	]],
[[ 	]], 	[[ 	]].
[[ 	]] 	[[
]],
[[ 	]]
[[ 	]]
[[ 	]],
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 11 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 12
PUBLIC VERSION
Commerce finds that by comparing Kangtai’s questionnaire responses listing its U.S.
customers 11 with certain sales documentation identifying the ultimate shipment
recipient, Kangtai’s customers were not also the U.S. customers of Customer X. 12 Id.
at 8–9. Therefore, the record evidence corroborates Kangtai’s statement that it had
no contact with Customer X’s downstream U.S. customers. 13 See Remand Results at
7–9 (citing Kangtai Supp. Questionnaire Resp. at 2, CD 58–61, barcodes 3563243-01–
04 (Apr. 14, 2017)). 	Commerce’s review of the record evidence reasonably supports
11 Kangtai reported 	other U.S. customers for the POR,
See Kangtai Sec. C & D Questionnaire Response at 8, CD 15, bar
code 3528720-01 (Dec. 9, 2016).
12 Commerce notes that sales documentation on the record identified
as a customer of Customer X. 	Remand Results at 9 (citing
Kangtai SQRA at Ex. A-8; Kangtai Verification Report at VE-11). However, Kangtai
did not list 	as a U.S. customer in its questionnaire
responses. Id.
13 Plaintiffs assert that Commerce does not address the India Threaded Rod factor
concerning the foreign producer’s role in negotiating price and other terms of sale,
because Commerce focused on the definition of “U.S. customer.” See Pls.’ Br. at 6–7.
However, Plaintiffs’ argument elides the context in which Commerce discussed this
term and discounts Commerce’s further analysis. In the Remand Results, Commerce
points to Kangtai’s verification report, where Commerce confirmed with Kangtai how
it had defined “U.S. Customer,” namely as a customer for sale for exportation to the
United States, not a customer located in the United States. 	Remand Results at 9
(citing Kangtai Verification Report at Ex. VE-9). 	Commerce notes that irrespective
of Kangtai’s definition, it would not necessarily agree with that characterization, if
there were contrary evidence. 	Id. at 10. 	Moreover, Commerce refers to record
evidence—beyond the characterization of U.S. customer—discussed above, indicating
that Kangtai did not direct or restrain Customer X in its price negotiations or terms
of sale to Customer X’s downstream U.S. customers. See Remand Results at 7–11.
[[ 	]] 	[[
]].
[[
]]
[[ 	]]
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 12 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 13
PUBLIC VERSION
its inference that Kangtai did not play a role in, or direct, Customer X’s identification
of downstream U.S. customers or direct the terms of sale. See id. at 8.
Commerce also considers the remaining three India Threaded Rod factors,
which are probative of whether Customer X exercised control over merchandise. 14
Based on sales records, Commerce finds that Customer X takes title to merchandise
before it leaves Kangtai’s factory. 15 Remand Results at 13, n.53 (citing Kangtai SQRA
at Exs. 8, 14). 	However, Commerce observes that Customer X does not maintain
inventory of Kangtai’s products 16 and, further, does not process or add value to that
14 The remaining factors are: whether the purchaser takes title to goods, the extent
to which the purchaser maintains inventory of the product, and the extent to which
the purchaser further processes the goods or adds value. See Remand Results at 13–
14.
15 Plaintiffs allege that Commerce fails to explain why payment was not tied to
downstream delivery, when, of the two sales traces on record, Customer X had paid
for one sale on time yet another sale 	later. See Pls.’ Br. at 10. However,
Commerce in its Remand Results does not consider the gap between delivery and
payment dates to be significant. 	See Remand Results at 29. 	Commerce notes that
the sales documents identified Customer X as the consignee, or the owner of the
consignment to which title transfers. Id. Commerce also explains that, because sales
were made 	title transfers to the consignee when the merchandise is
claimed for delivery at Kangtai’s factory. Id. at 28. Commerce therefore infers that
the payment terms, under such an 	sale, required Customer X to pay
within 30 days after the merchandise was picked up at Kangtai’s factory. 	Id. 	In
Commerce’s view, this sales structure further suggests that Customer X was not a
“go-through” of Kangtai, because it “owned” merchandise until delivery to its
downstream customer. Id.
16 Commerce also addresses the court’s concern that the record “contains no evidence
concerning when Customer X takes title or when title is transferred[.]” Bio-Lab I, 43
CIT at __, 392 F. Supp. 3d at 1269. 	On remand, Commerce explains that, although
(footnote continued)
[[ 	]]
[[ 	]],
[[ 	]]
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 13 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 14
PUBLIC VERSION
merchandise. See Remand Results at 13–14. Although, as Commerce acknowledges,
a lack of inventory may indicate that Customer X is an agent of Kangtai, Commerce
explains that a lack of inventory could also evince a foreign producer-middle man
relationship. 	See id. at 27. 	Commerce notes that not all foreign producers can find
customers and negotiate sales abroad; instead, a foreign producer may sell to a middle
man with its own customers. 	See id. 	Therefore, a middleman may elect to ship
directly to its customers, without incurring the extra costs of warehousing goods. Id.
As Commerce notes, it does not necessarily follow from such an arrangement that the
price a middle man charges to its customers is one directed by the foreign producer.
Id. 	In consideration of the totality of the circumstances, Commerce reasonably
determines that its analysis of all India Threaded Rod factors and the record evidence
weigh in favor of finding that Kangtai and Customer X were not affiliated. See id. at
18–19. The court cannot say this conclusion is unreasonable. 17
the sales contract between Kangtai and Customer X requires payment
the sales contract, along with the bill of lading,
also indicates that the sales were made 	where Kangtai is responsible
to make the merchandise available for pick-up by Customer X. See Remand Results
at 16–17 (citing Kangtai Verification Report at Ex. VE-11; Kangtai SQRA at 5).
