Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co., Ltd. et al v. United States

Slip Op. 26-63
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
JIANGSU DINGSHENG NEW
MATERIALS JOINT-STOCK CO.,
LTD. ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
ALUMINUM ASSOCIATION TRADE
ENFORCEMENT WORKING GROUP
AND ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS,
ET AL.,
Defendant-Intervenors.
Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Court No. 23-00264
PUBLIC VERSION
OPINION
[Sustaining Commerce’s denial of a double remedies adjustment under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677f-1(f)(1).]
Dated: June 16, 2026
Ned Herman Marshak, Lead Attorney, Dharmendra Narain Choudhary, and Jordan
Charles Kahn, Grunfeld Desiderio Lebowitz Silverman & Klestadt, LLP, of New
York, NY and Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials
Joint-Stock Co., Ltd., Dingsheng Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Trading Co.,
Limited, Hangzhou Dingsheng Import & Export Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Five Star
Aluminium Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Teemful Aluminium Co., Ltd., Inner Mongolia
Liansheng New Energy Material Co., Ltd., and Inner Mongolia Xinxing New Energy
Material Co., Ltd.
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 1 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 2
PUBLIC VERSION
Tate Nathan Walker, U.S. Department of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch –
Civil Division, Lead Attorney and JonZachary Forbes, Office of the Chief Counsel for
Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington,
D.C., for Defendant United States.
John M. Herrmann, II, Joshua Rubin Morey, Matthew G. Pereira, and Paul Charles
Rosenthal, 	Kelley 	Drye 	& 	Warren, 	LLP, 	of 	Washington, 	D.C., 	for 	Defendant-
Intervenors Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group and its
Individual Members, JW Aluminum Company, Novelis Corporation, and Reynolds
Consumer Products LLC.
Kelly, 	Judge: 	Before 	the 	Court 	is 	the 	U.S. 	Department 	of 	Commerce’s
(“Commerce”) redetermination pursuant to this Court’s remand order. 	See Jiangsu
Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co., Ltd. v. United States, 794 F. Supp. 3d
1334 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2025) (“Dingsheng I”); see also Redetermination Pursuant to
Court 	Remand 	Order 	(Dec. 	15, 	2025), 	ECF 	Nos. 	75–76 	(“Remand 	Results”).
Commerce continues to find that Plaintiffs Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-
Stock Co., Ltd. et al. (collectively, “Dingsheng” or “Plaintiffs”) provided insufficient
evidence 	in 	their 	Double 	Remedies 	Questionnaire 	Response 	to 	demonstrate 	a
subsidy-to-cost link and a cost-to-price link, and therefore, denies Plaintiffs’ double
remedies adjustment under section 777A(f)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1677f-1(f)(1)). 12 	Remand Results at 4–21; see also Dingsheng Double Remedies
1 Plaintiffs are Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co., Ltd., Dingsheng
Aluminium Industries (Hong Kong) Trading Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Dingsheng Import
& Export Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Five Star Aluminium Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Teemful
Aluminium Co., Ltd., Inner Mongolia Liansheng New Energy Material Co., Ltd., and
Inner Mongolia Xinxing New Energy Material Co., Ltd.
2 	Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant
provisions of Title 19 of the U.S. Code, 2024 edition.
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 2 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 3
PUBLIC VERSION
Questionnaire Response, PR 130, CR 94-96 bar code 4349609-01 (Mar. 3, 2023)
(“DRQR”). 3 	Plaintiffs argue that Commerce’s denial of Plaintiffs’ double remedies
adjustment 	on 	remand 	is 	unsupported 	by 	substantial 	evidence 	and 	violates
Commerce’s obligations under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) to provide notice of deficiencies
in questionnaire responses before denying the adjustment in the Final Results based
on its determination that Plaintiffs provided insufficient data to support their claims.
[Pls.’] Cmts. on Remand Results at 3–22, (Feb. 2, 2026), ECF Nos. 81–82 (“Pls.
Cmts.”); see Certain Aluminum Foil From People’s Republic of China: Final Results
of 	Antidumping 	Duty 	Administrative 	Review 	and 	Final 	Determination 	of 	No
Shipments; 2021-2022, 88 Fed. Reg. 76,734 (Nov. 7, 2023) (“Final Results”) and
accompanying Final Issues & Decision Memo., PR 210, bar code 4456564-02 (Nov. 2,
2023) (“Final Decision Memo.”). 	Defendant-Intervenors argue that Plaintiffs fail to
demonstrate eligibility for a double remedies adjustment and that here, 19 U.S.C.
§ 	1677m(d) 	does 	not 	impose 	on 	Commerce 	an 	obligation 	to provide 	notice 	of
deficiency. 4 Def. Int. Cmts. on Remand Results at 2–15, (Apr. 3, 6, 2026), ECF Nos.
87–88 (“Def. Int. Cmts.”).
3 	Citations to administrative record documents in this opinion are to the numbers
Commerce assigned to such documents in the indices, and all references to such
documents are preceded by “PR” or “CR” to denote public or confidential documents.
4 	Defendant-Intervenors are Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working
Group and its Individual Members, JW Aluminum Company, Novelis Corporation,
and Reynolds Consumer Products LLC.
