MID CONTINENT STEEL & WIRE, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and THE STANLEY WORKS (LANGFANG) FASTENING SYSTEMS CO., LTD., et al., Defendant-Intervenors.
Court No. 17-00051
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
June 19, 2018
Slip Op. 18-73
Before: Richard K. Eaton, Judge
[United States Department of Commerce‘s final results are sustained.]
Dated: June 19, 2018
Lawrence J. Bogard, Neville Peterson LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-intervenors. With him on the brief was Peter J. Bogard.
OPINION
Eaton, Judge: This case involves the final results of the seventh administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel nails from the People‘s Republic of China, covering the period of review August 1, 2014, through July 31, 2015 (“POR“). Certain Steel Nails From the People‘s Rep. of China, 82 Fed. Reg. 14,344 (Dep‘t Commerce Mar. 20, 2017) (final results), as amended by 82 Fed. Reg. 19,217 (Dep‘t Commerce Apr. 26, 2017), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, P.R. 289 at bar code 3551476-01 (“Final I&D Memo“) (collectively, the “Final Results“).
In the Final Results, the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the “Department“) found that dumping of the subject nails occurred during the POR and calculated an antidumping duty rate of 5.78 percent for The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (collectively, “Stanley“), a mandatory respondent in the review. See 82 Fed. Reg. at 19,218. Commerce also determined an “all-others” rate, pursuant to
Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (“plaintiff” or “Mid Continent“), a U.S. fastener producer, was the petitioner in the underlying review, and commenced this action to challenge certain aspects of the Final Results. Mid Continent contends that: (1) Commerce‘s assignment of the 5.78 percent all-others rate to the Separate Rate Companies is neither in accordance with law nor supported by substantial evidence primarily because it does not reflect the companies’ “economic reality“; (2) Commerce‘s valuation of Stanley‘s sealing tape input is not based on the best available information because the surrogate import data Commerce used to value the tape, although more specific as to the base material, does not account for its adhesiveness; and (3) Commerce‘s valuation of Stanley‘s plastic granules input is not based on the best available information primarily because the granules are finished products, i.e., ready for their ultimate use, not unfinished products “in primary form,” as Commerce found. See Pl.‘s Br. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 29-1 (“Pl.‘s Br.“); see also Pl.‘s Reply Br., ECF 34. Mid Continent asks the court to remand this matter to Commerce with instructions to recalculate the all-others rate and to amend its valuation of Stanley‘s sealing tape and plastic granules.
The court has jurisdiction under
BACKGROUND
On October 6, 2015, Commerce initiated the seventh administrative review of the subject order. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Admin. Rev., 80 Fed. Reg. 60,356 (Dep‘t Commerce Oct. 6, 2015). Commerce asserts that, because of the large number of exporters involved in the review (48), it limited the number of individually examined exporters to two companies. See Selection of Respondents for Individual Rev. (Dec. 16, 2015), P.R. 76 at 3, 5, bar code 3426396-01, ECF No. 30 at tab 8. Commerce selected Stanley and Lianda as mandatory respondents based on their volume of exports, pursuant to
It is worth noting that, although two companies, Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd. (“Zhonglian“), and Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd. (“Suzhou“), exported higher volumes of subject merchandise than Lianda during the POR, neither exporter participated as a mandatory respondent, or otherwise, because (1) Mid Continent withdrew its request for review of Zhonglian, and (2) Suzhou withdrew from the review early in the proceeding, refusing to cooperate with the Department. See Third Selection of Respondent for Individual Rev. at 2-3.
During the review, Commerce issued its nonmarket economy questionnaires to Stanley and Lianda. Based on Stanley‘s responses, Commerce determined that the company successfully rebutted the presumption of de jure and de facto control1 by the Chinese government and was therefore eligible for a separate, company-specific rate. See Decision Mem. for the Prelim. Results (Sept. 6, 2016), P.R. 256 at 11, ECF No. 30 at tab 6 (“Prelim. Dec. Memo“). To calculate this rate, the Department determined the normal value of Stanley‘s exports using the nonmarket economy method provided for in
In the preliminary determination, the Department calculated a rate for Stanley of 5.90 percent. See Certain Steel Nails From the People‘s Rep. of China, 81 Fed. Reg. 62,710, 62,711 (Dep‘t Commerce Sept. 12, 2016) (prelim. results). Commerce also preliminarily assigned to the Separate Rate Companies the rate of 5.90 percent. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 62,711.
