Slip Op. 24-47 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

JIANGSU SENMAO BAMBOO 

AND WOOD INDUSTRY CO., 

LTD.,

Plaintiff, 

and 

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS 

SERVICES, LLC,

Plaintiff-Intervenor, 

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS 

OF MULTILAYERED WOOD 

FLOORING,

Defendant-Intervenor. 

Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge 

Court No. 22-00190

OPINION 

[Remanding the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Final Results of Redetermination 

Pursuant to Remand Order in the antidumping duty review of multilayered wood 

flooring from the People’s Republic of China.]

Dated: April 19, 2024 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 2

Jeffrey S. Neely and Stephen W. Brophy, Husch Blackwell, LLP, of Washington, 

D.C., for Plaintiff Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd. 

Matt R. Ludwikowski and Kelsey Christensen, Clark Hill, PLC, of Washington, 

D.C., for Plaintiff-Intervenor Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC. With them on 

the brief was Sally Alghazali.

Kelly M. Geddes, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C. Of Counsel was Christopher 

Kimura, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & 

Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C. 

Timothy C. Brightbill and Stephanie M. Bell, Wiley Rein, LLP, of Washington, 

D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood 

Flooring. Maureen E. Thorson and Theodore P. Brackemyre also appeared. 

Choe-Groves, Judge: Before the Court is the U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s (“Commerce”) remand redetermination in the administrative review 

of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from the People’s 

Republic of China (“China”) for the period of December 1, 2019 through 

November 30, 2020, filed pursuant to the Court’s Opinion and Order in Jiangsu 

Senmao Bamboo & Wood Industry Co., Ltd. v. United States (“Senmao I”), 47 CIT 

__, 651 F. Supp. 3d 1348 (2023). See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 

Remand Order (“Remand Redetermination”), ECF No. 55-1; see also Multilayered 

Wood Flooring from the People’s Republic of China (“Final Results”), 87 Fed. 

Reg. 39,464 (Dep’t of Commerce July 1, 2022) (final results of antidumping duty 

administrative review; 2019–2020) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 3

Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s Republic of China; 2019–2020 

(Dep’t of Commerce June 24, 2022) (“IDM”), PR 245.1

 For the reasons discussed 

below, the Court remands Commerce’s Remand Redetermination. 

ISSUES PRESENTED

The Court reviews the following issues:

1. Whether Commerce’s determination to select Brazil as the primary 

surrogate country, while using Brazilian and Malaysian data for 

valuing log inputs, is supported by substantial evidence; and

2. Whether Commerce’s determination to adjust the Brazilian surrogate 

value data for plywood is supported by substantial evidence.

BACKGROUND

The Court presumes familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 

history of this case as set forth in Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo & Wood Industry Co., 

Ltd. v. United States (“Senmao I”), 47 CIT __, __, 651 F. Supp. 3d 1348, 1354 

(2023). 

Commerce initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order 

on multilayered wood flooring from China for the period of December 1, 2019 to 

1

 Citations to the administrative record reflect the public record (“PR”) and public 

remand record (“PRR”) numbers filed in this case, ECF Nos. 48, 64.
Court No. 22-00190 Page 4

November 30, 2020 and selected Plaintiff Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood 

Industry Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Senmao”) as the mandatory respondent in the 

investigation. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Admin. 

Review Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s Republic of China, 86 Fed. 

Reg. 8166, 8169–71 (Dep’t of Commerce Feb. 4, 2021); Commerce’s Resp. 

Selection Mem. (Mar. 9, 2021), PR 112. 

In its Final Results, Commerce selected Brazil as the primary surrogate 

country and valued Senmao’s oak and non-oak logs with Malaysian surrogate 

values. IDM at 9; see also Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s 

Republic of China (“Preliminary Results”), 86 Fed. Reg. 73,252 (Dep’t of 

Commerce Dec. 27, 2021) (preliminary results of the antidumping duty 

administrative review, preliminary determination of no shipments, and rescission 

of review, in part; 2019–2020) and accompanying Decision Memorandum for the 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review (Dec. 17, 2022) 

(“PDM”) at 17, PR 213. Commerce determined that Brazilian surrogate values 

were not usable for oak and non-oak log inputs. Senmao I, 47 CIT at __, 651 

F. Supp. 3d at 1357 (citing PDM at 17). Commerce did not cite any record 

evidence to support its determination that Brazilian surrogate values regarding oak 

log inputs were highly questionable, inadequate, or unavailable such that a 

departure from a single surrogate country was warranted. Id. 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 5

Commerce also adjusted the Brazilian surrogate values for plywood by 

excluding data that it determined to be incorrect regarding the quantity of plywood. 

