OPINION AND ORDER

RESTANI, Judge:

This action challenges the Department of Commerce's ("Commerce") final results rendered in the fifth antidumping ("AD") duty review of certain wooden bedroom furniture ("WBF") from the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission in Part, 76 Fed.Reg. 49,729, 49,729 (Dep't Commerce Aug. 11, 2011) ("Final Results"). Plaintiffs Home Meridian International, Inc. and Import Services, Inc. along with consolidated plaintiffs Great Rich (HK) Enterprises Co., Ltd. and Dongguan Liaobushangdun Huada Furniture Factory (collectively "HMI") moved for judgment on the agency record. Mot. for J. Upon the Agency R. Pursuant to Rule 56.2 by Pls. Home Meridian Int'l, Inc. d/b/a Samuel Lawrence Furniture Co. & Pulaski Furniture Co. & Import Svcs., Inc. & Consol. Pl. Great Rich (HK) Enterprises Co., Ltd. & Dongguan Liaobushangdun Huada Furniture Factory ("HMI Br."). Consolidated Plaintiffs Nanhai Baiyi Woodwork Co., Ltd. ("Nanhai Baiyi") and Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd. ("Huafeng") each moved for judgment on the agency record. Mem. of Points and Auths. in Supp. of Consol. Pl. Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd.'s 56.2 Mot. for J. on the Agency R. ("Huafeng Br."); Mot. of Pl. Nanhai Baiyi Woodwork, Co., Ltd. for J. on the Agency R. Under USCIT Rule 56.2 ("Nanhai Baiyi Br."). HMI adopted the arguments made by Huafeng. HMI Br. 33. Intervenor Defendants American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. (collectively "AFMC"), which were plaintiffs in one of the consolidated actions, also moved for judgment on the agency record. AFMC's Rule 56.2 Br. in Supp. of its Mot. for J. on the Agency R. ("AFMC Br."). For the reasons stated below, the court remands in part and sustains in part the Final Results.

BACKGROUND

In January 2005, Commerce published an AD duty order on WBF from the PRC. Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China, 70 Fed.Reg. 329, 329 (Dep't Commerce Jan. 4, 2005). In January 2010, AFMC and others requested an administrative review of certain companies exporting WBF to the United States between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009, thereby triggering the fifth administrative review of WBF.1 Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind Review in Part, 76 Fed.Reg. 7534, 7535 (Dep't Commerce Feb. 10, 2011) ("Preliminary Results"). After publishing a notice of initiation and receiving questionnaire responses and comments, Commerce selected one mandatory respondent: Huafeng.2 Id. at 7535. In November and December 2010, Commerce verified the antidumping questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses of Huafeng. Id. at 7536.

In the Final Results, Commerce assigned Huafeng a separate rate of 41.75%.3 Final Results, 76 Fed.Reg. at 49,733; see also Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, A-570-890, POR 1/1/09-12/31/09 (Aug. 5, 2011) ("Issues and Decision Memorandum"), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/2011-20434-1.pdf (last visited Sept. 17, 2012). All non-mandatory respondents also received Huafeng's separate rate of 41.75%. Final Results, 76 Fed.Reg. at 49,733. Commerce assigned the PRC-wide entity a rate of 216.01%. Id.

JURISDICTION & 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. Value of Lumber, Veneer and Plywood4

Huafeng and HMI argue that Commerce erred when it used Philippine import data contemporaneous with the period of review ("POR") instead of Huafeng's market economy purchases in order to value lumber, veneer, and plywood. HMI Br. 8; Huafeng Br. 8-28. The Government contends that Commerce's determination was proper because Huafeng's market economy purchases were not made during the POR and therefore not the "best available information." Def.'s Resp. to Pls.' Rule 56.2 Mots. ("Def. Resp. Br.") 23. Specifically, the Government argues that Commerce, in exercising its discretion to interpret its regulations, "has developed a practice, whenever possible, of using price data that are contemporaneous with the period of review...." Def. Resp. Br. 23. Huafeng and HMI's claim has merit.