Commerce, however, found Lianda‘s questionnaire responses lacking in that the company failed to rebut the presumption of state control. Specifically, Lianda‘s responses to Commerce‘s Section A questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires failed to provide requested information regarding Lianda‘s and its parent company‘s corporate structure. See Final I&D Memo at 28-29. Therefore, Commerce found Lianda had not provided sufficient information to establish that it was eligible for a separate rate. Accordingly, Commerce treated Lianda as a part of the countrywide entity and preliminarily assigned Lianda the PRC-wide rate of 118.04 percent.3 See Prelim. Dec. Memo at 11.
In the Final Results, Commerce assigned Stanley the amended calculated rate of 5.78 percent, and continued to apply the PRC-wide rate of 118.04 percent to Lianda. For the companies that qualified for a separate rate, Commerce determined an all-others rate by applying the method set out in the general rule in
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court will sustain a determination by Commerce unless it is “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
When merchandise is sold in the United States at less than fair value, Commerce is authorized by statute to impose antidumping duties in an amount equal to a “dumping
When the merchandise is exported from a nonmarket economy country, Commerce determines its normal value by valuing the factors of production, using data from a surrogate market economy country or countries.
Generally, Commerce is charged with determining individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer.
In a nonmarket economy proceeding, Commerce presumes that respondents
Subsection 1673d(c)(5) of title 19 governs Commerce‘s calculation of the all-others rate. Paragraph (A) provides:
(A) General rule
For purposes of this subsection . . . , the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 1677e of this title [i.e., based on facts available or AFA].
(B) Exception
If the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis margins, or are determined entirely under section 1677e of this title, [Commerce] may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the estimated
weighted average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.
By its terms,
calculating a separate rate in periodic administrative reviews as it does in initial investigations.“); see also Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. v. United States, 38 CIT __, __, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1359 (2014) (“Though § 1673d(c)(5) explicitly references investigations, nothing in that statute or in any other statute expressly or impliedly precludes application to administrative reviews.“).
DISCUSSION
I. All-Others Rate Calculation
In the Final Results, Commerce calculated the all-others rate pursuant to the general rule set out in
As to Commerce‘s choice of method, Mid Continent takes the position that Commerce‘s decision to apply the general rule, and to exclude Lianda‘s AFA rate, was an unreasonable interpretation of the dumping statute because, in doing so, Commerce failed in its obligation to ensure that the all-others rate reflected the “economic reality” of the Separate Rate Companies. See Pl.‘s Br. 12; see also SAA at 4201 (emphasis added) (“[Title 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)(B)] . . . provides an exception to the general rule if the dumping margins for all of the exporters and producers that are individually investigated are determined entirely on the basis of the facts available or are zero or de minimis. In such situations, Commerce may use any reasonable method to calculate the all others rate. The expected method in such cases will be to weight-average the zero and de minimis margins and margins determined pursuant to the facts available, provided that volume data is available. However, if this method is not feasible, or if it results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or producers, Commerce may use other reasonable methods.“).
Notwithstanding Mid Continent‘s arguments, Commerce‘s decision to apply the general rule in
Applying the statutory method, Commerce excluded the PRC-wide rate assigned to Lianda and relied on the only other calculated rate, in this segment, that was not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available or AFA—i.e., Stanley‘s 5.78 percent rate. While it may be that Commerce should have examined more potential respondents,10 its method comports with the statute (the general rule in
of the facts available.“). Resort to the exception in paragraph (B),
The expected method in such cases will be to weight-average the zero and de minimis margins and margins determined pursuant to the facts available, provided that volume data is available. However, if this method is not feasible, or if it results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or producers, Commerce may use other reasonable methods.
SAA at 4201 (emphasis added). Mid Continent, however, makes no argument that there is a lack of volume data available in the record or that the usual method was unfeasible. Accordingly, Commerce‘s decision to apply the general rule in the underlying review was in accordance with law.
