Choe-Groves Judge:
Plaintiff Pharm-Rx Chemical Corporation (Pharm-Rx) challenges the final decision issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce or Department) in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order of glycine from the Peoples Republic of China for the 2015-2016 period of review. See Glycine From the Peoples Republic of China 82 Fed. Reg. 47 474 (Dept Commerce Oct. 12 2017) (final results of antidumping duty administrative review and rescission of antidumping duty administrative review in part; 2015-2016) (Final Results); see also Glycine from the Peoples Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Administrative Review and Rescission of the Administrative Review In Part; 2015-2016 A-570-836 (Oct. 4 2017) available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/prc/2017-22068-1.pdf (last visited Sept. 4 2018). The administrative review period involves entries of glycine made from March 1 2015 through February 29 2016. Final Results 82 Fed. Reg. at 47 474.
Pharm-Rx challenged Commerces application of the 453.79 percent China-wide entity rate during the 2015-2016 administrative review. Compl. ¶ 18 Dec. 8 2017 ECF No. 9 (Compl.). Before the court are Commerces final results of redetermination submitted following the courts grant of a voluntary remand issued on March 20 2018. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand June 4 2018 ECF No. 27-1 (Remand Redetermination). For the following reasons the court sustains the Remand Redetermination.
BACKGROUND
Pharm-Rx imported glycine manufactured by Jizhou City Huayang Chemical Co. Ltd. (Huayang Chemical). Compl. ¶ 7. Commerce selected Huayang Chemical as a mandatory respondent during the 2015-2016 administrative review. Remand Redetermination at 1. Huayang Chemical failed to respond to Commerces questionnaire and as a result Commerce assigned Huayang Chemical the China-wide entity rate of 453.79 percent which was based on the rate assigned to Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co. Ltd. (Baoding) in the final results of the antidumping administrative review on glycine from China for 2010-2011. Id. at 1-2.
In a proceeding separate from this litigation Baoding challenged the 453.79 percent rate and the court issued a remand for Commerce to reconsider the rate and underlying analysis. Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co. Ltd. v. United States 41 CIT ---- ---- 279 F.Supp.3d 1321 1324-25 (2017) ( Baoding Mantong). Commerce reexamined the surrogate values recalculated Baodings weighted-average dumping margin at 0.00 percent and invalidated the 453.79 percent China-wide entity rate in the Second Remand Redetermination. Id. The Baoding Mantong court found that Commerces decisions in the Second Remand Redetermination were based on substantial evidence in the record including determinations that the ammonia production input was anhydrous ammonia and not aqueous ammonia and that the anhydrous ammonia should be valued according to the Global Trade Atlas data for Thailand among other conclusions. Id. at ---- 279 F.Supp.3d at 1331-32. The court sustained Commerces Second Remand Redetermination as supported by the evidence in the record. Id.
After the Baoding Mantong court sustained Commerces Second Remand Redetermination reducing Baodings weighted-average dumping margin to 0.00 percent this court granted Defendants Consent Motion for Voluntary Remand. Order Mar. 20 2018 ECF No. 23. In its Remand Redetermination Commerce vacated the China-wide entity rate of 453.79 percent and assigned an adjusted rate of 155.89 percent which Commerce explained was the previous China-wide entity rate established in the underlying less-than-fair-value investigation. Remand Redetermination at 4. Pharm-Rx did not challenge Commerces proposed adjusted China-wide entity rate of 155.89 percent to Huayang Chemical. Id. at 3. Pharm-Rx requested that the court sustain the Remand Redetermination. See Pl.s Request Sustain Remand Results 1 Aug. 21 2018 ECF No. 30.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court has jurisdiction over Commerces final determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2012) ; 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii). The court will uphold the Departments determinations findings or conclusions unless unsupported by substantial evidence on the record or otherwise not in accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). When reviewing substantial evidence challenges to Commerces decisions in an administrative review the court assesses whether the agency action is unreasonable given the record as a whole. See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States 458 F.3d 1345 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
ANALYSIS
The Baoding Mantong court sustained Commerces vacating of the previous China-wide entity rate of 453.79 percent based on substantial evidence considered in the Second Remand Redetermination. After the Baoding Mantong case invalidated the rate of 453.79 percent Commerce reconsidered the appropriate rate to apply in the instant case. Commerce decided to apply the China-wide entity rate of 155.89 percent that had been established in the underlying less-than-fair-value investigation prior to the selection of the rate of 453.79 percent. The court concludes that Commerces selection of the China-wide entity rate of 155.89 percent is reasonable. Plaintiff Pharm-Rx does not challenge the rate of 155.89 percent and has waived any objections by declining to submit comments on the Remand Redetermination to the court. The court sustains Commerces Remand Redetermination.
Judgment will be issued accordingly.