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 3 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 4
PUBLIC VERSION
BACKGROUND
On June 9, 2022, Commerce initiated the fourth administrative review of the
antidumping duty (“ADD”) order on aluminum foil from the People’s Republic of
China for the 2021–2022 period of review (“POR”). 	Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing 	Duty 	Administrative 	Reviews, 	87 	Fed. 	Reg. 	35,165-02 	(Dep’t
Commerce Jun. 9, 2022). Commerce selected Dingsheng as a mandatory respondent.
U.S. Dep’t Comm. Second Respondent Selection Memo., PD 53, CD 21 bar code
4274937-01 	(Aug. 	16, 	2022). 	On 	February 	10, 2023, 	because 	Commerce 	was
conducting concurrent countervailing duty (“CVD”) and ADD reviews of this subject
merchandise, Commerce gave Plaintiffs the option to submit evidence of their
eligibility for an adjustment by responding to a double remedies questionnaire. See
U.S. Dep’t Comm. Ltr. to Dingsheng: Double Remedies Questionnaire, PR 124 bar
code 4340542-01 (Feb. 10, 2023) (“DRQR Ltr.”).5 	On March 3, 2023, Dingsheng
submitted its DRQR. See generally DRQR. On April 28, 2023, Commerce published
the preliminary results of the review. 	See Certain Aluminum Foil From People’s
5 	Commerce’s letter to Plaintiffs indicates that a request for a double remedies
adjustment 	is 	optional, 	explaining 	“[b]ecause 	the 	Department 	of 	Commerce
(Commerce) is conducting concurrent AD and CVD reviews of certain aluminum foil
from the People’s Republic of China, we have determined that section 777A(f) of the
Act may be applicable in this AD review. Should [the respondent] seek an adjustment
pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act, it must submit to Commerce a complete
response to the attached questionnaire . . . .” See DRQR Ltr. at 1. Further, Commerce
indicates that if it does not receive a timely response to the Double Remedies
Questionnaire, it “may conclude that [the respondent] has decided not to seek a
double remedy adjustment.” Id. at 2.
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 4 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 5
PUBLIC VERSION
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Preliminary
Determination of No Shipments; 2021-2022, 88 Fed. Reg. 29,092 	(Dep’t Commerce
May 5, 2023) (“Preliminary Results”) and accompanying Preliminary Issues &
Decision Memo., PR 189, bar code 4371458-02 (May 1, 2023) (“Prelim. Decision
Memo.”). 	On November 7, 2023, Commerce issued its Final Results. 	See Final
Results. 	In its prior opinion, the Court sustained Commerce’s selection of Romania
as the primary surrogate country and remanded Commerce’s denial of Plaintiffs’
double 	remedies 	adjustment 	for 	reconsideration 	or 	further 	explanation. 	See
Dingsheng I, 794 F. Supp. 3d at 1347.
Commerce filed its Draft Remand Results on September 30, 2025. 	Draft
Remand Redetermination, PR 1, CR 1 bar code 4834191-01 (Sept. 30, 2025) (“Draft
Remand Results”). Commerce issued the final results of its determination on remand
on December 15, 2025. 	See Remand Results. 	Plaintiffs commented on the Remand
Results on February 2, 2026. See Pls. Cmts. Defendant-Intervenors commented on
the Remand Results on April 3 and 6, 2026. 	See Def. Int. Cmts. 	Defendant replied
to the comments on the Remand Results on April 2, 2026. Reply to Cmts. on Remand
Results, Apr. 2, 2026, ECF No. 86 (“Def. Reply”).
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The 	Court 	has 	jurisdiction 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1581(c) 	and 	19 	U.S.C.
§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii), which authorize the Court to review a final determination in an
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 5 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 6
PUBLIC VERSION
administrative review of an ADD order. 	19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1581(c). 	The Court sustains 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). 	“‘Substantial evidence’ means ‘such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” 	Crawfish
Processors Alliance v. United States, 483 F.3d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting
Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). 	The Court reviews remand
determinations for compliance with the Court’s remand order. Nakornthai Strip Mill
Pub. Co. v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1306 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008).
DISCUSSION
On 	remand, 	Commerce 	concludes 	that 	Dingsheng 	provided 	insufficient
evidence in its DRQR to demonstrate a subsidy-to-cost link or a cost-to-price link and
therefore denies Dingsheng’s double remedies adjustment. Remand Results at 4–21.
Plaintiffs argue that Commerce’s determination is unsupported by substantial
evidence because Commerce “misconstrues” the data supporting subsidy-to-cost and
cost-to-price links and that Commerce failed to notify them of alleged deficiencies in
their DRQR responses. 	Pls. Cmts. at 3–22. 	Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors
argue Commerce’s Remand Results are supported by substantial evidence, and that
19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) does not apply here. See Remand Results at 4–21; Def. Reply
at 	5–17; 	Def. 	Int. 	Cmts. 	at 	2–14. 	For 	the 	following 	reasons, 	Commerce’s
determination on remand is sustained.
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 6 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 7
PUBLIC VERSION
I. 	Countervailable 	Subsidy 	“Demonstrated 	to 	Have 	Reduced 	the
Average Price of Imports”
In its remand determination, Commerce finds that Dingsheng does not provide
sufficient evidence to warrant a double remedies adjustment. Remand Results at 2.