Next, Mid Continent argues that even if the application of
Mid Continent argues that record evidence demonstrates that Stanley‘s rate is
As an initial matter, it was reasonable for Commerce to exclude Lianda‘s and Suzhou‘s rates from the all-others rate calculation in accordance with the plain language of
Second, the rates assigned to non-Stanley respondents in prior segments do not demonstrate that the general rule was unreasonable as applied. It is a commonplace that each “‘administrative review is a separate exercise of Commerce‘s authority that allows for different conclusions based on different facts in the record.‘” Albemarle, 821 F.3d at 1357 (quoting Qingdao, 766 F.3d at 1387). Indeed, part of the idea behind periodic reviews is to test if respondents that previously dumped have mended their ways. While the Federal Circuit has identified circumstances where it may, nonetheless, be reasonable to use information from prior segments, those circumstances are not present here. For example, Mid Continent makes no argument that “the overall market and the dumping margins have not changed from period to period.” Id. On the contrary, the fluctuation in margins over the last several segments suggests otherwise. Thus, “[t]his is not a situation in which there was any consistency with respect to the dumping margins of the individually examined respondents throughout the reviews.” Id. Additionally, there has been no allegation that the Separate Rate Companies have failed to cooperate with Commerce such that the use of higher rates from a prior segment may be justified as AFA on deterrence grounds. See id.; see also Changzhou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory Co. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Deterrence is not relevant here, where the ‘AFA rate’ only impacts cooperating respondents.“).
Finally, even if circumstances were such that it was reasonable to look to information from prior segments, it is difficult to see how the prior rates of non-Stanley mandatory respondents from the last six reviews and a new shipper review are probative
II. Sealing Tape Valuation
In its Section D response regarding its factors of production, Stanley stated:
During the POR, Stanley . . . purchased sealing tape and consumed this material to seal the cartons in the packaging of subject nails. The sealing tape is basic packaging tape made from biaxially oriented polypropylene and adhesive. It is purchased in rolls 60cm wide and 50 meters long.
Stanley‘s Sec. D Resp., P.R. 111 at 103, bar code 3442643-02, ECF No. 30 at tab 14.
Before Commerce, Mid Continent argued that the Department should value Stanley‘s sealing tape under Thai Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS“) subheading 3919.10, covering “Plates, Sheets, Film, Foil, Tape, And Other Flat Shapes Of Plastics, Self-Adhesive, In Roll Not Over 20 Cm. (8 in.) Wide.” Final I&D Memo at 31-32 (emphasis added). For its part, Stanley argued against using that subheading “because Thai HTS subheading 3919.10 is a general basket category that does not differentiate products based on the kind of plastic from which the tape is made.” Final I&D Memo at 32. Instead, Stanley argued in favor of Thai HTS subheading 3920.20.10, covering “Other plates, sheets, film, foil, and strip of plastics, non-cellular and not reinforced, laminated, supported, or similarly combined with other materials: of polymers of polypropylene: biaxially oriented polypropylene film.” Final I&D Memo at 32 (emphasis added).
In the Final Results, Commerce agreed with Stanley‘s proposed HTS subheading, stating:
In its Section D questionnaire response, Stanley describes its sealing tape as “basic packaging tape made from biaxially oriented polypropylene and adhesive.” Based on the Thai description Thai GTA data under HTS 3920.20.10, we find that Stanley‘s sealing tape is included in this HTS category. Accordingly, for these final results, we will use Thai HTS 3920.20.10 to value Stanley‘s sealing tape.
