OPINION
This case is before the court following remand to the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or “Defendant” or “Department”). In
China National Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 27
CIT -,
Plaintiff CMC is an exporter of the subject merchandise, tapered roller bearings (“TRBs”), from the People’s Republic of China, a non-market economy (“NME”) country. The dispute involves the prices of a steel input, hot-rolled alloy steel bar, which CMC purchased from its supplier in [[ ]], a market economy country, and used in the production of TRBs sold to the United States. 1 In CMC I, the court held that, if Commerce had “reason to believe or suspect” that the supplier’s prices were subsidized, Commerce could employ surrogate values instead of actual prices in normal value (“NY”) calculations of dumping margins where it determines that such prices are best information available under the statute. See CMC I, at 1238; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(l) (2000) (providing the use of “the best available information” concerning the values for factors of production of an exporter in an NME country); H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 100-576, at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623 (“House Report”) (instructing Commerce to avoid using any price “which it has reason to believe or suspect may be dumped or subsidized”) (emphasis supplied). In CMC I, the court stated that it will “affirm Commerce’s actions if, given the entire record as a whole, there is substantial, specific, and objective evidence which could reasonably be interpreted to support a suspicion that the prices CMC paid to its market economy supplier were distorted.” CMC I, at 1240. Applying the standard to the facts of the case, the court found that Commerce did not sufficiently explain and highlight evidence in support of its determinations in the Final Results. Id. Consequently, the court remanded the case to Commerce to review and augment the administrative record and explain its determinations further. See id. at 1243.
Pursuant to the court’s order, Commerce issued its Final Results of Redeter-mination Pursuant to Remand (May 13, 2003) (“Remand Results”). Plaintiff CMC and Defendant-Intervenor The Timken Company (“Timken”) timely responded to the Remand Results. In this matter the court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). The court must uphold Commerce’s determination if it is supported by substantial evidence and is otherwise in accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(l)(B)(i). After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the administrative record, and all other papers and proceed *1336 ings, the court is satisfied' that the Remand Results are in adequate compliance with the court’s order. Accordingly, the court sustains the Remand Results.
I.
Commerce has a duty to calculate dumping margins as accurately as possible and should typically refrain from using surrogate values (which in themselves are imperfect substitutes) in dumping margin calculations where market-determined values are available.
See Laslco Metal Prods., Inc. v. United States,
The court notes that, until the twelfth administrative review of this anti-dumping duty order, Commerce employed actual prices paid in its dumping margin calculations. During the twelfth review, Commerce determined that such prices were likely to be distorted by subsidies and should therefore be abandoned in favor of surrogate values. Commerce based its determination on a generally available and counter available subsidy program in the exporting country, uncovered in countervailing duty investigations from the 1999-2000 period involving subject merchandise other than hot-rolled alloy steel bar and companies other than CMC’s supplier. After remand, Commerce supplemented the record with an Office of Policy Memorandum (dated February 2002), which memorializes Commerce’s decision to abandon steel-related factor input prices from the exporting country, as well as two other countries. In this memorandum, Commerce explains that these countries maintain “broadly available, non-industry specific export subsidies,” and adds that, where Commerce already conducted a countervailing duty investigation, “the facts of the underlying investigation must be examined and taken into account.” In the Remand Results, Commerce maintains that the exporting country provides “industry specific subsidies and non-industry specific export subsidies.” Remand Results at 8.
In CMC I, this court articulated three specific grounds in finding Commerce’s offered reasons insufficient. First, neither the subject merchandise in question, nor CMC’s supplier was ever specifically investigated in a countervailing duty investigation. Accordingly, the level of distortion, if any, in the price of hot-rolled alloy steel bar by reason of subsidies was never determined. Second, in the Final Results Commerce relied on an internal confidential memorandum, Market Economy Steel Memo (Nov. 7, 2001), as justification for its change of methodology. The court was concerned that numbers tabulated (without explanation in that memorandum) as the level of subsidies for steel products from the exporting country appeared to be very low. In other words, it seemed to the court that, even in affirmative countervailing duty determinations for other steel products, the range of subsidy values barely exceeded de minimis amounts at the upper limit. Specifically, [[ ]]. Third, one of the countervailing duty investigations from the 1999-2000 period pertaining to the exporting country yielded a negative result. See [[ ]]. That is, Commerce found with respect to the merchandise subject to that investigation that the counter- *1337 vailable subsidy rate was de minimis. In sum, the court was reluctant to allow Commerce to choose imprecise surrogate values over actual prices without further justification where evidence of distortion in prices CMC paid to its market economy supplier fell short of substantial, specific evidence.
