Slip Op. 18-

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

VULCAN THREADED PRODUCTS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant, 

and

JIAXING BROTHER FASTENER CO., 

LTD., IFI & MORGAN Ltd., RMB 

FASTENERS LTD., and ZHEIJANG NEW 

ORIENTAL FASTENERS CO., LTD., 

Defendant-Intervenors. 

Before: Judge Gary S. Katzmann

Court No. 16-00268 

OPINION

[Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record in Commerce antidumping administrative 

review proceeding is denied.] 

Dated:$SULO

Elizabeth Drake, Schagrin Associates, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff. With her on the 

brief were Robert B. Schagrin and Christopher T. Cloutier. 

L. Misha Preheim, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. 

Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant. With him on the brief were 

Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Patricia 

M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, and Elizabeth Anne Speck, Senior Trial Counsel. Of counsel on 

the brief was Khalil N. Gharbieh, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & 

Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC. 

Gregory S. Menegaz, DeKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, DC, argued for defendantintervenors, Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co., Ltd., IFI & Morgan Ltd., and RMB Fasteners Ltd. With 

him on the brief were J. Kevin Hogan and Alexandra H. Salzman.

Peter J. Koenig, Squire Patton Boggs LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor, Zhejiang 

New Oriental Fasteners Co., Ltd.
Court No. 16-00268 Page 2

Katzmann, Judge: What are the limits of agency discretion when evaluating which

information to use from an imperfect swirl of economic data? More specifically, did the 

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) choose the “best available information” in this case to 

calculate what it effectively cost to produce steel threaded rod in China in order to determine 

whether Chinese manufacturers are “dumping” their products in the United States at below market 

prices?

Plaintiff Vulcan Threaded Products, Inc. (“Vulcan”) alleges that Commerce chose

wrongly, and challenges Commerce’s determination that the Bulgarian data was the “best available 

information” to use in the final results and amended final results of the 2014–15 administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel threaded rod from China. See Steel Threaded 

Rod from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 2014–15, 81 Fed. Reg. 83,800 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 22, 2016) (“Final Results”), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“IDM”), P.R. 179, amended by Steel Threaded 

Rod from the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 2014–15, 82 Fed. Reg. 1698 (Dep’t Commerce Jan. 6, 2017). Vulcan 

argues that a number of legal and factual determinations in the Final Results, in which Commerce 

selected Bulgaria as the surrogate country for the calculation of the normal value, are unsupported 

by substantial evidence on the record pursuant to Section 516A(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(A).1 Compl., Jan. 17, 2017, ECF No. 8; Pl.’s Mot. For J. on 

the Agency R. and Br. in Supp., July 19, 2017, ECF No. 36 (“Pl.’s Br.”); Pl.’s Reply, Nov. 6, 2017,

ECF No. 44. Vulcan thus seeks remand. Compl. at 1. Defendant the United States (“the 

 

1 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 are to the relevant portions of Title 19 of the U.S. 

Code, 2012 edition.
Court No. 16-00268 Page 3

Government”) and defendant-intervenors RMB Fasteners Ltd., IFI & Morgan Ltd., and Jiaxing 

Brother Standard Part Co., Ltd. (“RMB/IFI Group”) oppose Vulcan’s motion. Def.’s Opp’n, Sept.

18, 2017, ECF No. 39 (“Def.’s Br.”); Def.-Inter.’s Opp’n, Oct. 10, 2017, ECF No. 43 (“Def.-

Inter.’s Br.”).

The court concludes that Commerce’s decision to use the Bulgarian data was reasonable 

and supported by substantial evidence on the record, and thus sustains the Final Results.

BACKGROUND

A. Legal and Regulatory Framework of Antidumping Reviews Generally.

Dumping occurs when a foreign company sells a product in the United States for less than

fair value -- that is, for a lower price than in its home market. Huzhou Muyun Wood Co., Ltd. v.