Final I&D Memo at 32 (footnotes omitted); see also Final Surrogate Value Mem. (Mar. 13, 2017), P.R. 292 at 1, bar code 3553207-01, ECF No. 39 at tab 16. Before the court, Mid Continent maintains that substantial evidence does not support Commerce‘s choice of Thai HTS subheading 3920.20.10. See Pl.‘s Br. 28. For Mid Continent, this subheading does not cover the most important aspect of the sealing tape, i.e., that it is adhesive. See Pl.‘s Br. 28-29. Instead, Mid Continent again argues for Thai HTS subheading 3919.10, covering “Plates, Sheets, Film, Foil, Tape, And Other Flat Shapes Of
The Government counters that Commerce‘s use of Thai HTS subheading 3920.20.10 is supported by the record and constitutes the “best available information” to value Stanley‘s sealing tape. Def.‘s Resp. 22. As noted, this subheading covers “Other plates, sheets, film, foil, and strip of plastics, non-cellular and not reinforced, laminated, supported, or similarly combined with other materials: of polymers of polypropylene: biaxially oriented polypropylene film.” According to the Government, “[t]he crux of Mid Continent‘s argument is that the end use of Stanley‘s sealing tape is a more important consideration than the base material when valuing the input.” Def.‘s Resp. 23 (emphasis added). The Government argues, however, that Commerce‘s choice of the more specific subheading (i.e., not a basket provision) was reasonable: “Commerce determined that Thai HTS category 3920.20.10 is the most product specific because, [like] Stanley‘s sealing tape, the tape is made from biaxially oriented polypropylene film.” Def.‘s Resp. 23; see also Stanley‘s Br. 12, 14 (“The record evidence irrefutably established that Stanley‘s sealing tape was manufactured from biaxially oriented polypropylene. Commerce therefore reasonably based the surrogate value for this input on the Thai HTS subheading that expressly described products manufactured from biaxially oriented polypropylene,” rather than “inputs made of undifferentiated ‘plastic.‘“). Thus, the Government asks the court to sustain Commerce‘s valuation of Stanley‘s sealing tape.
Commerce is charged with the duty of choosing the “best available” surrogate data on the record to value inputs.
In its Section D response, Stanley stated that it “purchased plastic granules made of calcium carbonate reinforced polypropylene plastic from a non-market economy supplier and consumed this material in the production of plastic-collated nails.” Stanley‘s Sec. D Resp., P.R. 110 at 36, bar code 3442643-01, ECF No. 30 at tab 14. The plastic granules are subjected to a heating process, and, when melted down, are used to bind loose nails together. In particular, “[p]lastic granules [move] from [a] pipe into [a] heater[,] become soft after heating, and [are] extruded onto nails surface . . . [and] then plastic will adhere onto nails.” Stanley‘s Sec. D Resp., P.R. 113, Ex. D-15, ECF No. 30 at tab 14. A purpose of the collating is to permit the nails to be loaded into a nail gun.
Before Commerce, Mid Continent argued that Commerce should use Thai HTS subheading 3921.90.90, covering “Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics” to value the granules input. See Pl.‘s Br. 30. According to Mid Continent:
[t]he Department incorrectly valued plastic granules [in] the Preliminary Results using HTS 3902.10.90.090, “Other,” which falls under HTS 3902.10, “Polypropylene, In Primary Forms.” . . . Stanley reported that its plastic granules are made from “calcium carbonate reinforced polypropylene plastic” indicating that the granules contain more than just polypropylene. As a result, the Department should value Stanley‘s plastic granules input using the Thai HTS category 3921.90.90.
Final I&D Memo at 32. In other words, Mid Continent argued that Commerce‘s preferred subheading was not specific to the type of plastic Stanley used.
Stanley opposed Mid Continent‘s argument, saying:
The Department should value plastic granules using the Thai HTS category[] 3902.10.90, which follows the Department‘s practice on this same issue in the three immediately preceding segments. The notes of HTS Chapter 39 clearly demonstrate that Stanley‘s plastic granules should not be classified under HTS 3921.90.90.
Final I&D Memo at 32. HTS Chapter Note 10, which pertains to subheading 3921.90.90, i.e., the subheading proposed by Mid Continent, explains that
In heading[] . . . 39.21, the expression “plates, sheets, film, foil and strip” applies only to plates, sheets, film, foil and strip . . . and to blocks of regular geometric shape, whether or not printed or otherwise surface-worked, uncut or cut into rectangles (including squares) but not further worked (even if when so cut they become articles ready for use).
