OPINION AND ORDER

RESTANI, Judge:

This matter comes before the court following the court's decision in Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. v. United States, 768 F.Supp.2d 1286 (CIT 2011), in which the court remanded Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 74 Fed.Reg. 41,374 (Dep't Commerce Aug. 17, 2009) ("Final Results") to the United States Department of Commerce ("Commerce" or the "Department"). For the reasons stated below, the court finds that Commerce failed to comply with the court's remand instructions with regard to two contested issues.

BACKGROUND

The facts of this case have been well-documented in the court's previous opinion. See Lifestyle Enter., 768 F.Supp.2d at 1293-95. The court presumes familiarity with that decision but briefly summarizes the facts relevant to this opinion.

The plaintiffs, Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. ("Lifestyle"), Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. ("Orient"), Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. ("Yihua Timber"), Dream Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Ron's Warehouse Furniture, Emerald Home Furnishings, LLC, and Trade Masters of Texas, Inc., and defendant-intervenors American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. (collectively "AFMC") challenged the final results of an administrative review of the antidumping ("AD") duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China ("PRC" or "China"), which assigned Orient a weighted average dumping margin2 of 216.01% as part of the PRC-wide entity and Yihua Timber the dumping margin of 29.89%. See Final Results, 74 Fed.Reg. at 41,380; Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 74 Fed.Reg. 55,810, 55,810 (Dep't Commerce Oct. 29, 2009). Upon considering the parties' motions for judgment on the agency record, the court held that substantial evidence did not support denial of a separate rate for Orient and that the rate of 216.01% assigned to Orient was not corroborated. Lifestyle Enter., 768 F.Supp.2d at 1296-99. The court also held that substantial evidence did not support the Department's decisions on the data set for wood inputs, the choice of tariff heading for the surrogate value of medium density fiberboard, whether two companies produced comparable merchandise or used a comparable production process, negative export pricing, and surrogate labor value.3 Id. at 1314-15. The court remanded for reconsideration or further explanation. Id.

On remand, Commerce 1) found "that the information on the record corroborates the rate of 216.01 percent, as it relates to Orient," based on total adverse facts available ("AFA"), 2) "continue[d] to find that it is appropriate to value wood inputs using [World Trade Atlas ("WTA") ] import data," and 3) "decided not to rely on the financial statements of Diretso Design[.]"4 Remand Results at 8, 18, 31. Despite Commerce's recent explanation, defendant-intervenor AFMC continues to contest whether Commerce presented substantial evidence in its decisions to rely on WTA weight-based data for wood inputs and not to rely on the financial statements of Diretso Design. AFMC's Comments Concerning Commerce's Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand at 1-2 ("AFMC's Cmts."). Plaintiff Lifestyle challenges whether Commerce properly corroborated Orient's rate. Comments of Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc., Trade Masters of Texas, Inc. and Emerald Home Furnishings, LLC on Department of Commerce July 26, 2011 Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand at 12 ("Lifestyle Cmts."). The Government and consolidated plaintiff, Yihua Timber, ask the court to sustain the Remand Results. Def.'s Resp. to Pls.' Remand Cmts. at 1 ("Def.'s Resp."); Cmts. of Consolidated Pl. Guangdong Yihua Timber Ind. Co., Ltd. on the Commerce Dep't's Remand Determination at 1 ("Yihua Timber Cmts.").

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). The court will not uphold Commerce's final determination in an AD review if it is "unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law...." 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).

DISCUSSION

I. Orient's AFA Rate

During an AD review, when "an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority ... the administering authority ... may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available." 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b). The AD duty rate under such circumstances is known as an AFA rate and may be based on information obtained from: "(1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation under this subtitle, (3) any previous review under ... [19 U.S.C. § 1675] or determination under ... [19 U.S.C. § 1675b], or (4) any other information placed on the record." Id. Lifestyle challenges the Remand Results on the grounds that Orient's selected AFA rate of 216.01% violates 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c) because Commerce corroborated the rate with data that were not probative and therefore the rate is not supported by substantial evidence. Lifestyle Cmts. at 4-7. Because Commerce failed to corroborate the rate with data that tied the AFA rate to Orient's commercial reality, the court remands the matter to Commerce.