United States, 42 CIT ___, ___, 279 F. Supp. 3d 1215, 1218 (2017) (citing Sioux Honey Ass’n v. 

Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 672 F.3d 1041, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). To empower Commerce to offset 

economic distortions caused by dumping, Congress enacted the Tariff Act of 1930. Id. Under the 

Tariff Act’s framework, Commerce may -- either at the request of a domestic producer or of its 

own initiative -- begin an investigation into potential dumping and, if appropriate, issue an antidumping order imposing duties on the subject merchandise. Id.

When Commerce conducts an antidumping review, it first determines the normal value for 

the subject merchandise in order to compare it to the actual export price. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a) 

(2012). Commerce traditionally determines normal value by reference to market prices in the 

exporting country. Id. § 1677b(a)(1). However, when the subject merchandise is produced in a 

non-market economy, Commerce must “determine the normal value of the subject merchandise 

on the basis of the value of the factors of production [(“FOPs”)] utilized in producing the 

merchandise.” Id. § 1677b(c)(1). Commerce is required to value FOPs, to the extent possible, by 
Court No. 16-00268 Page 4

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

development comparable to that of the nonmarket country” and (B) “significant producers of 

comparable merchandise.” Id. § 1677b(c)(4)(A–B); Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 

1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Commerce prefers to draw FOP data from a single surrogate country when 

possible. 19 C.F.R. § 351.508(c)(2). If several potential surrogates are available, Commerce 

evaluates the reliability and completeness of the data in the similarly-situated surrogate countries 

and generally selects the one with the best data as the primary surrogate country. Jiaxing Bro. 

Fastener Co. v. United States, 822 F.3d 1289, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Although Commerce is required to value FOPs using the “best available information,”

Commerce has discretion to determine what constitutes the best available information. Id. at 1293. 

In evaluating the reliability and completeness of the data, Commerce’s practice is to “use 

investigation or review period-wide price averages, prices specific to the input in question, prices 

that are net of taxes and import duties, prices that are contemporaneous with the period of 

investigation or review, and publicly available data.” Import Admin., U.S. Dep’t Commerce, 

Non–Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process, Policy Bulletin 04.1 (2004), 

https://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull04-1.html (last visited Feb. 6, 2018). This evaluation is 

a context-specific, industry-specific, and fact-intensive inquiry; as such, “Commerce is required 

to base surrogate country selection on the facts presented in each case, and not on grounds of 

perceived tradition. Each administrative review is a separate exercise of Commerce’s authority 

that allows for different conclusions based on different facts in the record.” Jiaxing, 822 F.3d at

1299 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Court No. 16-00268 Page 5

B. Factual and Procedural History of this Case.

In 2009, Commerce issued an antidumping order covering certain steel threaded rod from 

China. Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of China, 74 Fed. Reg. 17,154 

(Dep’t Commerce Apr. 14, 2009). Steel threaded rod is made by taking steel rod, bar, or studs that 

have a solid, circular cross section and applying threaded grooves around the outside. IDM at 1.

In April of 2014, Vulcan requested that Commerce conduct an administrative review of the 

antidumping order. Letter from Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP to U.S. Department of 

Commerce (Apr. 30, 2015), P.R. 3. In May 2015, Commerce initiated the administrative review.

Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 Fed. Reg. 30,041, 

30,046–47 (Dep’t Commerce May 26, 2015). Commerce selected Zhejiang New Oriental Fastener 

Co., Ltd. (“New Oriental”) and RMB/IFI Group as mandatory respondents. Certain Steel 

Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of China, 81 Fed. Reg. 29,843 (Dep’t Commerce May 

13, 2016) (“Preliminary Results”), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

(“PDM”), P.R. 155.

Because this review concerned exports from China, a country that Commerce treats as a

non-market economy, Commerce sought a surrogate market economy in which to value the factors 

of production for steel threaded rod. PDM at 6. Commerce determined that Bulgaria, Ecuador, 

Mexico, Romania, South Africa, and Thailand were countries at China’s level of economic 

development based upon their per capita gross national income, as reported by the World Bank. 

