Slip Op. 20-  UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

GOODLUCK INDIA LIMITED, Plaintiff,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and ARCELORMITTAL TUBULAR PRODUCTS, MICHIGAN SEAMLESS TUBE, LLC, PLYMOUTH TUBE CO. USA, PTC ALLIANCE CORP., WEBCO INDUSTRIES, INC. AND ZEKELMAN INDUSTRIES, INC, Defendant-Intervenors. Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge Court No. 18-00162

OPINION [The court sustains Commerce’s Remand Results]. Dated: $SULO Ned H. Marshak, Andrew T. Schutz, Jordan C. Kah and Michael S. Holton, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Kl estadt, LLP, of New York, NY and Washington, DC, for plaintiff. Ann C. Motto, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigati on Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With her on the brief were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Da vidson, Director, and Claudia Bu rke, Assistant Director. Of counsel was Ayat Mujais, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Depa rtment of Commerce, of Washington, DC. David C. Smith, R. Alan Luberda, Melissa M. Brewer and Kathleen M. Cusack, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors.Court No. 18-00162 Page 2 Katzmann, Judge: The court returns to an antidumping (“AD”) investigation by the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) in which it rejected corrected information submitted by a respondent during verification of Co mmerce’s investigation results. Before the court is Commerce’s Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Dep’t Commerce Dec. 23, 2019), ECF No. 55 (“Remand Results”), which the court ordered in Goodluck India Limited v. United States, 43 CIT __, 393 F. Supp. 3d 1352 (2019). Under protest, Commerce recalculated Goodluck India Limite d’s (“Goodluck”) dumping margin to zero percent, thus excluding Goodluck from AD duties. Remand Results at 9. Plaintiff Goodluck and Defendant the United States (“the Government”) request that the court sustain the Remand Results. Pl.’s Resp. to Def.-Inters.’ Comments in Opp’n to Fina l Remand Redeter mination at 5, March 6, 2020, ECF No. 59 (“Pl.’s Br.”); Def.’s Reply to Comments on Remand Re determination at 1, March 6, 2020, ECF No. 60 (“Def.’s Br.”). Defendant-Interv enors ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC, PTC, Alliance Corp., Webco Industries, Inc., and Zekelman lndustries, Inc. request “that the [c]ourt reconsider[] its order directing Commerce to consider the corrected submission filed by Goodluck.” Def.-Inter s.’ Comments in Opp’ n to Final Remand Redetermination at 1, Fe b. 5, 2020, ECF No. 57 (“Def.-Inters.’ Br .”). The court sustains the Remand Results. BACKGROUND The court set out the relevant legal and factual background of the proceedings in further detail in its previous opinion, Goodluck India, 393 F. Supp. 3d at 1356–62. Information relevant to the instant opinion is set forth below. On May 16, 2017, Commerce initiated an AD inve stigation into cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India and selected Goodluck as a manda tory respondent in that investigation. SeeCourt No. 18-00162 Page 3 Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carb on and Alloy Steel from the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, th e People’s Republic of Ch ina, and Switzerland: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Val ue Investigations, 82 Fed. Re g. 22,491 (Dep’t Commerce May 16, 2017); U.S. Dep’t of Commerce Qu estionnaire to Goodluck (June 19, 2017), P.R. 81. Commerce published the preliminary results of its inve stigation on November 22, 2017, concluding that Goodluck’s dumping margin was de minimis base d on Goodluck’s reported data. See Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sa les at Less Than Fair Value, in Part , Postponement of Fi nal Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 82 Fed. Reg. 55,567, 55,569 (Nov. 22, 2017). On both the first day of Commerce’s sales verification and on the first day of its cost verification of its preliminary results, Goodluck reported corrections to its previously reported data that affected Commerce’s preliminary dumping margin. See Remand Results at 4. However, Commerce rejected these corrections as untimely new factual information submitted outside the investigation period and then rejected Goodluck’s originally reported data as unreliable. See Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel FromIndia: Final Affirma tive Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Valu e, 83 Fed. Reg. 16,296 (Apr. 16, 2018) (“Final Determination”), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 10–14 (Apr. 9, 2018), P.R. 311. Commerce thus calculated Goodluck’s AD marg in based on adverse facts ava ilable (“AFA”) and applied the highest dumping margin of 33.8 percent. Final Determination at 16,297. Goodluck then challenged the Fi nal Determination before the court. Goodluck claimed “that Commerce’s determination was unsupported by substantial ev idence and contrary to law because (1) Commerce abused its discretion by rejecting Goodluck’s correction submission at verification; (2) Commerce’s reliance on [AFA] wa s not warranted where there were no gaps inCourt No. 18-00162 Page 4