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c), "[w]hen the administering authority... relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, the administering authority ... shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at their disposal." 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c). Here, the AFA rate of 216.01% is from the 2004-05 review of a new shipper company, Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd. ("Kunyu"), and thus is secondary information. Lifestyle Enter., 768 F.Supp.2d at 1297. Commerce must, therefore, corroborate this information "to the extent practicable."5 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c); see also Gallant Ocean (Thai.) Co. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319, 1324 (Fed.Cir.2010). In order to corroborate an AFA rate, Commerce must show that it used "reliable facts" that had "some grounding in commercial reality." Gallant, 602 F.3d at 1324 (internal quotation marks omitted). In doing so, Commerce must tie the AFA rate to the commercial reality of the particular respondent under review. Id. (finding transaction-specific margins insufficient for corroboration where "Commerce did not identify any relationship between the small number of unusually high dumping transactions with [defendant's] actual rate").6

Congress's intent for "an adverse facts available rate to be a reasonably accurate estimate of the respondent's actual rate, albeit with some built-in increase intended as a deterrent to non-compliance" limits what Commerce may permissibly impose on a non-compliant respondent. F.lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027, 1032 (Fed.Cir.2000) (invalidating the 46.67% AFA rate imposed by Commerce because, inter alia, it "was many times higher than [respondent's] actual dumping margin"). Regardless of the manner of corroboration, Commerce cannot select a rate that does not reflect a reasonable estimate of a respondent's actual rate. An aberrantly high AFA rate or a rate diverging significantly from calculated rates for similarly situated participating companies normally indicates that a particular AFA rate may not reflect a respondent's commercial reality.7 In the past, Commerce has permissibly imposed rates of 45.49% and 30.95% where those rates were corroborated using respondents' own sales data. See PAM, S.p.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed.Cir.2009) (finding an AFA rate of 45.49% corroborated where Commerce used twenty-nine sales over 45.49%, totaling just 0.5% of respondent's total U.S. sales during the current administrative review); Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2002) (finding an AFA rate of 30.95% valid because it was based on respondent's actual sales data). Using a small percentage of individual transactions of the company under review to corroborate an AFA rate where the record is empty may be valid under some circumstances, but is not the norm. Moreover, these two cases not only seem to represent the outer bounds of minimal corroboration, but also rely upon respondents' own sales data. Facts specific to a particular case may make transactions representing a small percentage of sales inadequate corroboration.8

Orient has never been individually examined and therefore Commerce was unable to corroborate the AFA rate using Orient's own data. Instead, Commerce reasoned that the AFA rate of 216.01% as applied to Orient was relevant and reliable, and therefore, "corroborated to the extent practicable," based on a small percentage of Yihua Timber's transaction-specific dumping margins that were in that range.9 Commerce has not addressed the court's comments that Orient's rate increased 3000% from its prior margin10 and remains "700% greater than the highest separate rate assigned in the review," Lifestyle Enter., 768 F.Supp.2d at 1299, except to argue that Orient "was not individually examined during that period." Remand Results at 33. Record evidence in the instant case overwhelmingly suggests that 216.01% does not reflect commercial reality. See Gallant, 602 F.3d at 1325 (stating that "the record showed a large body of reliable information suggesting the application of a much lower margin"). First, the rate offered by Commerce is not only from a new shipper review three to four years prior to this administrative review but also an extreme outlier when viewed in light of the prior new shipper reviews, the two previous administrative reviews, and the investigation. Other than the PRC-wide rate, which is itself an AFA rate, prior to this review the highest rate for a cooperating respondent was 49.60% and for a new shipper other than Kunyu was 8.30%.11 All-others rates have oscillated from around 9% at investigation, to around 35% in the first administrative review, to around 19% in the second administrative review, and to 30% in the current review. Second, record evidence suggests that Orient's commercial reality differs significantly from the commercial reality of Kunyu, a much smaller and newer company than Orient. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2004-2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews and Notice of Final Rescission of One New Shipper Review, 71 Fed.Reg. 38,373, 38,378 (Dep't Commerce July 6, 2006) (describing Kunyu as "small [in] size and [with] rudimentary factory operations"); Lifestyle Cmts. Ex. 2. Moreover, because Commerce selected Orient as one of the two largest exporters of wooden bedroom furniture from China, Commerce cannot now claim no knowledge of Orient's size. Lifestyle Enter., 768 F.Supp.2d at 1293; Remand Results at 58. Even where Commerce cannot link respondent's sales to commercial reality because no such sales exist in current or past records, Commerce cannot choose an AFA rate contradicted by nearly all information on record. The record evinces nothing connecting the calculated rate given to Kunyu and the rate given to Orient. Thus, Commerce has failed "to show some relationship between the AFA rate and the actual dumping margin." Gallant, 602 F.3d at 1325.12 Although Orient has placed itself in a difficult position by not cooperating, the law does not permit Commerce to impose a rate for punishment purposes. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. Thus, it is highly unlikely, based on this record, that the court could sustain a rate similar to the one Commerce assigned Orient in the Remand Results. Commerce must make a finding as to what is a reasonable amount to add on to calculated rates to ensure compliance, based on this industry and this respondent's commercial reality.13 Accordingly, Commerce is instructed to select a reasonable rate for Orient that is consistent with this opinion.