Therefore, Commerce reasonably concludes that Customer X received merchandise,
even if it did not physically take inventory, and paid for the merchandise after
received, i.e., shipped. See id. at 16.
17 Plaintiffs’ contention that Commerce erroneously assigned certain India Threaded
Rod factors less weight than others, and ignored others altogether, in its evaluation
of the totality of the circumstances lacks merit. See Pls.’ Br. 14. Commerce’s task, to
(footnote continued)
[[
]],
[[ 	]],
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 14 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 15
PUBLIC VERSION
Commerce considers evidence that indicated Customer X’s independence from
Kangtai, such as the sales trace and accounting documents, as well as detracting
evidence, namely that the U.S. downstream customer was included on the bill of
lading and that Kangtai attended trade shows, where Customer X’s U.S. customers
may have been in attendance. 	See id. at 18–19. 18 	However, on review of this
detracting evidence, Commerce “s[aw] no reason to infer” that Kangtai was involved
in setting prices or other terms of downstream sales or that Kangtai directed
determine the existence of a principal-agent relationship, necessitates an accounting
of all circumstances, that taken together, weigh in favor of one conclusion. Commerce,
here, analyzes each factor individually and then discussed why, in view of all
circumstances, including detracting evidence, the record supported a finding that
Kangtai and Customer X were not affiliated. See Remand Results at 18–19. It is not
the role of the court to reweigh facts and substitute its judgment as to the relative
weight of facts for that of Commerce. 	See 	Downhole Pipe & Equipment, L.P. v.
United States, 776 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
18 Commerce further addresses whether the fact that the majority of Kangtai’s sales
were made to Customer X, i.e., 	established a close supplier
relationship. 	See Bio-Lab I, 43 CIT at __, 392 F. Supp. 3d at 1270. 	By regulation,
Commerce considers a close supplier relationship, or a relationship that is significant
and not easily replaced, in a finding of affiliation based on control. 	See 19 C.F.R.
351.102(b)(3) (2013); see also Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products From Final Results of [ADD] Administrative Reviews, 62 Fed.
Reg. 18,404, 18,417 (Dep’t Commerce Apr. 15, 1997); Issues and Decision Memo. for
the Final Determination in the [ADD] Investigation of Multilayered Wood Flooring
from 	the 	[PRC] 	at 	83, 	A-570-970, 	(Oct. 	11, 	2011), 	available 	at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/prc/2011-26932-1.pdf 	(last 	visited 	Feb.
21, 2020). Commerce explains that Kangtai entered into business with Customer X
only during the POR, and the relationship terminated in 2016, after Kangtai received
a high cash deposit rate in the 2014–2015 administrative review. 	See Remand
Results at 17–18. Commerce further notes that there was no evidence that Customer
X sourced all or the majority of merchandise from Kangtai during the POR. Id. at 18.
Therefore, Commerce reasonably concludes that neither was reliant on one another,
irrespective of the level of sales. Id. at 17–18.
[[ 	]],
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 15 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 16
PUBLIC VERSION
Customer X. Id. at 19. Commerce also weighs its findings that Customer X does not
maintain or take physical custody of the product and does not further process that
product. 	See id. at 18–19. 	However, given that the record evidence provides no
indication that Kangtai directed prices Customer X charged to downstream U.S.
customers or effected other terms of sale, Commerce concludes, from the totality of
the circumstances, that Kangtai and Customer X were not principal and agent. 	Id.
at 19.
According 	to 	Plaintiffs, 	however, 	the 	record 	is 	inadequate 	to 	support
Commerce’s determination of non-affiliation, and, even, “as-is,” the record does not
support that finding. 	See Pls.’ Br. at 1–5. 	Plaintiffs’ arguments are unavailing.
Plaintiffs 	contend 	Commerce 	cannot 	cure 	a 	“fundamentally 	inadequate”
administrative record by “rewriting its rationale.” Pls.’ Br. at 4. However, the court
in Bio-Lab I explained that Commerce’s determination was unreasonable “[w]ithout
more 	evidence 	supporting 	its 	determination, 	or 	an 	explanation 	after 	at 	least
considering all the relevant factors[.]” 43 CIT at __, 392 F. Supp. 3d at 1271. Here,
Commerce elected to further explain the basis for its finding, see Remand Results at
20, and, for the reasons discussed above, reasonably determined that the record was
sufficient to make its affiliation determination. 	Therefore, contrary to Plaintiffs’
allegation, even if Commerce’s elaboration of its initial finding could be characterized
as a “rewrit[ing],” “offer[] [of] a somewhat different rationale,” or “repackag[ing]”,
Commerce followed the court’s remand order to reconsider or further explain the
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 16 of 17

Court No. 18-00051 	Page 17
PUBLIC VERSION
basis of its initial findings. 	Pls.’ Br. at 2–4. Further, Plaintiffs, in arguing that the
record evidence does not support Commerce’s finding of non-affiliation, contest
Commerce’s interpretation of the record. Pls.’ Br. at 5–14. However, “the possibility
of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an
administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.”
Consolo. v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). It is not the court’s role to
reweigh evidence. See Downhole Pipe, 776 F.3d at 1376.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that Commerce’s Remand Results is sustained. Judgment will
enter accordingly.
/s/ Claire R. Kelly
Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Dated: 	February 26, 2020
New York, New York
Case 1:18-cv-00051-CRK Document 95 Filed 03/05/20 Page 17 of 17