Specifically, it concludes Dingsheng fails to demonstrate a subsidy-to-cost link
because Dingsheng’s evidence does not connect the effects of the LTAR subsidy
programs to its overall cost of manufacturing. 	Id. at 5–8. 	Additionally, Commerce
contends Dingsheng does not demonstrate a cost-to-price link because (1) its evidence
does not demonstrate price decreases as a result of decreasing manufacturing input
costs, and (2) its average raw materials costs and price-setting evidence in fact
detracts from its claims. Id. at 8–11. Plaintiffs argue that Commerce’s determination
is not supported by substantial evidence because Commerce “misconstrues the
relevant data supporting Dingsheng’s subsidy-to-cost and cost-to-price linkage.” Pls.
Cmts. at 10. For the following reasons, Commerce’s determination that Plaintiffs fail
to demonstrate either a subsidy-to-cost or cost-to-price link and therefore are not
entitled to a double remedies adjustment, is supported by substantial evidence and
is otherwise in accordance with law.
Commerce imposes ADD when it determines that foreign merchandise is sold
in the United States at less than its fair value, calculating the dumping margin based
on the amount by which normal value exceeds export price. 	19 U.S.C. §§ 1673;
1677(35). 	CVDs are imposed when Commerce determines that imports of subject
merchandise benefit from a countervailable subsidy tied to production, manufacture,
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 7 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 8
PUBLIC VERSION
or export. 	19 U.S.C. § 1671(a). 	For market economy countries, normal value is
generally based on the price at which the merchandise is first sold in the exporting
country’s 	home 	market, 	which 	may 	reflect 	subsidies 	affecting 	costs 	or 	prices.
19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1). For NME countries, Commerce does not rely on home market
prices but rather constructs normal value using surrogate values from market
economy countries. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c); see also 19 U.S.C. § 1677(18)(A). Thus, “in
a market economy presumably normal value and export price will reflect the impact
of a subsidy alike while in an NME normal value will be unaffected by a subsidy.
Therefore, concurrent dumping and subsidy investigations in NMEs pose a risk of
remedying the same unfair trade act twice.” Dingsheng I, 794 F. Supp. 3d at 1344.
Section 1677f-1(f)(1) of Title 19 directs Commerce, in NME proceedings, to
reduce ADD margins by the amount necessary to prevent a double remedy arising
from the concurrent imposition of ADD and CVD. 	19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(f)(1); see
Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co. v. United States, 745 F.3d 1194,
1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 780 F.3d
1136, 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 	Where Commerce finds a countervailable subsidy, it
must grant an adjustment if: (i) a party demonstrates that the countervailable
subsidy reduced the average price of imports; and (ii) Commerce can reasonably
estimate the extent to which the countervailable subsidy has increased the weighted-
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 8 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 9
PUBLIC VERSION
average dumping margin for the imports. 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(f)(1). 6 	In
implementing this statutory framework, Commerce applies “a pass-through analysis”
of U.S. sales. See Vicentin S.A.I.C. v. United States, 503 F. Supp. 3d 1255, 1263 (Ct.
Int’l Trade 2021), aff’d, 42 F.4th 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (explaining Commerce’s use of
a “subsidies-to-cost link,” e.g., the subsidy’s effect on cost of manufacture, and a “cost-
to-price link,” e.g., the producer’s or exporter’s prices changed as a result of changes
in cost of manufacture). As a matter of practice, Commerce grants a double remedies
adjustment only where a respondent establishes both links. See, e.g., Jiangsu Zhongji
6 Subsection 1677f-1(f)(1) provides:
If the administering authority determines, with respect to a class or kind
of 	merchandise 	from 	a 	nonmarket 	economy 	country 	for which 	an
antidumping duty is determined using normal value pursuant to section
1677b(c) of this title, that--
(A) pursuant to section 1671(a)(1) of this title, a countervailable
subsidy (other than an export subsidy referred to in section
1677a(c)(1)(C) of this title) has been provided with respect to the
class or kind of merchandise,
(B) such countervailable subsidy has been demonstrated to have
reduced the average price of imports of the class or kind of
merchandise during the relevant period, and
(C) the administering authority can reasonably estimate the
extent 	to 	which 	the 	countervailable 	subsidy 	referred 	to 	in
subparagraph (B), in combination with the use of normal value
determined 	pursuant 	to 	section 	1677b(c) 	of 	this 	title, 	has
increased the weighted average dumping margin for the class or
kind of merchandise,
the administering authority shall, except as provided in paragraph (2),
reduce the antidumping duty by the amount of the increase in the
weighted average dumping margin estimated by the administering
authority under subparagraph (C).
19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(f)(1).
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 9 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 10
PUBLIC VERSION
Lamination Materials Co., (HK) v. United States, No. 21-00138, 2023 WL 3863201,
at *11 (Ct. Int’l Trade June 7, 2023) (citing Vicentin, 503 F. Supp. 3d at 1263).
