Opinion ID: 211643
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sales-Based Methodology

Text: 11 We turn first to Hynix's contention that Commerce should have calculated the duty based on a hybrid of sales and entries. Hynix has an uphill battle because Commerce is the `master of antidumping law,' and reviewing courts must accord deference to the agency in its selection and development of proper methodologies. Thai Pineapple Pub. Co. v. United States, 187 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.Cir.1999). 12 Hynix argues that a hybrid methodology is preferred, even required, by 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2) 5 because it is more accurate; and that, while Commerce has often used a sales-based methodology, it deviates when circumstances warrant. According to Hynix, the circumstances of this case warrant such a departure because consistency, Commerce's principal desire, is irrelevant in a final review. Further, Hynix claims that it has provided sufficient data to use a hybrid sales-plus-entries methodology as illustrated by Commerce's use of such a methodology in the Preliminary Results. 13 Commerce counters that section 1675(a)(2) 6 requires only that the duty apply to all entries; the statute does not, however, specify how the duty should be calculated. As a result, Commerce argues that it has substantial latitude in choosing a methodology. Commerce also notes that 19 C.F.R. § 351.213(e) 7 specifically empowers it to use a sales-based methodology. Further, it is Commerce's standard practice to use a sales-based methodology, and it has in fact used such a methodology in the previous reviews of this merchandise. And, while Hynix claims to have sufficient data to support the use of entries, it was unable to match the sales of all entries because some entries were held in inventory until long after the POR ended. Finally, Commerce explained its use of a hybrid methodology in the Preliminary Results and its reversion to a sales-based methodology in the Final Results. Basically, Commerce had no justification for departing in the Preliminary Results from its established practice of using a sales-based methodology. 14 Commerce has offered substantial evidence supporting its choice of methodology. Section 1675(a)(2) does not mandate a specific methodology for computing the dumping margin, and section 351.213(e) specifically allows the use of entries, exports, or sales. See Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 346 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed.Cir.2003) (holding that section 1675(a)(2) does not indicate how Commerce should calculate the dumping margin); Ad Hoc Comm. of S. Cal. Producers of Gray Portland Cement, 914 F.Supp. 535, 544 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1995) (listing Commerce's reasons for using a sales-based methodology). Even assuming that Hynix provided the necessary data linking entries and sales, Commerce need not adopt a hybrid methodology in place of its usual sales-based methodology. See Allegheny, 346 F.3d at 1371-72 (holding that `nothing in Commerce's regulations supports the use of a hybrid sales plus [entries] approach for calculating dumping margins' (quoting Hynix I at 1304)); cf. Thai Pineapple, 187 F.3d at 1365 (Even if it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from evidence contained in the record, this does not mean that Commerce's findings are not supported by substantial evidence.). The methodologies relied upon by Commerce in making its determination are presumptively correct, id., and Hynix has failed either to undermine Commerce's rationale or to support its own position. We therefore affirm the use of a sales-based methodology in this review.