IDM at 9. Commerce determined that the Spanish import data for 2020 were 

incorrect because the data reported the same quantity of plywood in cubic meters 

(“m3

”) as it did in kilograms (“kg”). Id. Because the m3 unit measures volume and 

the kg unit measures weight, Commerce concluded that it was “illogical for the 

Spanish import data to report the same quantity in these two different units of 

measure.” Id. As a result, Commerce removed the Spanish import data. In 

making this determination, Commerce relied on Exhibit 9 of Multilayered Wood 

Flooring from the People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Value Comments 

(“AMMWF Surrogate Value Comments” or “AMMWF Surrogate Value Cmts.”), 

but never placed the document on the record. Senmao I, 47 CIT at __, 651 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1361; AMMWF Surrogate Value Cmts. (July 29, 2021), PR 180, 182. 

Commerce calculated Senmao’s antidumping duty margin at 39.27%. Final 

Results, 87 Fed. Reg. at 39,465.

Because Commerce failed to cite necessary record evidence, provide 

adequate explanations, and include cited evidence on the record, the Court 

remanded for Commerce to reconsider its determinations. Senmao I, 47 CIT at __, 

651 F. Supp. 3d at 1358, 1361. The Court remanded for Commerce to reconsider 

its determination to apply Malaysian surrogate values for both oak and non-oak log 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 6

inputs without providing a reasonable explanation for departing from Commerce’s 

established practice of using one surrogate country or supporting its determination 

with substantial evidence. Id. at __, 651 F. Supp. 3d at 1357. The Court also 

directed Commerce to reconsider or further explain its adjustment of plywood 

surrogate values because Commerce cited evidence that was not on the record. Id. 

at __, 651 F. Supp. 3d at 1361. 

On remand, Commerce continued to select Brazil as the primary surrogate 

country. Remand Redetermination at 5‒6. Commerce also determined that it was 

appropriate to value Senmao’s non-oak log inputs using Brazilian data and its oak 

log inputs using Malaysian data. Id. at 15. Commerce revised the antidumping 

duty rate and assigned a 34.68% dumping margin to Senmao. Id. at 17. 

Senmao filed Plaintiff’s Comments in Opposition to Remand 

Redetermination. Pl.’s Cmts. Opp’n Remand Redetermination (“Senmao’s 

Cmts.”), ECF No. 57. Plaintiff-Intervenor Lumber Liquidators Services, Inc. 

(“Plaintiff-Intervenor” or “Lumber Liquidators”) filed Lumber Liquidators’ 

Comments in Opposition to the Remand Redetermination. Pl.-Interv.’s Cmts. 

Opp’n Remand Redetermination (“Pl.-Interv.’s Cmts.”), ECF No. 58. Defendant 

United States (“Defendant” or “the Government”) filed Defendant’s Response to 

Comments on Remand Results. Def.’s Resp. Cmts. Remand Results (“Def.’s 

Resp.”), ECF No. 60. Defendant-Intervenor American Manufacturers of 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 7

Multilayered Wood Flooring (“Defendant-Intervenor” or “AMMWF”) filed 

Defendant-Intervenor American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring’s 

Comments in Support of Remand Determination. Def.-Interv.’s Cmts. Supp. 

Remand Determination (“AMMWF’s Cmts.”), ECF No. 59. 

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The U.S. Court of International Trade has jurisdiction pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grant the Court authority to 

review actions contesting the final results of an administrative review of an 

antidumping duty order. The Court shall hold unlawful any determination found to 

be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record or otherwise not in 

accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). The Court also reviews 

determinations made on remand for compliance with the Court’s remand order. Ad 

Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 38 CIT 727, 730, 992 F. Supp. 

2d 1285, 1290 (2014), aff’d, 802 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Framework

Antidumping duties are calculated as the difference between the normal 

value of subject merchandise and the export price or the constructed export price of 

the subject merchandise. 19 U.S.C. § 1673. To determine the normal value of the 

subject merchandise in a non-market economy, Commerce must calculate surrogate 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 8

values using “the best available information regarding the values of such factors in 

a [comparable] market economy.” Id. § 1677b(c). In doing so, Commerce relies 

on one or more market economy countries that are (1) “at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the non[-]market economy country,” and (2) 

“significant producers of comparable merchandise.” Id. § 1677b(c)(4). 