Here, Commerce concludes that Plaintiffs do not demonstrate a subsidy-to-cost
link. 	Remand Results at 15. 	Dingsheng identifies certain accounting entries for
expenses incurred, but it fails to “tie provision of goods for LTAR to the costs of raw
material purchases” or “demonstrate the extent to which input costs were affected by
subsidies.” 7 Id. at 15 (citing DRQR at Exs. DR-3–DR-4). Although Dingsheng states
that the provision of aluminum plate and strip for LTAR impacts the cost of its
manufacturing, its accounting records are unclear as to how the provision of these
products impact costs. 8 Id. Dingsheng asks Commerce to assume as self-evident that
the provision of LTAR raw materials impacts its costs. 	See Pls. Cmts. at 14.
However, it is reasonably discernible that Commerce requires information to quantify
the extent of any impact. 	Remand Results at 4 (noting the statutory requirement
that Commerce be able to reasonably estimate the extent to which the countervailable
subsidy 	“has 	increased 	the 	weighted-average 	dumping 	margin”); 	Id. 	at 	15
(questioning the extent to which input costs were affected by the subsidies). 	The
7 The items are “[[
]].” Remand Results at 15 (citing DRQR at Exs. DR-3–DR-4).
8 	The accounting records refer to [[
]]. 	See DRQR at Ex. DR-3B. 	Commerce acknowledges
Dingsheng’s clarification that [[ 	]] materials refer to intermediate
products made from raw materials subject to LTAR provisions but explains that
Dingsheng fails to connect the provision of LTAR raw materials to its cost of
manufacturing. Remand Results at 6 (citing Pls. Cmts. at 10–11).
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 10 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 11
PUBLIC VERSION
possibility that the provision of raw material inputs for LTAR impacts Dingsheng’s
costs for those inputs does not reveal the measurable extent of any impact. Id. at 21
(concluding that Dingsheng is not eligible for a double remedies adjustment because
it failed to meet the requirement of [19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(f)(1)]); see 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-
1(f)(1)(C) (Commerce determines if it can “reasonably estimate the extent to which
the countervailable subsidy . . . in combination with the use of normal value . . . has
increased the weighted average dumping margin”).9
Further, the DRQR requires applicants seeking adjustment to identify changes
in relevant costs. Remand Results at 6 (citing DRQR at 7). Dingsheng indicates that
major input prices “continuously fluctuate according to the market conditions.” 10 See
id. at 6–7 (citing DRQR at 5–6). Commerce concludes that this information does not
allow 	it 	to 	isolate 	the 	effect 	of 	the 	subsidy 	on 	Dingsheng’s 	input 	costs, 	and
9 	Plaintiffs argue that because Commerce found in the final results of the parallel
CVD administrative review for the 2021–2022 POR that Dingsheng purchased raw
materials 	for 	LTAR, 	Commerce 	cannot 	deny 	the 	link 	between 	those 	inputs’
procurement costs and changes in Dingsheng’s cost of manufacturing. Pls. Cmts. at
11–12. An inference drawn from Commerce’s finding that raw material inputs were
provided for LTAR in the CVD review does not meet Plaintiffs’ burden of showing a
link between the inputs’ procurement costs and the resulting cost of manufacturing.
See Remand Results at 15–16 (citing DRQR at Exs. DR-3–DR-4).
10 	Plaintiffs argue that “commercial realities” prevent any party from precisely
quantifying the portion of a subsidy affecting its input costs, since in accounting
records, parties typically do not separately track subsidies or know the exact amount
attributable to a specific input. 	Pls. Cmts. at 13. 	However, the statute requires
Commerce to determine that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the countervailable
subsidy reduced the average price of imports. 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(f)(1)(B).
Therefore, to establish how the subsidy lowers costs, Plaintiffs must demonstrate a
connection between the subsidy and the relevant raw material inputs. See id.
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 11 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 12
PUBLIC VERSION
consequently, the effect on its cost of manufacturing. See id. at 7. Without a subsidy-
to-cost link, Commerce cannot reasonably estimate how much the subsidy has
increased the weighted-average dumping margin for Plaintiffs’ merchandise. 	Id. at
15; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(f)(1); 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(b).
Commerce also reasons that Dingsheng’s explanation of its sales process
suggests that changes in cost could be the result of factors other than subsidies. 11
Specifically, Commerce points to evidence that Dingsheng’s U.S. sales process relies
on 	a 	fluctuating 	market 	index. 	Remand 	Results 	at 	7 	(citing 	Supplemental
Questionnaire for Sections A, C, and D at 6, bar code 4343029-01 (Feb. 16, 2023); see
also id. at 8 (citing Dingsheng Supplemental A & C Response, PR 133, bar code
4354244-01 (Mar. 16, 2023). 	Plaintiffs contend that inputs’ “fluctuating market
index-based prices (i.e., benchmark prices)” are adjusted downwards by subsidies,
and therefore, the existence of a fluctuating market index for input prices is
insufficient to reject a double remedies adjustment. See Pls. Cmts. at 16. Commerce
concedes it is possible to demonstrate a subsidy-to-cost link where prices are market-
11 The terms of sale included [[
]] 	Remand Results at 7–8 (citing Dingsheng Supplemental A & C Response,
PR 133, bar code 4354244-01 (Mar. 16, 2023). Commerce indicates that as a matter
of practice, changes in [[ 	]] rather than changes
because of receipt of a subsidy are not sufficient to establish a subsidy-to-cost link.