81 Fed. Reg. 29,843; PDM at 6–7. Vulcan submitted surrogate value information from Thailand,

while both RMB/IFI and New Oriental submitted surrogate value data from Bulgaria. PDM at 6–

7; Letter from Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP to U.S. Department of Commerce (Dec. 7, 

2015), P.R. 81–85; Letter from deKieffer & Horgan, PLCC to U.S. Department of Commerce 
Court No. 16-00268 Page 6

(Dec. 7, 2015), P.R. 88–89; Letter from Squire Patton Boggs to U.S. Department of Commerce 

(Dec. 7, 2015), P.R. 86–87.

After evaluating the data submitted by the parties, Commerce preliminarily determined that 

Bulgaria provided the best available information for surrogate valuation purposes. PDM at 9.

Commerce explained that steel inputs were of “overwhelming importance” in the calculation of 

the normal value. Id. Therefore, because (1) the Bulgarian data for steel wire rod covered the full 

range of diameters used by the parties, (2) the parties used significantly more wire rod than round 

bar, and (3) the carbon content was functionally equivalent between the two datasets, the Bulgarian 

data were the closest match to the parties’ FOPs. PDM at 8–9.

In June 2016, Vulcan submitted an administrative case brief arguing that Commerce should 

use Thailand instead of Bulgaria as the surrogate market economy for China in the final results.

Case Brief of Petitioner Vulcan Threaded Products, Inc., appended to Letter from Vorys, Sater, 

Seymour and Pease LLP to U.S. Department of Commerce (June 20, 2016), P.R. 164. Commerce 

selected Bulgaria as the surrogate market economy in the Final Results issued in November 2016,

and Vulcan challenged this determination the following month. IDM at 8; Summons, Dec. 21, 

2016, ECF No. 1; Compl. This court authorized the participation of RMB/IFI as defendantintervenors. Order, Feb. 22, 2017, ECF No. 22.

On July 19, 2017, Vulcan submitted its Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record and 

Brief in Support. Pl.’s Br. The Government and defendant-intervenors submitted their briefs in 

opposition on September 18, 2017 and October 10, 2017, respectively. Def.’s Br.; Def.-Inter.’s 

Br. Vulcan replied on November 6, 2017. Pl’s Reply. Oral arguments were heard by this court 

on February 8, 2018. ECF No. 51. Vulcan and defendant-intervenors filed supplemental authority 

on February 13, 2018. ECF No. 52; ECF No. 53. 
Court No. 16-00268 Page 7

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) and 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii). When reviewing anti-dumping and countervailing duty determinations, the

court must sustain Commerce’s determinations in administrative reviews unless they are 

“unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). 

DISCUSSION

Based on the record as a whole, the court is not persuaded that Vulcan’s disagreements 

with how Commerce evaluated the data in this case render Commerce’s decision unsupported by 

substantial evidence. 

A. Commerce’s Finding that Bulgarian Data Was More Specific with Regard to 

Diameter Was Reasonable and Supported by Substantial Evidence on the Record. 

Vulcan contends that it provided, and Commerce ignored, evidence that no reasonable 

person would find the Bulgarian information superior on the basis of the steel wire rod diameter 

data. Pl.’s Br. at 9–10. Commerce selected the Bulgarian data, in part, because they were more 

specific with regard to diameter for steel wire rod. Specifically, the Bulgarian Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (“HTS”) had a separate breakout for wire rod between 14 and 32mm, whereas the Thai 