Commerce’s task is to “attempt to construct a hypothetical market value” of the 

subject merchandise in the non-market economy. Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United 

States, 166 F.3d 1373, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999). When Commerce determines that 

there is more than one country at the same level of economic development as the 

non-market economy country and is a significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, Commerce will consider the quality and availability of the surrogate 

value data. See Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. v. United States, 33 CIT 1056, 1075, 

638 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1347 (2009). 

Commerce’s regulatory preference is to value all factors of production with 

surrogate values from a single surrogate country. 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(2); see 

Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co., Ltd. v. United States, 822 F.3d 1289, 1302 

(Fed. Cir. 2016). Commerce may use a second surrogate country, however, if data 

from the primary surrogate country are unavailable or unreliable. See Import 

Admin. Policy Bull. No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection 

Process (“Policy Bulletin No. 04.1”) (Dep’t of Commerce Mar. 1, 2004). When 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 9

the data from a single surrogate country are “demonstrably aberrational as 

compared to certain benchmark prices, and alternative data sources could be better 

corroborated,” Commerce’s preference for using data from a single country may be 

deemed unreasonable. Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United States, 35 CIT 103, 

119, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1369–72 (2011).

II. Selection of Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values for Log 

Inputs

Senmao argues that Commerce failed to provide sufficient evidence or 

explanations that would justify a departure from Commerce’s preference for a 

single surrogate country or would support Commerce’s use of a secondary 

surrogate country to value Senmao’s inputs. Senmao’s Cmts. at 7. 

If Commerce has a routine practice for addressing similar situations, it must 

either apply that practice or provide a reasonable explanation regarding why 

Commerce has deviated from that practice. See SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 

263 F.3d 1369, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“An agency action is arbitrary when the 

agency offers insufficient reasons for treating similar situations differently.” 

(internal citation omitted)); see also M.M. & P. Mar. Advancement, Training, Educ. 

& Safety Program v. Dep’t of Commerce, 729 F.2d 748, 755 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“An 

agency is obligated to follow precedent, and if it chooses to change, it must explain 

why.”); see also Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 21 CIT 341, 349, 966 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 10

F. Supp. 1230, 1238 (1997) (“Commerce can reach different determinations in 

separate administrative reviews but it must employ the same methodology or give 

reasons for changing its practice.”).

19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c) provides that, “[f]or purposes of valuing the factors 

of production, . . . [Commerce] normally will value all factors in a single surrogate 

country.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(2). Commerce explained that when 

promulgating its regulations, the preference for a single country is meant to prevent 

parties from “margin shopping,” and Commerce may depart from its regulatory 

preference for a single surrogate country when Commerce determines that the 

“accuracy of available information regarding prices for particular factors in the 

surrogate country is ‘highly questionable,’” in which case Commerce may reject 

the questionable values and use data from a second country. Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties, 61 Fed. Reg. 7308, 7345 (Dep’t of Commerce Feb. 27, 

1996). Commerce may use a secondary surrogate country if financial data are 

“inadequate or unavailable.” See Policy Bulletin 04.1 (“After all, a country that 

perfectly meets the requirements of economic comparability and significant 

producer is not of much use as a primary surrogate if crucial factor price data from 

that country are inadequate or unavailable.”).

In evaluating surrogate value data, Commerce considers several factors, 

including whether the surrogate values are publicly available, contemporaneous 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 11

with the period of review, representative of a broad market average, tax and dutyexclusive, and specific to the inputs being valued. See Policy Bulletin No. 04.1; 

see also Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378, 1386 

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing the same factors). Commerce explained that comparable 

merchandise is determined on a case-by-case basis, the meaning of a significant 

producer can differ from case to case, and fixed standards have not been adopted in 

Commerce’s surrogate country selection process. See Policy Bulletin No. 04.1. In 

assessing whether a country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, 

Commerce considers whether all of the potential surrogate countries have 

significant exports of comparable merchandise but does not consider levels of 

significance in comparison with other countries. See id. 

A. Commerce’s Selection of Brazil as a Surrogate Country

The remand states that, “Commerce found that the [surrogate value] data on 

the record for both Brazil and Malaysia are publicly available, contemporaneous 

with the [period of review], representative of broad market averages, tax- and dutyexclusive, and specific to the inputs being valued.” Remand Redetermination at 5 

(citing PDM at 17). 