Id. at 8 (citing Certain Aluminum Foil from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results 	of 	Antidumping 	Duty 	Admin. Review and 	Final Determination of 	No
Shipments; 2019–20, 87 Fed. Reg. 935 (Jan. 7, 2022), and accompanying Issues &
Decision Memo. at cmt. 4.).
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 12 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 13
PUBLIC VERSION
driven, but the respondent must first establish the subsidy-to-cost link, which
Commerce reasonably concludes Dingsheng fails to do. See Remand Results at 18.
Likewise, for the cost-to-price link, Commerce concludes that the record
evidence does not support the conclusion that changes in cost impacted price. Id. at
19–20. 	Specifically, Commerce examined the average pricing data, including sales
from 	December 	2021 	through 	early 	January 	2022, 	and 	concluded 	that—even
assuming, as Plaintiffs argue, that a lag delayed implementation of the lower prices
established at the December 2021 sales meeting and that a downward pricing trend
therefore began in early January 2022—the evidence did not demonstrate that the
downward trend continued into late January and February 2022. Id. at 20; see Pls.
Cmts. at 18–19. 	Although Dingsheng’s average prices in December 2021 exceeded
those in January 2022, Commerce finds, based on the record, that the downward
trend may have resulted from a single outlier sale. Remand Results at 21. Commerce
weighs the average price data evidence and finds it does not demonstrate that
subsidy-driven changes in the cost of manufacturing resulted in a change in prices.
Id. at 20–21. Plaintiffs’ argument essentially asks the Court to reweigh the evidence,
and the Court will not do so. See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 301 F. Supp.
2d 1355, 1360 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United
States, 750 F.2d 927, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Further, the evidence did not reveal the company policy with respect to both
increases and decreases in prices, so Commerce cannot determine based on the
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 13 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 14
PUBLIC VERSION
evidence what motivated the price changes represented on the record. 	Commerce’s
practice recognizes both price increases and decreases that may result from changes
in the cost of manufacturing. See Remand Results at 19–20. Dingsheng argues that
Commerce never asked for an illustration of cost-to-price links for instances where
input costs trended upward. 	Pls. Cmts. at 17. 	Moreover, Dingsheng contends that
its evidence shows it adjusted its prices upward to account for an increase in LTAR
costs in March 2022. See id.; Remand Results at 20–21. Although Dingsheng claims
it was unaware that Commerce required information about price increases as well as
decreases, 	Pls. 	Cmts. 	at 	17, 	Commerce 	explains 	that 	the 	double 	remedies
questionnaire specifically asked about the overall procedure followed by Dingsheng
when 	prices 	change. 	Remand 	Results 	at 	19 	(citing 	DRQR 	at 	2). 	Indeed, 	the
questionnaire inquires as to “price changes” generally at several points. See e.g.,
DRQR at 6. Commerce weighs the evidence, accounts for Plaintiffs’ arguments about
the lag and the evidence of a price increase in March 2022, and concludes that the
remaining evidence is insufficient to establish a cost-to-price link. The Court will not
reweigh the evidence.
Commerce also concludes the sales meeting minutes indicate that Dingsheng
made price adjustments for reasons other than changes in its cost of manufacturing
following decreases in costs for raw material inputs provided for LTAR. 12 	In
12 Specifically, Commerce finds:
(footnote continued)
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 14 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 15
PUBLIC VERSION
particular, customers’ requests may have influenced those changes. Remand Results
at 18–19. 	Plaintiffs argue that any influence customer requests may have on price
revisions 	is 	secondary 	to 	the 	“primary 	causal 	factors,” 	especially 	changes 	in
Dingsheng’s cost of manufacturing. 	Pls. Cmts. at 21. 	Defendant notes that the
evidence of customer relationships influencing price changes comes directly from
Dingsheng’s meeting minutes, and therefore, Commerce’s determination is record-
based, not speculative. 	Def. Reply at 12 (citing Remand Results at 18–19 (citing
DRQR at Ex. DR-5)); see also Remand Results at 11 (noting that price changes
attributable to factors other than changes in cost of production undermine a finding
of a cost-to-price link). In its remand, Commerce weighs Dingsheng’s sales meeting
evidence and concludes that the influence of customer requests, indicated in the
minutes, 	detracts 	from 	a 	conclusion 	that 	changes 	in 	Dingsheng’s 	cost 	of
manufacturing motivated price changes. Remand Results at 18–19. Thus, Commerce
reasonably concludes that the average price data does not support a cost-to-price link.
[[
]]
Remand Results at 18–19.