Explanatory Note 10, Chapter Notes to Chapter 39, available at http://www.wcoomd.org/-/media/wco/public/global/pdf/topics/nomenclature/instruments-and-tools/hs-nomenclature-2012/hs-2012/0739_2012e.pdf?la=en (“Chapter Notes“). Stanley argues that the above note does not describe its plastic granules. Rather, Chapter Note 6, which pertains to HTS subheading 3902.10.90, expressly covers granules sold in bulk, like Stanley‘s: “[T]he expression ‘primary forms’ applies only to the following forms : . . . (b) Blocks of irregular shape, lumps, powders (including moulding powders), granules, flakes and similar bulk forms.” Id., Chapter Note 6 (emphasis added). Thus, for Stanley, Mid Continent‘s preferred subheading was not the best available information because it did not describe the plastic granules Stanley consumed in the production of its nails. See Stanley‘s Br. 9 (“Stanley‘s plastic granules are not plates, sheets, film, foil or strip,
In the Final Results, Commerce used Thai HTS subheading 3902.10.90, covering “Polymers of polypropylene . . . in primary forms: Polypropylene: Other,” to value the plastic granules, and rejected Mid Continent‘s proposed HTS subheading 3921.90.90, covering “Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics.” By way of explanation, Commerce stated:
The Department addressed this issue in the three previous administrative reviews. There, we fully explained our rationale for using Thai HTS 3902.10.90, namely that Stanley‘s plastic beads more closely match the description under this HTS category. This HTS category more specifically covers Stanley‘s plastic beads because it covers polypropylene and not just “plastic.” Additionally, there is no record evidence that Stanley‘s plastic beads lend themselves to being cut into
regular shapes as per HTS 3921 categories. We find that these same reasons are supported by the record of this administrative review. Thus, for the final results, we will . . . value Stanley‘s plastic granules . . . using Thai HTS subheading 3902.10.90.
Final I&D Memo at 33 (footnotes omitted).
Before the court, Mid Continent argues that Commerce‘s determination to use Thai HTS subheading 3902.10.90 was not supported by substantial evidence. This is because, in Mid Continent‘s view, “Stanley‘s plastic granules are not polypropylene in a primary form.” Pl.‘s Br. 30 (emphasis added). “Rather, they are made from ‘calcium carbonate reinforced polypropylene plastic,‘” i.e., a product that contains “more than just polypropylene.” Pl.‘s Br. 30 (quoting Stanley‘s Sec. D Resp.). Mid Continent characterizes Stanley‘s granules as “finished products,” not “bulk raw materials in a primary form.” Pl.‘s Br. 30. That they are melted down to collate nails, and require no further processing to use them, in Mid Continent‘s view, reinforces that the granules are not in “primary form.” Pl.‘s Br. 30-31. Moreover, Mid Continent disagrees with Commerce‘s assertion that “there is no record evidence that Stanley‘s plastic beads lend themselves to being cut into regular shapes as per HTS 3921 categories.” Final I&D Memo at 33. To the contrary, Mid Continent points to a photograph attached to Stanley‘s Section D questionnaire response, which “clearly shows that the granules are cut into regular shapes.” Pl.‘s Reply Br. 15. Mid Continent asks the court to remand this issue with instructions that Commerce “value Stanley‘s plastic granules using Thai HTS number 3921.90.90,” the subheading that covers “Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics,” i.e., “finished products containing more than just polypropylene in primary form.” Pl.‘s Br. 31, 32.
The Government and Stanley disagree with Mid Continent and ask the court to sustain Commerce‘s valuation of Stanley‘s plastic granules. First, the Government argues that the HTS subheading selected by Commerce is more specific to “polypropylene” (the kind of plastic Stanley represented using) than the subheading proposed by Mid Continent, which covers “plastics.” Def.‘s Resp. 24. Indeed, Stanley described its plastic granules as made of calcium carbonate reinforced polypropylene plastic in its Section D response.