the record and where Goodluck di d not significantly impede the i nvestigation; and (3) Commerce deviated from its typical practi ce when calculating Goodluck’s e xport subsidy cash deposit without adequate explanation.” Goodl uck India, 393 F. Supp. 3d at 1362–63. The court agreed with Goodluck as to its first claim and found that “G oodluck’s revised data submission should [have been] categorized as a correctible importer mistake as opposed to untimely new factual information.” Id. at 1370. Therefore, in the pr evious opinion, the court did not reach “whether Commerce’s reliance on facts otherwise availa ble and adverse inferences is supported by substantial evidence and in accord ance with law.” Id. The court remanded the case to Commerce “to consider Goodluck’s corrected submission as well as to explain why it . . . departed from its general practice for calculating export subsidy cas h deposit offset rates . . . .” Id. at 1363. On remand, Commerce, under protest, “accep t[ed] Goodluck’s revi sed databases, and recalculate[ed] Goodluck’s dumping rate pursuant to the [previous opinion and order].” Remand Results at 1. Thus, Commerce did not apply AFA in calculating Goodluck’s dumping margin on remand, but instead calculated Goodluck’s dumping margin as zero based on those revised databases. Id. at 9. The Government then filed the final Remand Results with the court on December 23, 2019. Remand Results. Defendant-Inte rvenors filed their comments on the Remand Results on February 5, 2020. Def.-Inters.’ Br. Good luck and the Government filed replies to those comments on March 6, 2020. Pl.’s Br.; Def.’s Br . The court now reviews the Remand Results “for compliance with the court’s remand order.” See Beijing Tianhi Indus. Co. v. United States, 39 CIT __, __, 106 F. Supp. 3d 1342, 1346 (2015) (citations omitted). DISCUSSION The Government and Goodluck request that the court affirm the Remand Results. Pl.’s Br. at 5; Def.’s Br. at 1. Defendant-Intervenors, however, challenge the court’s original decision toCourt No. 18-00162 Page 5 remand to Commerce its rejection of Goodluck’s corrected data. See Def.-Inters.’ Br. at 1. Because Commerce complied with the court’s remand order, the court affirms the Remand Results. In its previous opinion, the court ordered Commerce on remand to accept Goodluck’s corrections to its reported data a nd to calculate its AD margin using that data. See Goodluck India, 393 F. Supp. 3d at 1363. The court agrees with the Government that the Remand Results show that “Commerce requested thatGoodluck place the corrected database on the remand record, which Goodluck did, and recalculated the marginfor Goodluck based on the submission, as directed” by the court. See Def.’s Br. at 4. Commerce recalculated an AD margin for Goodluck of zero percent. Remand Results at 9. Becau se Goodluck “will no longer be subject to the AD order on cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India, ” Commerce did not need to recalculate a cash deposit rate for Goodluck as ordered by the court’ s remand. Id. Therefore, the court need not reach the AFA application and cash deposit issues. Defendant-Intervenors ask the court to re verse its previous opinion, which remanded Commerce’s Final Deter mination, claiming that “the [c]our t inappropriately substituted its judgment for that of the agency.” Def.-Inters.’ Br. at 5. Defendant-Intervenors argue that, in the Final Determination, Commerce correctly relied on 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d)–(e) in making the factual determination to reject Goodluck’s original databases and in a pplying adverse facts available to Goodluck in calculating its dumping margin. Id. at 5–7. Thus, they argue, “Commerce was entitled to, and properly did, follow the statut e in rejecting Goodluck’s new information for the Final Determination, and it shoul d not have been directed by the [c]ourt to give consideration to Goodluck’s untimely submitted info rmation.” Id. at 12. On thatbasis, Defendant-Intervenors request that the court reconsider its previous opinion. Id.Court No. 18-00162 Page 6 The court is not persuaded by Defendant-Interve nors’ request. In Goodluck India, the court decided that, under existing caselaw and Commerce’s own practice, Commerce abused its discretion by rejecting Goodluck’s minor corrections, and thus th e Final Determination was not supported by substantial evidence or in accord ance with law. 393 F. Supp. 3d at 1363–64 (citing NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Fischer S.A. Comercio v. United States, 34 CIT 334, 700 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (C IT 2010); Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the United Kingdom, 81 Fed. Reg. 53,436 (Dep’t Commerce Aug. 12, 2016)). For that reason, the court was not required to defe r to Commerce’s decision to reject Goodluck’s corrected data. The court concluded that Goodluc k’s corrections were minor and that Commerce should have accepted those corrections in accordance w ith its past practice. Id. By accepting those corrections, Commerce has now complied with the remand order, acting in accordance with law. Further, as Goodluck notes, Defendant-Interveno rs do not cite to any subsequently published precedent that would undermine the court’s analys is in Goodluck India or identify any “factual mistakes or clerical errors,” Pl .’s Br. at 2, in that previous opinion. See Def.-Inters’ Br. CONCLUSION Commerce complied with the court’s remand instructions, and Defendant-Intervenors’ arguments do not persuade the court to revisit its previous opinion. For the above stated reasons, the court sustains Commerce’s Remand Results. SO ORDERED. /s/ Gary S. Katzmann Gary S. Katzmann, Judge

Dated: $SULO New York, New York