In the Remand Results, Commerce emphasizes that CMC’s supplier is a “member of a subsidized industry” and “could have benefitted” from subsidies generally available in the exporting country for exporters of steel products, regardless of the type of product or company, and further emphasizes that such subsidies were specifically found to be utilized by several steel producers. 2 Remand Results at 9, 12-13. The existence of these subsidies was confirmed in the Department’s 1999-2000 countervailing duty determinations. Commerce offers that there is no evidence in the record that CMC’s supplier “was not eligible to participate” in subsidy programs. Id. at 14. Commerce points to its long standing agency policy to disregard suspected distorted prices. Id. at 9-10. Commerce and Defendant-Intervenor Timken further point out that the company subject to the negative countervailing duty determination constitutes an “anomaly” in that it is the largest steel producer in the exporting country and is government-controlled. Id. at 14-15 n. 16; Def.-Interve-nor’s Rebuttal to PI. ’s Comments on Commerce Dep’t’s Remand Redetermination (“Timken Br.”) at 4; see also CMC I at 1240 (dictating Commerce to explain why this producer’s case is an anomaly). That company is also known to participate in the subsidy programs as a provider, such as engaging in [[ ]]. Commerce further states that companies that were recipients of the subsidy programs and that were subject to the Department’s positive countervailing duty determinations are more representative of CMC’s supplier. Remand Results at 9.
Commerce explains that it is reasonable to believe that “a market company operating under normal [ie., competitive] market principles would take advantage of ... benefits” that are made available to it. Id. at 9, 13. Commerce stresses that export subsidy programs in the steel industry of the exporting country were “contingent on a company’s export performance” and were not otherwise restricted. Id. at 13. Commerce argues that “[u]nless a particular market supplier has been found to have de minimis subsidy benefits, ... the specific level of subsidization is not a relevant consideration in [its] analysis of whether there is reason to believe or suspect that prices may be subsidized.” Id. at 15.
With respect to level of subsidization, Defendant-Intervenor Timken adds that “[n]othing in the statute or regulation, or even the legislative history, speaks in terms of subsidy sizes so far as input values are concerned.” Timken Br. at 5-6 (emphasis in the original). Timken therefore avers that Commerce’s interpretation of which values to use in the calculation of NV in an NME country context is “subject only to reasonableness review.” 3 Id. at 6. Timken contends that the agency acted reasonably because it “looked to legislative history to construe and administer the statute and regulation.” Id. As the House Report speaks of discarding “any” distorted price, Timken’s argument implies that such mandate includes actual prices paid on market. 4
*1338 Plaintiff CMC responds that Commerce’s explanations of the Remand Results merely consist of “a re-argument of the case based on the same record facts that this Court already found insufficient to justify the initial results.” PL’s Comments on the Dep’t of Commerce’s Proposed Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand at 2. CMC argues that Commerce has failed to address the negative countervailing duty finding that undermines its conclusion. Id. at 3. CMC contends that Commerce failed to specifically link CMC’s supplier to any subsidy program. Id. at 5. CMC further points out that the Remand Results “also fail to address the de minimis issues that the Court raised.” Id. at 6. CMC maintains that “Commerce’s analysis leads inevitably to a perverse result.” Id. at 7. In particular, actual prices charged by an input supplier with a de minimis countervailing duty finding would be acceptable while such prices of a supplier with no countervailing duty finding (whether positive or negative) may be disregarded based on findings relating to other suppliers.
The “reason to believe or suspect” standard articulated in the
House Report
by which Commerce’s actions must be evaluated establishes a lower threshold than what is required to support a firm conclusion. The clarification of the standard in
CMC I,
as well as its juxtaposition with the substantial evidence standard in that opinion, does not modify the standard in terms of its demands on the agency.
Cf. Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp. v. United States,
The court finds that the Department’s Remand Results sufficiently comply with the court’s remand order, even though the court acknowledges CMC’s argument that Commerce’s actions may indeed produce less than ideal results, and the question of whether the suspicion of subsidization at any level should warrant the use of imperfect surrogate values. The Remand Results are sufficient in that Commerce further explains the exporting country’s subsidy programs, and why one negative countervailing duty determination is immaterial to CMC’s case. It also explains why it could not determine CMC’s particular subsidy level short of a formal investigation.
Moreover, even though accurate calculation of dumping margins is an overarching goal of the antidumping duty statute, a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit emphasized that such a goal must necessarily be “within the confines of the statutes, not in derogation of a statutory provi
*1339
sion.”
Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States,
Under the applicable standard of review, this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as long as the agency’s construction of the statute is reasonable.
See Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States,
II.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Department’s determination in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 Fed.Reg. 57, 420 (Nov. 15, 2001), as modified by Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (May 13, 2003), is sustained. A separate judgment will be entered accordingly.
Notes
. The identity of CMC’s supplier [[ ]] and the name of the exporting country where the supplier is located are confidential, and therefore set in double brackets in the confidential version of this opinion and deleted from the public version.
.In particular, Commerce found that [[ ]] Remand Results at 12.
.As noted, a preference for market values appears in the Department’s regulation. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(1).
.Timken's arguments to this court addition *1338 ally contain a criticism of the court’s formulation of the "reason to believe or suspect” standard. However, this court believes that the insistence on specific and objective evidence (even for a "belief” or "suspicion”) is an integral part of the substantial evidence analysis.
. The court notes that an agency is bound by its own regulations.
See United States v. Nixon,
. Plaintiff raised two additional issues in its original papers to the court. In particular, CMC argued that Indonesia was a better surrogate than India and further challenged Commerce's adding of ocean freight and marine insurance costs to price data. In CMC I, the court found that these issues were incho-ately argued by Plaintiff, and further noted that Commerce’s actions, without a forceful argument by Plaintiff to the contrary, were a reasonable exercise of the agency's discretion. CMC I, at 1238 n. 14.