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 15 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 16
PUBLIC VERSION
II. 	Notice of Response Deficiency under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d)
Plaintiffs contend that Commerce failed to comply with 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d)
which requires it to identify deficiencies in Dingsheng’s DRQR before denying the
requested adjustment. 	Pls. Cmts. at 3–10. 	Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors
respond that a double remedies questionnaire is not a request for information within
the 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) framework, and nonetheless, Commerce does not conclude
that Dingsheng’s DRQR submission “did not comply with the request,” but instead
determines Dingsheng’s evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility for the
requested adjustment. 13 	Def. Reply at 12–16; Def. Int. Cmts. at 3–10. 	Defendant
further claims that Plaintiffs waived any argument regarding section 1677m(d) by
not raising it in their complaint or initial 56.2 brief. 14 See Def. Reply at 12–13. For
the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ argument that Commerce failed to comply with the
requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) fails.
Section 	1677m(d) 	of 	Title 	19 	obligates 	Commerce 	to 	inform 	a 	party 	of
deficiencies in response to Commerce’s requests for information.
(d) Deficient submissions
If the administering authority or the Commission determines that a
response to a request for information under this subtitle does not comply
13 	Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors note that Plaintiffs’ cited cases discussing
the applicability of § 1677m(d) only reach the issue in the context of the application
of facts otherwise available, and Commerce does not apply facts otherwise available
here. Def. Reply at 14–16; Def. Int. Cmts. at 9; Remand Results at 13–14. However,
there is no basis in the statutory language limiting § 1677m(d) to applications of facts
otherwise available.
14 	Because the Court concludes § 1677m(d) does not apply here, it does not reach
Defendant’s waiver argument.
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 16 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 17
PUBLIC VERSION
with the request, the administering authority or the Commission (as the
case may be) shall promptly inform the person submitting the response
of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable,
provide that person with an opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency in light of the time limits established for the completion of
investigations or reviews under this subtitle . . . .
19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d). The statute applies where (i) Commerce requests information
and (ii) the response to that request fails to comply with the request, resulting in a
deficiency. 	See id. 	Thus, the statute fosters fair notice to parties of the regulatory
requirements and accuracy of Commerce’s determinations. See id.; see, e.g., Tianjin
Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1304 (Ct. Int’l Trade
2004), aff’d, 146 F. App’x 493 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (discussing section 1677m(d) as
promoting the values of fairness and efficiency); Shelter Forest Int’l Acquisition, Inc.
v. United States, 497 F. Supp. 3d 1388, 1399 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (discussing section
1677m(d) and the value of fairness and accuracy).
It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that regulated parties have
fair notice sufficient to what the law requires. F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012); Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S.
1, 13–15 (1978); see also Satellite Broad. Co. v. F.C.C., 824 F.2d 1, 3–4 (D.C. Cir.
1987). Section 1677m(d) ensures Commerce provides that notice, where practicable,
and Commerce itself has recognized the fairness and accuracy implications where it
has failed to provide such notice. See, e.g., Wheatland Tube v. United States, 650 F.
Supp. 3d 1379, 1381 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023) (Commerce conceding that respondents
lacked an opportunity to remedy any deficiencies in their responses).
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 17 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 18
PUBLIC VERSION
Nothing in the statutory text limits the application of § 1677m(d) to requests
contained in an initial questionnaire, nor does it specifically exclude requests for
information related to adjustments sought by respondents. 	The statute identifies a
“response to a request for information.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d). Although Commerce
requests information in the first instance when it issues an initial questionnaire, the
compilation of the administrative record involves multiple successive requests for
information, including requests concerning specific treatment sought by respondents,
such that Commerce can fulfil its obligation under the statute to determine accurate
antidumping duty rates. 	See 19 C.F.R. § 351.301(c)(1) (“During a proceeding the
Secretary may issue to any person questionnaires, which includes both initial and
supplemental questionnaires”); see also Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd.
v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370, 1379 (the “overriding purpose of Commerce’s
administration of antidumping laws is to calculate dumping margins as accurately
as possible.”) (citing Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1191 (Fed.
Cir. 1990)). For the double remedies adjustment, Commerce provides parties with a
questionnaire. 	See, e.g., DRQR Ltr. at 1–2. 	Where Commerce requires particular
information to reach its determination, it must inform regulated parties of what it
requires. See, e.g., Canadian Solar Inc. v. United States, 537 F. Supp. 3d 1380, 1398
(Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (holding that Commerce must give respondents a chance to
correct any deficient 	information, not just information requested in an initial
questionnaire); Risen Energy, Co., LTD. v. United States, 724 F. Supp. 3d 1356, 1363
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 18 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 19
PUBLIC VERSION
(Ct. 	Int’l 	Trade 	2024) 	(explaining 	that 	Commerce 	should 	have 	informed 	the
respondent that its incomplete collection of non-use certificates was a deficient
response); but see, e.g., Shenzhen Xinboda Indus. Co. v. United States, 357 F. Supp.
3d 1295, 1304–05 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2018) (explaining that section 1677m(d) applies to
a 	respondent’s 	questionnaire 	responses, 	which 	are 	distinct 	from 	voluntary
submissions of surrogate value data); Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States,
36 C.I.T. 451, 460 n.9 (2012) (the “deficient submissions” requirement applies where
a respondent supplies information “in response to [Commerce’s] request,” not where
a respondent voluntarily proposes surrogate value data).