HTS only covered the lower range of steel wire rod diameters. IDM at 8. Vulcan, however, argues

that the “paucity” of imports of steel wire rod with diameters of 14mm and greater to Bulgaria

invalidates Commerce’s rationale for selecting the Bulgarian data.2

 According to the HTS, the 

2 Vulcan also contends that carbon content is more important than wire rod diameter, and thus 

Commerce’s decision to use the Bulgarian data on the basis of wire rod diameter specificity was 

not supported by substantial evidence. See Vulcan’s Suppl. Authority at 2–3. Vulcan relies, in 

part, on a recent decision of this court upholding Commerce’s determination, following remand, 

that carbon content was a more important factor than diameter in evaluating the specificity of wire 
Court No. 16-00268 Page 8

Bulgarian data were based on 1,147 tons of wire rod with a diameter of 14mm or greater in 2014 

and 160 tons in 2015. Letter from Squire Patton Boggs to U.S. Department of Commerce (Dec. 

7, 2015), P.R. 86–87, at Exhibit SV-4b (“Bulgaria GTA Values”). 

Vulcan’s interpretation of the diameter data does not render Commerce’s decision on this 

issue unsupported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla” 

and amounts to what a “reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”

Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting 

Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Review is limited to the record 

before Commerce in the particular administrative review proceeding at issue and includes all 

“evidence that supports and detracts” from Commerce’s conclusion. Sango Int’l L.P. v. United 

States, 567 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Importantly, an agency finding may still be 

supported by substantial evidence even if two inconsistent conclusions can be drawn from the 

evidence. Downhole, 776 F.3d at 1374 (citing Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 

(1966)). 

In evaluating Commerce’s selection of the best available surrogate value under the 

substantial evidence standard, “[t]he Court’s role is not to make that determination anew, but rather 

to decide ‘whether a reasonable mind could conclude that Commerce chose the best available 

information.’” China First Pencil Co. v. United States, 34 CIT 1284, 1290, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1369 

rod data, Itochu Bldg. Prods. Co. v. United States, 43 CIT ___, Slip op. 18-3 (January 18, 2018) 

(Not reported in F. Supp. 3d). However, that case is distinguishable, as it involved a different kind 

of subject merchandise with different production input experiences and a different record before 

Commerce, and thus its holding is not determinative of the instant case. Goldlink Indus. Co. v. 

United States, 30 CIT 616, 619, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1327 (2006). Moreover, Commerce 

determined that the two data sets in question here were “roughly equal” in terms of carbon content 

-- a determination made with substantial support in the record, as discussed infra -- and thus the 

relative importance of wire rod diameter and carbon content have no bearing on the outcome of 

this case. 
Court No. 16-00268 Page 9

(2010) (quoting QVD Food Co. v. United States, 34 CIT 1166, 1169, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (2010), 

aff’d, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Further, because the governing statute fails to define “best 

available information,” Commerce has “broad discretion to determine the ‘best available 

information’ in a reasonable manner on a case-by-case basis.” Goldlink Indus. Co. v. United 

States, 30 CIT 616, 619, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1327 (2006) (quoting Timken Co. v. United States,

25 CIT 939, 944, 166 F. Supp. 2d 608, 616 (2001)). 

Here, Commerce’s decision to use the Bulgarian data was supported by substantial 

evidence. Commerce noted that “both respondents consumed significantly more wire rod than 

round bar,” and that it therefore chose to prioritize the quality of wire rod data when choosing 

whether to use the Thai or Bulgarian information. IDM at 6–8. The Bulgarian set contained some 

data for wire rod with diameters of 14mm or larger, while the Thai set contained no information 

pertaining to wire rod with this diameter. Vulcan contends that the sample size for the Bulgarian 

wire rod above 14mm in diameter is too small, but does not contend that this wire rod was not sold 

at market-based prices or that the inclusion of this data is otherwise distortive. Further, the record 

does not support a conclusion that this wire rod data undermined the accuracy of Commerce’s 

calculations. For these reasons, Commerce’s decision to use the Bulgarian dataset that included 

better coverage of larger diameter inputs was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. 