Commerce determined that it was appropriate to continue with its selection 

of Brazil as the primary surrogate country because: 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 12

(1) the record contains usable Brazilian data for valuing the majority of 

Senmao’s [factors of production]; and (2) the financial statements of 

Brazilian company Duratex S.A. [(“Duratex”)] on the record are 

contemporaneous with the [period of review] and superior to the 

financial statements of Malaysian company Focus Lumber Berhad 

[(“Focus Lumber”)].” 

Id. at 5‒6 (citing PDM at 17; Commerce’s Surrogate Values for the Preliminary 

Results (Dec. 17, 2021) (“Prelim. Surrogate Value Mem.”), PR 210‒211). 

Commerce failed to cite any specific documents on the record in support of 

its determination. Commerce only cited to the Preliminary Determination 

Memorandum to support its conclusory statement in the Remand Redetermination 

that Brazilian and Malaysian surrogate values were publicly available, 

contemporaneous with the period of review, representative of a broad market 

average, tax and duty-exclusive, and specific to the inputs being valued. There is 

no further discussion of any documents in evidence, nor any further explanation in 

the Remand Redetermination of how any record evidence supports Commerce’s 

determinations.

19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i) requires that Commerce must support its 

determinations with substantial record evidence. By merely citing “PDM at 17” as 

support for its remand determination that the surrogate value data for both Brazil 

and Malaysia are publicly available, contemporaneous with the period of review, 

representative of broad market averages, tax- and duty-exclusive, and specific to 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 13

the inputs being valued, Commerce failed to cite substantial evidence. See 

Remand Redetermination at 5.

First, Commerce’s Preliminary Determination Memorandum itself is not 

record evidence because it expresses the agency’s views. Moreover, a review of 

page 17 of the Preliminary Determination Memorandum states that, “[w]e 

considered the [surrogate value] data on the record and determine that both the 

Brazilian and Malaysian data generally are publicly available, contemporaneous 

with the [period of review], representative of broad market averages, tax- and dutyexclusive, and specific to the inputs being valued.” PDM at 17. No citation to 

record evidence appears in support of this conclusory statement on page 17 of the 

Preliminary Determination Memorandum. 

Second, Commerce only cited to the Preliminary Determination 

Memorandum and Preliminary Surrogate Value Memorandum to support its 

determination that Brazil was the appropriate primary surrogate country. Neither 

the Preliminary Determination Memorandum nor the Preliminary Surrogate Value 

Memorandum are record evidence; both documents merely express the agency’s 

views. Commerce’s references to the Preliminary Determination Memorandum 

and Preliminary Surrogate Value Memorandum did not include any citations to 

particular documents in evidence that show how Commerce reached the 

determination that Brazil was the appropriate primary surrogate country. 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 14

The Remand Redetermination states that, “[t]o comply with the Court’s 

Remand Order, we reconsidered the [surrogate value] for Senmao’s log inputs and 

determined that the substantial evidence did not lead us to conclude that the 

Brazilian log [surrogate value] is either highly questionable, inadequate, or 

unavailable to use to value Senmao’s log inputs.” Remand Redetermination at 6. 

Commerce only cites to the Draft Remand Redetermination, the IDM, and Final 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. None of these are documents in evidence. 

It is insufficient under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i) for Commerce to 

simply declare that its determination is supported by substantial evidence, citing to 

its own determinations, without actually discussing any documents on the record 

that support its determinations. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i) (“The court 

shall hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion found . . . to be 

unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance 

with law.”). The Court already remanded once for Commerce’s failure to cite 

evidence, and must now remand again for the same failure. 

The Court holds that Commerce’s determinations are not supported by 

substantial evidence because Commerce failed to identify any record evidence on 

which it relied on for the determinations that Brazilian and Malaysian surrogate 

value data were publicly available, contemporaneous with the period of review, 

representative of a broad market average, tax and duty-exclusive, and specific to 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 15

the inputs being valued, nor any evidence to support its determination that Brazil 

was the appropriate primary surrogate country. The Court remands these issues for 

further reconsideration consistent with this Opinion. 

B. Surrogate Values for Log Inputs

With respect to log inputs, Commerce used Brazilian surrogate values for the 

valuation of Senmao’s non-oak log inputs and used Malaysian surrogate values for 

the valuation of Senmao’s oak log inputs. Remand Redetermination at 14‒15. 