II. Database for Wood Input Valuation

As the court previously noted, and the parties agree, the valuation of wood has a significant impact on the AD margin. Lifestyle Enter., 768 F.Supp.2d at 1301-02; Lifestyle Cmts. at 12. To determine the surrogate value for wood, Commerce used Philippine Standard Commodity Classification ("PSCC") 4407.99 for poplar and ash, and PSCC 4407.10 for pine.14 See Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2007 & New Shipper Reviews Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, A-570-890, POR 1/1/07-12/31/07, at 8 & n. 4 (Aug. 10, 2009), available at http://ia.ita. doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/E9-19666-1.pdf (last visited Mar. 19, 2012) ("Issues and Decision Memorandum"). Both of these tariff subheadings cover a wider variety of wood, including various species and higher-moisture content wood not used by Yihua Timber.15 Id.; Amended App. to AFMC's Cmts. Concerning Commerce's Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand at Tab 18, Attach. III ("App. to AFMC's Cmts."). In the Final Results, Commerce measured Yihua Timber's consumption of wood by weight, relying on WTA weight-based data rather than Philippines National Statistics Office ("NSO") volume-based data. Issues and Decision Memorandum at 8. The court found Commerce's reasoning unsupported by substantial evidence and instructed Commerce on remand to "explain why volume data are not the superior approach given the patent complications with using gross weight data with wood inputs...." Lifestyle Enter., 768 F.Supp.2d at 1301. In its Remand Results, Commerce concluded that WTA gross weight-based data were more reliable than NSO volume-based data16 because "NSO volume-based data are distorted by the use of standard conversions from weight to volume...." Remand Results at 9, 15. Although Philippine customs forms require all importers to report the weight of their entries, importers "sometimes but very seldom" fail to report the volume of their entries. Remand Results at 41. When importers do not report volume, Philippine customs officials calculate volume from reported weight using a formula which Commerce found to be a standard conversion ratio.17 Id. Commerce determined that 46 out of 119 import transactions (38.7%) covering the wood factors of production valued with NSO volume-based data used a standard conversion factor of 0.848. Id. at 10-11. Commerce concluded that because "a portion of the NSO weight-based data were based on standard conversions from gross weight data, ... the NSO volume-based data are less reliable than the WTA weight-based data...." Id. at 48-49. The court first examines Petitioners' challenges to Commerce's choice to use weight-based data, then looks at Commerce's contentions regarding the alternative volume-based data.

A. Weight Data

AFMC challenges Commerce's choice to use weight-based data on the basis that the weight-based data are significantly distorted by the presence of high-moisture content (or "green") wood in the tariff headings used to determine the surrogate value. AFMC's Cmts. at 17. The Government counters that "given the absence of any record evidence of the moisture/species mix underpinning the WTA/NSO data, and the existence of alternative explanations for ... why the NSO densities exceed the density of the wood used by Yihua, AFMC cannot demonstrate distortion." Def.'s Resp. at 8. AFMC also argues that the presence of packing materials further distorts the surrogate value if weight data are used. AFMC's Cmts. at 28-29.

i. Distortion Due to Moisture Content

AFMC argues that "the relatively high average density ... [of] lumber imported under PSCC 4407.99[ ] indicates that at least some portion of the imports is comprised of `green wood.'" AFMC's Cmts. at 17 (citing Remand Results at 12).18 Thus, because Yihua Timber "consumes only kiln-dried lumber," id., there is a tremendous risk of substantial undervaluation of the surrogate value. Id. at 15. Commerce acknowledged "a mix of dried and green wood" in imports under PSCC 4407.99, Remand Results at 12,19 but "disagree[d]... that a density of 670 kilograms per cubic meter is compelling evidence of high moisture content wood," id. at 12.