Next, Stanley argues that Mid Continent‘s characterization of “primary form” reveals a misunderstanding of that term‘s meaning. See Stanley‘s Br. 8. Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 39 of the Thai HTS states that the term “primary form” as used in subheading 3902.10.90 “refers only to the physical form of the imported polypropylene,”
Based on the record evidence, Commerce‘s choice of Thai HTS subheading to value Stanley‘s plastic granules is the best available information. In its questionnaire responses, Stanley described the granules as made from polypropylene plastic, which Commerce reasonably found was more specifically described in subheading 3902.10.90 (“polypropylene“), than in 3921.90.90 (“plastics“). See Qingdao, 766 F.3d at 1386. Mid Continent‘s argument that the polypropylene is not “pure,” and therefore is not “in primary form,” seems to misstate the idea of what “in primary form” means as explained in the Chapter Notes. Rather than focusing on the chemical composition of the polypropylene, the notes indicate that “in primary form” refers to the polypropylene‘s physical shape (e.g., blocks of irregular shapes, powders, flakes and granules) and whether it is sold in bulk form. That is, in primary form means not ready for its ultimate use but, for instance, as here, suitable to be melted down and further applied to a saleable product. Additionally, photographic evidence placed on the record by Stanley indicates that the plastic input at issue here is, indeed, polypropylene plastic pieces measuring no more than 4 millimeters each, and that are sold in bulk form (25 kilogram bags). See Stanley‘s Sec. D Resp., P.R. 113 at bar code 3442643-04.
Finally, starting in the fourth review Commerce rejected HTS subheading 3921.90.90 because Stanley‘s granules were not cut into regular shapes as a part of the manufacturing process. See Certain Steel Nails From the People‘s Rep. of China, 79 Fed. Reg. 19,316 (Dep‘t Commerce Apr. 8, 2014) (final results of the fourth periodic review) and accompanying Issues and Dec. Mem., Cmt. 1112; see also Explanatory
39.21, the expression ‘plates, sheets, film, foil and strip’ applies only to plates, sheets, film, foil and strip and to blocks of regular geometric shape, whether or not printed or otherwise surface-worked, uncut or cut into rectangles (including squares) but not further worked (even if when so cut they become articles ready for use).“). Stanley‘s granules were melted down. Accordingly, there was no need for the granules to “lend themselves to being cut into regular shapes as per HTS 3921 categories,” Final I&D Memo at 33, making subheading 3921.90.90 less specific. The record here supports the conclusion that Stanley‘s polypropylene granules are specifically covered by HTS subheading 3902.10.90 and the Chapter Notes, and therefore, import information pertaining to that subheading was the best available surrogate data to value that input.
CONCLUSION
Commerce‘s application of the general rule in
/s/ Richard K. Eaton
Richard K. Eaton, Judge
Dated: June 19, 2018
New York, New York
Issues and Dec. Mem., Cmt. 11, accompanying Certain Steel Nails From the People‘s Rep. of China, 79 Fed. Reg. 19,316 (Dep‘t Commerce Apr. 8, 2014).
Notes
For purposes of this subsection . . . , the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 1677e of this title [i.e., based on facts available or AFA].
6 In 1994, Congress enacted the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA“), Pub. L. No. 103–465, 108 Stat. 4809 (1994), incorporating into U.S. law the Uruguay Round Agreements adopted by the World Trade Organization. At the same time, Congress approved the Statement of Administrative Action,
SAA at 4201 (emphasis added).[Title 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)(B)] . . . provides an exception to the general rule if the dumping margins for all of the exporters and producers that are individually investigated are determined entirely on the basis of the facts available or are zero or de minimis. In such situations, Commerce may use any reasonable method to calculate the all others rate. The expected method in such cases will be to weight-average the zero and de minimis margins and margins determined pursuant to the facts available, provided that volume data is available. However, if this method is not feasible, or if it results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or producers, Commerce may use other reasonable methods.
(footnote continued . . .)HTS categories under 3921 only apply to plates, sheets, film, foil, strips and to blocks of regular geometric shapes whether or not cut or uncut. In addition, information on the record for another HTS (3902.1090) indicates that it is for polymers of polypropylene in “primary form” (i.e., blocks of irregular shape, lumps, powders, granules, flakes, and similar bulk forms). We find that Stanley‘s plastic beads more closely match the description under HTS 3902.10.90 as: 1) this HTS is more specific because it relates to polypropylene and not just “plastic;” 2) there is no indication that Stanly‘s plastic beads were purchased in a form other than bulk; and, 3) there is no indication that Stanley‘s plastic beads lend themselves to be cut into regular shapes, as HTS categories under 3921 imply. Thus, for the final results we will use HTS 3902.10.90 to value Stanley‘s plastic beads.