Senmao argues that Commerce’s selection of Malaysia as a secondary 

surrogate country is inconsistent with Commerce’s policy preference to use a 

single surrogate country to value inputs. Senmao’s Cmts. at 7‒10. Senmao 

contends that Commerce’s decision to use Malaysian data to value oak logs was 

based solely on a finding that Malaysian data were more specific than Brazilian 

data. Id. at 9. Senmao also argues that Commerce did not cite to any record 

evidence that shows that Brazilian data under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(“HTS”) subheading 4403.99 would distort the margin if the data were used to 

value oak logs that are classified under HTS subheading 4403.91. Id. at 10. 

Defendant counters that Commerce’s decision to use Malaysian data was 

based on the fact that there were no Brazilian data available on the record to value 

oak logs, not because Malaysian data were more specific. Def.’s Resp. at 7. 

Defendant argues that there was no evidence of Brazilian imports classified under 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 16

HTS subheading 4403.91 for the period of review and that the unavailability of 

such information warranted the use of a secondary primary country, consistent with 

Commerce’s practice. Id. at 9 (citing Policy Bulletin No. 04.1). 

The Court is remanding Commerce’s determination to select Brazil as the 

primary surrogate country due to Commerce’s failure to cite substantial evidence, 

and therefore does not reach the issue of whether Commerce’s determination to use 

Malaysia as a secondary surrogate country to value oak log inputs is supported by 

substantial evidence. 

III. Adjustment of Surrogate Values for Plywood

Senmao argues that Commerce’s determination to adjust surrogate values for 

plywood is inconsistent with Commerce’s practice of adjusting a surrogate value 

after considering whether it is aberrational in the aggregate. Senmao’s Cmts. at 12.

As noted previously, if Commerce has a routine practice for addressing 

similar situations, it must either apply that practice or provide a reasonable 

explanation regarding why Commerce deviated from that practice. See SKF USA, 

Inc., 263 F.3d at 1382. Commerce has a standard practice of considering whether 

the average unit value (“AUV”) is aberrational in the aggregate for the 

economically comparable surrogate countries or as compared to historical AUVs of 

the surrogate country at issue. See SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 42 

CIT __, __, 320 F. Supp. 3d 1341, 1351–52 (2018) (“Commerce explains that its 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 17

practice is to assess aberrationality by examining HTS data both across potential 

surrogate countries and within the surrogate country over multiple years . . . [and] 

considers import data to be aberrationally high if that data [are] ‘many times higher 

than import values from other countries.’”). Interested parties need to demonstrate 

that the import data are aberrational in the aggregate. Id. 

On remand, Commerce maintained that its initial determination to adjust the 

plywood surrogate values by removing erroneous data was reasonable. Remand 

Redetermination at 15. Commerce stated that it complied with the Court’s Order 

in Senmao I by attaching Exhibit 9 of AMMWF’s Surrogate Value Comments 

(“Exhibit 9”), which demonstrates “the density of various wood species and 

standard conversion factors of wooden products.” Id. (citing AMMWF’s Surrogate 

Value Comments, at Ex. 9). Commerce explained that Exhibit 9 supports 

Commerce’s decision to remove an erroneous line of Spanish import data from the 

plywood AUVs because Exhibit 9 “demonstrates that a quantity of plywood 

expressed in [m3

] cannot be the same as the quantity expressed in [kg].” Id. at 15‒

16. Commerce determined that instead of disqualifying an entire dataset for 

containing erroneous data, it was unnecessary to do so in this instance because the 

problem caused by the erroneous data was “easily remedied” by removing the 

distinct subset of Spanish import data, thus making the remaining dataset “more 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 18

accurate” and enabling Commerce to use the surrogate values of plywood from the 

primary surrogate country of Brazil. Id. at 16. 

Senmao argues that Commerce’s determination is inconsistent with 

Commerce’s practice of removing data only if the data are “aberrational in the 

aggregate.” Senmao’s Cmts. at 10‒15. Senmao asserts that when Commerce 

removed the data subset containing Spanish values for Brazilian plywood imports, 

it distorted the data in a manner that was grossly adverse to Senmao. Id. at 16. 

The Government counters that Commerce only applies the “aberrational in 

the aggregate” test when a party argues that a data point is unusually high or low 

and is therefore likely to distort the average value. Def.’s Resp. at 12. The 

Government argues that in this case, Commerce’s determination to remove the 

Spanish data was not based on the reasoning that the data were aberrational, but 

because the quantities expressed in m3

 and kg units made the data incorrect and 

Commerce could not rely on such data when calculating Senmao’s dumping 

margin. Id. at 13. The Government also asserts that removing the data subset with 

the Spanish values did not distort the data on the record because Commerce 

removed incorrect data in order to use “the best available information” to 

determine an accurate antidumping margin. Id. at 14. 