Under the statute, the duty to give notice and an opportunity to cure, however,
is limited to deficient submissions. 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d). 	If Commerce
“determines” a “response to a request for information” “does not comply with the
request” it must identify the “nature of the deficiency.” See id. Assessing compliance
necessarily involves defining the parameters of the information requested, and the
information supplied. Thus, Commerce may ask for a particular type of information
and the respondent may fail to supply that information. 	See, e.g., Maverick Tube
Corp. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that Commerce
issued a supplemental questionnaire where the respondent failed to provide data for
all the locations requested). Alternatively, Commerce may determine that a response
did not comply with a request because Commerce was imprecise in identifying what
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 19 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 20
PUBLIC VERSION
was required. 15 See, e.g., American Tubular Products, LLC v. U.S., No. 13-cv-00029,
2014 WL 4977626, at *11 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 6, 2014) (citing Böwe-Passat v. United
States, 17 C.I.T. 335, 342 (1993)) (explaining that where Commerce’s request is
unclear, it must give notice of deficiencies under 1677m(d) to avoid punishing parties
for giving incomplete answers to Commerce’s “cryptic questions”). 	A deficient
response, whether because of the failure to supply specifically requested information
or Commerce’s failure to precisely identify its requirements, leaves Commerce
without the information needed to make a decision. By contrast, section 1677m(d)
does not apply where Commerce determines that a party’s submitted information,
although facially responsive, is insufficient to support the ultimate determination the
party seeks. See, e.g., ABB Inc. v. United States, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1206, 1222 (Ct. Int’l
Trade 2018) (noting that the supply of seemingly complete but inaccurate information
does not trigger section 1677m(d)).
15 	Where Commerce concludes it needs different information than that supplied by
the 	respondent 	because 	Commerce’s 	initial 	request 	was 	either 	incomplete 	or
imprecise, one might argue § 1677m(d) would not be triggered because arguably, the
response did comply with the request, but the request was not what Commerce
wanted. 	The statute provides for a deficiency notice where Commerce “determines”
a response “does not comply.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d). 	Commerce, in making its
determination, may conclude that its request requires further clarification. See, e.g.,
NSK Ltd. v. United States, 481 F.3d 1355, 1360 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Commerce
satisfied 	its 	obligations 	under 	§ 	1677m(d) 	when 	it 	issued 	a 	supplemental
questionnaire identifying and requesting clarification of the data respondent initially
submitted.). 	Nonetheless, where Commerce requires information, it did not ask for
initially, fundamental administrative law principles would require Commerce to
provide notice and an opportunity to submit the required information, even if
§ 	1677m(d) 	did 	not 	apply. 	See 	Charles 	H. 	Koch, 	Jr. 	& 	Richard 	Murphy,
Administrative Law and Practice § 4:32. Notice. (3d ed. Mar. 2026 update).
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 20 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 21
PUBLIC VERSION
An exporter of subject merchandise from a nonmarket economy (“NME”) may
request an adjustment from Commerce in the form of a reduction in antidumping
duties when it is subject to both countervailing duties and antidumping duties, i.e., a
“double remedies adjustment.” 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(f)(1). 	In such a case, the
burden is on the party seeking an adjustment to present evidence establishing its
eligibility for that adjustment. 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(b).
(b) Adjustments in general. 	In making adjustments to export
price, constructed export price, or normal value, the Secretary will
adhere to the following principles:
(1) The interested party that is in possession of the relevant
information has the burden of establishing to the satisfaction of the
Secretary the amount and nature of a particular adjustment; and
(2) The Secretary will not double-count adjustments.
19 C.F.R. § 351.401(b).
In this case, Commerce was not required to issue a deficiency notice pursuant
to section 1677m(d). As a preliminary matter, Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor’s
arguments that section 1677m(d) does not apply in circumstances where Commerce
reviews information supplied in connection with a request for a double remedies
adjustment is mistaken. See Def. Reply at 16; Def. Int. Cmts. at 3–4. As discussed,
Commerce’s double remedies questionnaire is a request for information. 	Both
fairness and accuracy concerns require that parties have notice of the information
Commerce needs to make its determinations. 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d); see, e.g.,
Tianjin Mach., 353 F. Supp. 2d at 1304, aff’d, 146 F. App’x 493 (discussing section
1677m(d) as promoting the values of fairness and efficiency); Shelter Forest, 497 F.
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 21 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 22
PUBLIC VERSION
Supp. 3d at 1399 (discussing section 1677m(d) and the values of fairness and
accuracy).
Here, Plaintiffs had notice of the required information and responded to the
request for information; however, Commerce determined the response did not support
the requested adjustment. 	Plaintiffs, whose merchandise was subject to both CVD
and ADD during the POR, requested a double remedies adjustment from Commerce,
and submitted evidence in response to Commerce’s double remedies questionnaire.
See generally DRQR (responding to requests for information such as the cost items
impacted by each subsidy program, how many times Plaintiffs identified a change in
the cost items, company price-setting methodology, and supporting accounting data).
In response to the double remedies questionnaire, Dingsheng identified four subsidy
programs where goods were provided for less-than-adequate remuneration (“LTAR”).