Vulcan’s contention that “Commerce improperly failed to ‘take into account whatever in 

the record fairly detracts from its weight’” is also unavailing. Pl.’s Br. at 11 (citing Gerald Metals, 

Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 720 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Vulcan is correct that Commerce did 

not specifically respond to Vulcan’s concern regarding volume in the text of the IDM. However,

“Courts look for a reasoned analysis or explanation for an agency’s decision as a way to determine 

whether a particular decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. An explicit 
Court No. 16-00268 Page 10

explanation is not necessary, however, where the agency’s decisional path is reasonably 

discernible.” Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

(internal citations removed) (citing Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 810 F.2d 1137, 

1139 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Here, Commerce provided substantial explanations in the IDM for 

weighing the data as it has. The agency’s decisional path is reasonably discernable and, as 

discussed above, supported by substantial evidence on the record.

B. Commerce’s Finding that Bulgarian and Thai Data Were Roughly Equivalent with 

Respect to Carbon Content Was Reasonable and Supported by Substantial Evidence 

on the Record.

Vulcan argues that the data contained in the Bulgarian HTS for steel wire rod between 14 

and 32 mm was based on such a small sample so as to be meaningless, and thus the “clear 

superiority of Thai wire rod data in terms of carbon content” warrants the selection of Thailand

rather than Bulgaria as the surrogate. Pl.’s Br. at 12. Vulcan asserts that the Thai data are superior 

because they are more specific with regard to the covered range. Or. Arg. Vulcan notes that the 

Bulgarian data include steel wire rod with a carbon content of less than 0.25 percent whereas the 

Thai data only includes steel wire rod with a carbon content of 0.23 percent or less. Pl.’s Br. at 

12; Letter from Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease to U.S. Department of Commerce (Dec. 7, 2015), 

P.R. 81–85, at Exhibit 1 (“Thailand Surrogate Value Summary”); Bulgaria GTA. That is, the 

Bulgarian data include steel wire rod with a carbon content of 0.24 percent, equating to one onehundredth of a percent more coverage than the Thai data. Pl.’s Br. at 12; Thailand Surrogate Value 

Summary; Bulgaria GTA. However, Vulcan points to nothing in the record that would indicate 

that the inclusion of steel imports with a carbon content of 0.24 percent would affect the accuracy 

of Commerce’s calculations. Therefore, Commerce’s decision that the Bulgarian and Thai were 
Court No. 16-00268 Page 11

“roughly equal” was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence in the record of this case.

IDM at 7; Def.-Inter.’s Br. at 4.

In its brief, Vulcan additionally notes that “the Bulgarian HTS identifies carbon content of 

imported wire rod based only on three ranges [...]. By contrast, the Thai HTS identifies twice as 

many different carbon content levels for imported wire rod.” Pl.’s Br. at 12. Vulcan contends that 

“Commerce cannot reasonably equate the six distinct carbon content ranges in the Thai HTS with 

the three in the Bulgarian HTS, for reasons recently articulated by this Court.” Pl.’s Br. at 15 

(citing Itochu Bldg. Prods. Co. v. United States, 42 CIT ___, Slip op. 17-66 (June 5, 2017)). Thus, 

according to Vulcan, the greater specificity of the Thai HTS with respect to carbon content renders 

the Thai data superior with respect to carbon content. Pl.’s Br. at 15.

At Oral Argument, Vulcan acknowledged that the greater specificity with regard to the 

HTS breakouts was effectively meaningless. Or. Arg. Indeed, the court also finds this specificity 

argument unpersuasive. Neither mandatory respondent specified the carbon content of inputs 

below certain percentages, and so further categorization below that threshold in the Thai data could 

reasonably be viewed as irrelevant to Commerce’s calculations. See IDM at 7. Further, Commerce 

averaged the data contained within the more specific breakouts to make a single wire rod surrogate 

value, essentially neutralizing any potential effect of the more specific categories. See Surrogate 

Values for the Preliminary Results, P.R. 157, (May 5, 2016), at 3; Surrogate Values for the Final 

Results, P.R. 182, (Nov. 14, 2016), at 1 (indicating that Commerce used the same surrogate value 

data as the Preliminary Results unless otherwise stated). Therefore, Commerce’s determination 

that the Thai and Bulgarian data were equally specific for purposes of its calculations in this case 

was supported by substantial evidence.
Court No. 16-00268 Page 12

C. Commerce’s Decision to Give Greater Weight to Steel Wire Rod Was Reasonable and 

Supported by Substantial Evidence on the Record. 