Here, the record clearly demonstrates that the use of weight-based data understates the wood input surrogate value. Yihua Timber uses only low-moisture, kilndried wood, a very specific subset of the wood imported under the tariff heading.20 This type of wood should command a higher price per kilogram than the average wood imported under that tariff heading because it yields more cubic meters of wood per kilogram. The use of weight-based data in conjunction with a basket tariff heading, therefore, places an artificially low value on the wood used by Yihua Timber because the inclusion of higher-moisture content wood and wood that lacks the value added from the kiln-drying process depresses the surrogate value.21 Moreover, because wooden bedroom furniture requires a certain volume of wood, not a certain weight of wood, this distortion due to the presence of green wood imported under the tariff headings is only present when weight-based data are used.22

ii. Species Mix

Commerce rejects AFMC's claim of distortion due to the presence of high-moisture content wood in the relevant tariff headings by arguing that the actual size of this distortion is unknown and possibly non-existent because the alleged distortion in the surrogate value might instead be due to species mix.23 Remand Results at 45. The lower per unit cost chosen by Commerce theoretically might be accurate because some of the wood imported into the Philippines could be of higher quality than the wood used by Yihua Timber. See id. at 45 ("[T]he average value of any basket HS category will be a function of the mix of natural high density woods, low density woods, and high moisture content green woods.").

High-moisture content wood has a definitive value-suppressing effect when weight-based data are used. In contrast, the impact of species mix has variable and indeterminate effects based on the record and Commerce's findings. Although it is true that species mix could have the effect of overvaluation under both data choices, it is does not have the same clearly one-sided impact as high-moisture content wood on weight-based data. Without regard to the impact of high-moisture content wood, species mix affects valuation in three different ways, contingent upon the correlation between species and the price of wood. First, where price rises faster than density as between two types of wood, weight-based data are preferable because although weight-based data still overvalue the types of wood in question, the use of volume-based data would result in an even greater distortion. Second, where price drops with an increase in density, volume-based data would be preferable because although both data sets undervalue wood, the use of volume-based data would result in less of an undervaluation than the use of weight-based data. (Commerce rejected this possibility.) Third, for all correlations falling in between where price rises but not as fast as density, no clear choice exists because both volume-based and weight-based data will be distorted by species mix. Commerce made no finding as to whether density correlates with price in a manner similar to the first or the third scenarios.

Commerce acknowledged that the impact of species mix did not provide a basis upon which to find that volume-based data were superior to weight-based data. See Remand Results at 47 ("[S]everal variables affecting the numerator and denominator cannot be quantified using data on the record.... Therefore, there is no basis to state that the NSO volume data is superior to WTA weight data for purposes of calculating surrogate values...."). Critically, Commerce did not find that the impact of species mix on volume-based data was comparable to or exceeded the impact of high-moisture content wood on weight-based data. Commerce simply found that species mix did not support the assertion that volume-based data were superior. A wider variety of results require additional findings before species mix may be used as a basis for rejecting volume-based data in favor of weight-based data in this case. In contrast, moisture content necessitates no balancing because moisture content cannot result in an overstatement of value determined by volume-based data. Commerce's findings as to species mix were therefore insufficient to support Commerce's next logical step: the rejection of volume-based data in favor of weight-based data. Without additional evidence showing that a clearer correlation between price and density for the woods covered by PSCC 4407.99 and 4407.10, or at least showing that the higher-value woods were a substantial import into the Philippines, species mix distortions do not provide substantial evidence to support Commerce's preference for weight-based data.

iii. Packing Materials in Gross-weight Data

AFMC argues that Commerce has failed to explain "why use of a weight-based approach is not distortive given that `different types of packaging of the same wood may result in distortions in the gross-weight data.'" AFMC Cmts. at 28 (quoting Lifestyle Enter., 768 F.Supp.2d at 1301). Commerce seems to have conceded that packing materials are included in some of the data, because it agreed that it did "not have sufficient information on this record to conclude that packing does not generally account for the divergent differences in gross versus net weight data from the NSO...."24 Remand Results at 14. Thus, inclusion of packing materials may be one more reason why weight-based data should not be used. At the very least it does not weigh against using volume-based data.

