Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United States, 2012 WL 3125143

CPZ challenged Commerce's Final Results in the 20th administrative review of the antidumping order on tapered roller bearings from the PRC, covering June 1, 2006–May 31, 2007.
Commerce's remand redetermination (July 1, 2011) assigned CPZ a dumping margin of 60.95% based on total adverse facts available (AFA) and did not recalculate surrogate values for three production inputs.
The court previously ordered remand to redetermine surrogate values for alloy steel wire rod, alloy steel bar, and scrap from cage production and to recalculate CPZ's U.S. prices using a lawful method.
The Final Results had used a CEP/EP framework and relied on minimal CPZ data, with the court noting the need to base U.S. prices on a lawful method and to reconsider surrogate values on remand.
The court found Commerce’s Remand Redetermination unlawful for (a) failing to redetermine surrogate values as directed and (b) using an unlawful adverse inference under 1677e(b), and thus set aside the Remand Redetermination and ordered a Second Remand Redetermination.
The ruling requires Commerce to recalculate surrogate values and to determine CPZ's U.S. prices on a lawful basis, with deadlines and a procedural plan for further submissions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce failed to redetermine surrogate values as directed	CPZ argues remand violated court order by not recalculating SVs for alloy steel wire rod, alloy steel bar, and scrap.	Commerce claimed discretion under total AFA and financial constraints in remand.	Yes; remand failed to redetermine surrogate values as required.
Whether Commerce's use of total AFA and adverse inferences was lawful	CPZ contends adverse inferences were improper and unsupported by record evidence.	Commerce relied on § 1677e to impose adverse inferences due to CPZ's response failures.	No; the court found the adverse inference unlawful on multiple grounds.
Whether CPZ cooperated to provide data in remand proceedings	CPZ asserts it attempted to obtain data from new owners and provided what it could.	Timken/Commerce argued CPZ failed to cooperate by withholding data.	Not sufficient to justify an adverse inference; cooperation failures were not established by the record.

Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (adverse inference limits under § 1677e(b) in remand context)
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (in assessing cooperation and course of action for adverse inferences)
Abitibi-Consolidated, Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT 714, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (2006) (limits and scope of agency actions and remand rationale)