Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Taiwan: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024

ividually investigated . . .'' The SAA states that the expected method in such cases will be to weight average the zero and de minimis margins, and margins determined pursuant to facts available, provided that volume data is available.\6\ The SAA continues that ``if this method is not feasible, or it results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or producers, Commerce may use other reasonable means.'' \7\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) and the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) have further explained that ``the expected method is the default method,'' and any party seeking to depart from the expected method must demonstrate that there is a reasonable basis for doing so.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Rep. No. 103- 316, vol. 1 (1994) (SAA) at 873. \7\ Id. \8\ See PrimeSource Building Prods. v. United States, 581 F.Supp.3d 1331, 1338 (CIT 2022); see also Albemarle Corp. v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this administrative review, we calculated dumping margins of zero percent for both mandatory respondents: SYSCO and Prosperity. Accordingly, in line with the guidance pr