B. Volume Data

Having concluded that the record evidence that weight-based data are clearly distortive due to, at least, the presence of high-moisture content wood is uncontradicted, the court now turns to volume-based data, the alternative considered and rejected by Commerce. At oral argument, the Government conceded that the sole basis upon which Commerce rejected volume-based data was that a certain percentage of imports under the relevant tariff headings converted weight-based data into volume-based data using a standard conversion ratio.25 AFMC argues that the standard conversion ratio affects an insignificant number of relevant wood imports and therefore is an improper basis upon which to discard the NSO volume-based data. AFMC's Cmts. at 6.

In the preliminary remand results, Commerce found that 38% of data for transactions in the NSO volume-based data set were the result of the use of a standard conversion ratio, not the actual reported volume. Remand Results at 10-11. In the final Remand Results, Commerce agreed with AFMC that this percentage was based on the number of transactions and that when measured by volume or quantity "the application of the standard conversion of 0.848 to the inputs of ash, poplar and pine appears to be minimal...." Id. at 42.26 Given Commerce's agreement that the standard conversion ratio is demonstrated to be distortive of only a very small amount of the volume data (apparently about 1%), and the fact that the transactions affected by the standard conversion ratio may even be removed, the mere presence of a standard ratio being used in some circumstances does not constitute substantial evidence supporting the use of weight-based data.27

There is no question that a distortive conversion ratio is being used in all cases if weight-based data are the metric chosen and any amount of green wood was imported under the relevant tariff headings, as Commerce concluded was the case. Speculation as to the impact of species mix and a widespread use of a standard conversion ratio from weight to volume are unsupported by the evidence. Commerce has yet to provide a single significant reason why the use of volume-based data does not resolve all or nearly all of the patent complications with the use of weight-based data. Given the above discussion, it seems clear that problems inherent in use of weight data necessarily result in an undervaluation, and any use of such data could only be justified if volume data were at least as distortive. The court finds Commerce has failed to support its rejection of a volume-based approach, and therefore, Commerce's decision to use WTA weight-based data in lieu of NSO volume-based data is not based on substantial evidence.28 On this record, there are only two choices, and only the selection of volume-based data is supported.

III. Use of Diretso's Financial Statements

The court instructed Commerce to "determine if the financial statements match the correct company." Lifestyle Enter., 768 F.Supp.2d at 1308. AFMC argues that "[t]he record conclusively demonstrates that the financial statements of Diretso Design ... match the website at www.diretso.com." AFMC Cmts. at 30. Specifically, AFMC argues that Diretso Design's audited financial statement list www.diretso.com as the company's website, provide the same physical address as the website, refer to the same manufacturing plant, and bear the same logo. Id. at 30-31. Commerce agreed that the contact information, "address, logo, [and] principal activity" were the same in the financial statement and on www.diretso. com but found that the financial statement did "not address the issue that an affiliation may exist between Diretso Design and Diretso Trading, nor does it definitively demonstrate that www.diretso.com... belongs solely to Diretso Design, rather than Diretso Trading.29 Remand Results at 18, 50. Because Commerce had six other usable financial statements, it chose not to rely on the financial statements of Diretso Design.30 Id. at 18. Given Commerce's inability to conclusively identify the owner of www.diretso.com or to ascertain the relationship between Diretso Design and Diretso Trading, Commerce permissibly concluded that the other six financial statements were sufficient. Thus, Commerce presented substantial evidence in excluding the financial statement of Diretso Design.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court remands the matter for Commerce to redetermine Orient's AFA rate and, unless it chooses to reopen the record to gather more evidence, to use the volume data set for wood inputs. Commerce's determination as to the financial statements of Diretso Design is sustained.

Commerce shall file its remand determination with the court within 60 days of this date. The parties have 30 days thereafter to file objections, and the Government will have 15 days thereafter to file its response.