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 Commerces 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. SeeSteel Threaded Rod from the Peoples Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-15 81 Fed. Reg. 83 800 (Dept Commerce Nov. 22 2016) (Final Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM) P.R. 179 amended by Steel Threaded Rod from the Peoples Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-15 82 Fed. Reg. 1698 (Dept 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). 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 Government) and defendant-intervenors RMB Fasteners Ltd. IFI & Morgan Ltd. and Jiaxing Brother Standard Part Co. Ltd. (RMB/IFI Group) oppose Vulcans motion. Def.s Oppn Sept. 18 2017 ECF No. 39 (Def.s Br.); Def.-Inter.s Oppn Oct. 10 2017 ECF No. 43 (Def.-Inter.s Br.).
The court concludes that Commerces 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 Assn 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 Acts 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 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 Commerces 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. Dept 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 Commerces authority that allows for different conclusions based on different facts in the record. Jiaxing 822 F.3d at 1299 (internal quotation marks omitted).
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 Peoples Republic of China 74 Fed. Reg. 17 154 (Dept 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 30046-47 (Dept 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 Peoples Republic of China 81 Fed. Reg. 29 843 (Dept 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 Chinas 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 (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 defendant-intervenors. 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. Pls 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.
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 Commerces 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 Vulcans disagreements with how Commerce evaluated the data in this case render Commerces decision unsupported by substantial evidence.
A. Commerces 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 Commerces rationale for selecting the Bulgarian data. According to the HTS the Bulgarian data were based on 1147 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).
Vulcans interpretation of the diameter data does not render Commerces 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, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (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 Commerces conclusion. Sango Intl 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. Commn 383 U.S. 607 620, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966) ).
In evaluating Commerces selection of the best available surrogate value under the substantial evidence standard [t]he Courts 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 (2010) (quoting QVD Food Co. v. United States 34 CIT 1166 1169 721 F.Supp.2d 1311 (2010) affd 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 Commerces 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 Commerces calculations. For these reasons Commerces decision to use the Bulgarian dataset that included better coverage of larger diameter inputs was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.
Vulcans 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 Vulcans concern regarding volume in the text of the IDM. However Courts look for a reasoned analysis or explanation for an agencys decision as a way to determine whether a particular decision is arbitrary capricious or an abuse of discretion. An explicit explanation is not necessary however where the agencys 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 agencys decisional path is reasonably discernable and as discussed above supported by substantial evidence on the record.
B. Commerces 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 one-hundredth 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 Commerces calculations. Therefore Commerces decision that the Bulgarian and Thai were 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, 2017 WL 2438835 (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 Commerces 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 Commerces determination that the Thai and Bulgarian data were equally specific for purposes of its calculations in this case was supported by substantial evidence.
C. Commerces 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 FOP-specific 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 Commerces 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 Commerces 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 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 Commerces 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 Commerces 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 Commerces use of the Bulgarian data in this administrative review was supported by substantial evidence. For the foregoing reasons it is hereby
ORDERED that Vulcans Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record is DENIED ; and it is further
ORDERED that Commerces Final Results are SUSTAINED .
Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 are to the relevant portions of Title 19 of the U.S. Code 2012 edition.
Vulcan also contends that carbon content is more important than wire rod diameter and thus Commerces decision to use the Bulgarian data on the basis of wire rod diameter specificity was not supported by substantial evidence. See Vulcans Suppl. Authority at 2-3. Vulcan relies in part on a recent decision of this court upholding Commerces determination following remand that carbon content was a more important factor than diameter in evaluating the specificity of wire rod data Itochu Bldg. Prods. Co. v. United States 43 CIT ---- Slip op. 18-3, 2018 WL 467986 (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.