Commerce explained that its decision to remove the data subset with the 

Spanish values for the Brazilian imports was not based on a determination that the 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 19

data were many times higher than import values from other countries, but based on 

the fact that the quantities expressed in association with the units of measurement 

made the data incorrect for the purposes of measuring the quantity of plywood. 

Remand Redetermination at 16. By removing the incorrect data subset, Commerce 

stated that it was able to calculate Senmao’s dumping margin using the best 

available information on the record and as accurately as possible. Id. (citing 

Shakeproof Assembly Components, Div. of Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. United 

States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). 

Commerce simply cited to Exhibit 9 as support for Commerce’s decision to 

remove Spanish import data that Commerce deemed erroneous, but Commerce 

failed to explain how Exhibit 9 demonstrates that a quantity of plywood expressed 

in m3 cannot be the same as the quantity expressed in kg. Commerce attached 

Exhibits 9, 9A, and 9B to the Remand Redetermination and AMMWF’s Surrogate 

Value Comments, yet Commerce did not identify which of these exhibits it actually 

relied on to show how the density of various wood species and standard conversion 

factors demonstrate that the Spanish import data were erroneous. At no point did 

Commerce cite to specific information in Exhibits 9, 9A, or 9B to illustrate that it 

was illogical for the Spanish m3

 and kg values to be expressed in the same quantity. 

Furthermore, Commerce made a conclusory statement that removing the 

Spanish import data would enable Commerce to calculate the dumping margins as 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 20

accurately as possible. Commerce failed to explain, however, how the removal of 

the Spanish import data would be more accurate, or how such removal made the 

rest of the dataset the “best available information” pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1677b(c)(1). See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1) (“[T]he valuation of the factors of 

production shall be based on the best available information regarding the values of 

such factors in a market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate 

by the administering authority.”). 

The fact that the kg and m3

 quantities cannot be the same does not support 

the automatic conclusion, without any explanation, that removal of erroneous data 

led to a more accurate dataset. Senmao points out that Commerce’s adjustment of 

the dataset led to an increase of the Brazilian plywood surrogate value from $1.33 

per m3

 to $7.36 per m3, yet Commerce concluded that it was using the best 

information available without showing how the $7.36 per m3

 was more accurate 

than the $1.33 per m3

. Senmao’s Cmts. at 16. The Court agrees with Senmao that 

Commerce did not provide a reasonable explanation for how its removal of the 

Spanish import data led to a more accurate dataset, and Commerce did not 

establish how removing the Spanish import data would result in the best available 

information for calculating Senmao’s dumping margin rate. The Court notes that 

Commerce removed the purportedly erroneous data without providing the parties 

with a chance to correct the information and without explaining why it was more 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 21

accurate to remove the incorrect data than to allow the parties to provide corrected 

data. On remand, the Court suggests that Commerce should consider providing the 

parties with the opportunity to submit corrected information that will lead to a 

more accurate dumping margin calculation, rather than simply removing data from 

a larger dataset without explaining how removal is more accurate than allowing for 

the submission of corrected information. It seems to the Court that allowing the 

Parties to submit corrected information would lead to a more accurate result than 

merely deleting subsets of information that Commerce deems to be erroneous.

The Court concludes that Commerce’s determination to adjust the Brazilian 

plywood dataset by removing the Spanish import data is not supported by 

substantial evidence on the record. The Court remands the issue for further 

consideration consistent with this Opinion. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Commerce’s Remand 

Redetermination is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly it is hereby 

ORDERED that Commerce’s Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to 

Remand Order, ECF No. 55-1, are remanded to Commerce for reconsideration 

consistent with this Opinion; and it is further 

ORDERED that this case shall proceed according to the following schedule: 

(1) Commerce shall file the remand determination on or before June 20, 
Court No. 22-00190 Page 22

2024; 

(2) Commerce shall file the administrative record on or before July 3, 2024; 

(3) Comments in opposition to the remand determination shall be filed on or 

before August 20, 2024; 

(4) Comments in support of the remand determination shall be filed on or 

before September 20, 2024; and 

(5) The joint appendix shall be filed on or before September 30, 2024. 

 /s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves 

Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge 

Dated: April 19, 2024 

 New York, New York