See id. at 1–8. Dingsheng reported that under these programs, the provision of LTAR
raw materials inputs impacted its cost of manufacturing. 	See id. 16 	Ultimately,
16 	In order to demonstrate its receipt of LTAR inputs, Dingsheng included exhibits
of sample accounting vouchers, minutes from a company sales and production
meeting, and charts of its average raw material costs for the POR as evidence to
support its claims. 	See DRQR at 1–8; id. at Exs. DR-1–DR-5. 	“The accounting
vouchers 	show 	[[ 	]]; 	however,
Dingsheng did not demonstrate how these accounting records specifically relate to
the provision of these goods for LTAR.” Remand Results at 6. Commerce concludes
Dingsheng’s proffered evidence is insufficient to support an adjustment, explaining
that the existing record does not support the claimed adjustment because although
(footnote continued)
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 22 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 23
PUBLIC VERSION
Commerce determines that Dingsheng fails to demonstrate how its accounting
entries for input expenses relate to costs such that Commerce can quantify the impact
of the subsidy on its cost of manufacturing; therefore, Commerce determines the
evidence shows no subsidy-to-cost link. 	Remand Results at 6–7. 	Commerce also
determines that Dingsheng’s evidence does not demonstrate price decreases as a
result of decreasing manufacturing input costs and therefore shows no cost-to-price
link. 	Id. at 8–11. 	Thus, Commerce concludes that the information provided is
insufficient to support granting the adjustment. See id. at 16.
Plaintiffs 	argue 	that 	Commerce’s 	determination 	triggers 	Commerce’s
obligations under section 1677m(d). 	See Pls. Cmts. at 7 (“[i]n the absence of notice
and opportunity to comment, Commerce was prohibited by law from denying the
requested double remedies offset.”). The distinction between a response that does not
comply and one that is insufficient to persuade Commerce that substantial evidence
supports the desired determination, is sometimes subtle. 	Indeed, in this case,
Commerce’s choice of words might lead one to conflate a deficient response with an
insufficient argument. For example, in its Draft Remand Results, Commerce stated
that “Dingsheng did not adequately respond to Commerce’s requests for information
its accounting records show receipt of certain goods, Dingsheng does not demonstrate
how these accounting records relate to the provision of goods for LTAR. 	See, e.g.,
Remand Results at 6. 	Ultimately, even assuming Plaintiffs’ accounting records did
demonstrate Dingsheng’s receipt of inputs for LTAR, Commerce concludes that
Plaintiffs do not establish a link between those subsidized costs and the cost of
manufacturing.
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 23 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 24
PUBLIC VERSION
and documentary support with respect to its use of the four subsidy programs that it
claimed impacted its cost of manufacturing.” 	Draft Remand Results at 6; Remand
Results at 6. Further, Commerce originally phrased its finding in the Draft Remand
Results as “the deficiencies in Dingsheng’s DRQR,” and subsequently revised its
phrasing in the Remand Results to “the insufficient supporting information in
Dingsheng’s DRQR.” See Draft Remand Results at 6; Remand Results at 8. However,
the final Remand Results demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ response fails to establish a
direct subsidy-to-cost and cost-to-price link is the basis for denying the adjustment
request. 	Remand Results at 11, 13, 16. 	Respondents had notice of Commerce’s
requirement to establish these direct links to be eligible for an adjustment. 	See
DRQR. As discussed, the record evidence does not establish either link. Commerce,
in 	weighing 	the 	value 	of 	the 	information 	provided, 	finds 	Plaintiffs’ 	evidence
insufficient to support a double remedies adjustment. 	See, e.g., Assan Aluminyum
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 624 F. Supp. 3d 1343, 1366–68 (Ct. Int’l
Trade 	2023) 	(holding 	that 	Commerce 	may 	rely 	on 	documents 	that 	support 	a
reasonable finding that the claimed adjustment is not warranted, even without
questioning the underlying completeness or accuracy of the submission). Commerce’s
determination is supported by substantial evidence. 17
17 Moreover, even if Plaintiffs’ submission could be characterized as deficient rather
(footnote continued)
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 24 of 25

Court No. 23-00264 	Page 25
PUBLIC VERSION
CONCLUSION
Because Commerce reasonably determined the countervailable subsidies at
issue have not been demonstrated to have reduced the average price of Dingsheng’s
imports and thus Commerce cannot “reasonably estimate the extent to which the
subsidy increased the weighted-average dumping margin,” Commerce’s Remand
Results 	denying 	Plaintiffs 	a 	double 	remedies 	adjustment 	are 	supported 	by
substantial evidence, in accordance with law, and comply with the Court’s order in
Dingsheng I, and are therefore sustained. Judgment will enter accordingly.
/s/ Claire R. Kelly
Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Dated: 	June 16, 2026
New York, New York
than insufficient within the meaning of section 1677m(d), Plaintiffs do not explain
what additional information they would have provided had they been given notice
and an opportunity to cure the identified deficiencies in their responses. 	See Pls.
Cmts. at 6–7. 	Because the record does not indicate that Plaintiffs could supply
information that would satisfy Commerce if given the chance, requiring further notice
or reopening the record would be unnecessary because such notice would be futile and
would not affect the outcome. See, e.g., Risen Energy, 724 F. Supp. 3d at 1362–63.
Case 1:23-cv-00264-CRK Document 98 Filed 07/01/26 Page 25 of 25