Vulcan contends that although the Bulgarian HTS has more specific entries as to diameter 

of steel wire rod, the Thai HTS has more specific entries as to the diameter of round bar. Pl.’s Br.

at 15. Specifically, “the Thai HTS has four times as many codes, covering round bar to a much 

greater specificity [than the Bulgarian HTS].” Pl.’s Br. at 15; Thailand Surrogate Value Summary; 

Bulgaria GTA. While Commerce supported its decision by stating that the respondents consumed 

more wire rod than round bar, Vulcan argues that “the different FOP consumption amounts 

between wire rod and round bar should not allow Commerce to select Bulgaria based on a FOPspecific justification that is completely contradicted for the other FOP.” Pl.’s Br. at 16.

However, Commerce is allowed to prioritize FOPs that have a greater impact on production 

costs, and the surveyed manufacturers reported using significantly more wire rod than round bar.

Jiaxing, 822 F.3d at 1301 (holding that “Commerce’s decision to emphasize the steel input was 

reasonable and supported by substantial evidence” because “steel is the main input and primary 

driver of cost for steel threaded rod”); IDM at 8. Vulcan does not dispute that more wire rod than 

round bar was consumed. While the Thai data for round bar with diameters of 14mm and greater 

is more specific than the Bulgarian, the Bulgarian data for wire rod with diameters of 14mm and 

greater is more specific than the Thai. IDM at 7–8. Thus, in light of the greater consumption of 

wire rod in the production of the subject merchandise, Commerce’s decision to use the Bulgarian 

data was supported by substantial evidence. 

D. Commerce Is Not Bound by Its Prior Findings that Thai Data Were Superior in

Different Circumstances.

Finally, Vulcan notes that Commerce had selected Thai data in previous administrative 

reviews. Pl.’s Br. at 6. Vulcan also seems to imply that the fact that Commerce is currently 
Court No. 16-00268 Page 13

defending the selection of Thailand as the surrogate market economy for China in other cases 

before this court is evidence of the superiority of the Thai data. Pl.’s Br. at 7. Therefore, Vulcan 

intimates, the selection of Thai data is supported by substantial evidence while the use of Bulgarian 

data is not. However, as the Federal Circuit stated, “Commerce is required to base surrogate 

country selection on the facts presented in each case, and not on grounds of perceived tradition. 

Each administrative review is a separate exercise of Commerce’s authority that allows for different 

conclusions based on different facts in the record.” Jiaxing, 822 F.3d at 1299 (internal quotation 

marks omitted); see also Goldlink, 431 F. Supp. 2d at 1327 (quoting Timken Co., 166 F. Supp. 2d 

at 616) (declaring that, Commerce has “broad discretion to determine the ‘best available 

information’ in a reasonable manner on a case-by-case basis”). For the reasons previously 

discussed, Commerce’s decision to use the Bulgarian data was supported by substantial evidence 

on the record and thus Commerce permissibly selected Bulgaria as the surrogate country in this 

administrative review.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Commerce’s use of the Bulgarian data in this administrative 

review was supported by substantial evidence. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby 

ORDERED that Vulcan’s Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record is DENIED; and 

it is further

ORDERED that Commerce’s Final Results are SUSTAINED.

/s/ Gary S. Katzmann 

 Gary S. Katzmann, Judge 

Dated:$SULO

New York, New York