In determining normal value for non-market economies, Commerce must use "the best available information...." 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1)(B). When valuing factors purchased from a market economy supplier, Commerce's regulations stipulate that:

19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(1). Furthermore, Commerce creates:

Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 71 Fed.Reg. 61,716, 61,717-18 (Dep't Commerce Oct. 19, 2006) ("Antidumping Methodologies").5

Section § 1677b "sets forth procedures in an effort to determine margins `as accurately as possible.'" Lasko Metal Products, Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed.Cir.1994) (quoting Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1191 (Fed.Cir.1990)) (finding that Commerce may permissibly mix methodologies, using market purchases to value some factors and surrogates to value others). "Where we can determine that a NME producer's input prices are market determined, accuracy, fairness, and predictability are enhanced by using those prices. Therefore, using surrogate values when market-based values are available would, in fact, be contrary to the intent of the law." Lasko, 43 F.3d at 1446 (quoting Oscillating Fans and Ceiling Fans from the People's Republic of China, 56 Fed. Reg. 55,271, 55,275 (Dep't Commerce Oct. 25, 1990)); see Shakeproof Assembly Components Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1379, 1383 (Fed.Cir.2001) (agreeing with Commerce that "the actual price paid for the imports constitutes the best available information...."); Taian Ziyang Food Co. v. United States, 783 F.Supp.2d 1292, 1330 (CIT 2011) (finding that "product specificity" takes precedence over contemporaneity). But, Commerce also has an interest in using values that are contemporaneous with the POR because Commerce must establish the value of a factor of production for a specific time period in order to calculate the normal value of imports within that time period as accurately as possible under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(A). See Shakeproof Assembly Components Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT 1173, 1177, 2006 WL 2457626 (2006).

The parties agree that Huafeng made no market economy purchases of lumber during the POR. Huafeng Br. 7. Huafeng alleges that it purchased 100% of its pine, poplar, birch, elm, and oak lumber as well as its oak veneer from a market economy supplier from December 2007 to December 2008, immediately before the period of review which ran from January 2009 to December 2009. Resp. of Dalian Huafeng to the Dep't of Commerce Antidumping Request for Information ("Huafeng Resp. to Request for Information") (July 12, 2010), P.R. 338, Mem. of Points and Auths. in Supp. of Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. on the Agency R. by Pls. Home Meridian Int'l, Inc. d/b/a Samuel Lawrence Furniture Co. & Pulaski Furniture Co. and Import Svcs., Inc. & Consol. Pl. Great Rich (HK) Enters. Co., Ltd. & Dongguan Liaobushshangdun Huada Furniture Factory ("HMI App."), Tab 14, at 7, Ex. D-4. For the first time, at oral argument, AFMC and the Government contested Huafeng's allegations that 100% of relevant wood input for the subject merchandise during the POR was from these market economy purchases made during the prior calendar year. In the Preliminary Results, Commerce "did not consider market purchases made by Huafeng prior to the POR...." Preliminary Analysis Memo. for Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd. (Jan. 31, 2011), P.R. 472, App. to AFMC's Rule 56.2 Br. in Supp. of Its Mot. for J. on the Agency R. ("AFMC App."), Tab 18, at 3. In lieu of Huafeng's market economy purchases, Commerce used 2009 Philippine import data. Id. In the Final Results, Commerce relied upon its "practice of using, whenever possible, price data that are contemporaneous with the period under consideration to value [Factors of Production]...." Issues and Decision Memorandum 49. Commerce explained that it treats market economy purchases the same as surrogate values: Adjusted pre-POR market economy purchases or surrogate values are used to construct normal value "only when there are no acceptable contemporaneous [surrogate values] on the record...." Id. Commerce pointed to the statutory directive that normal value "shall be the price ... at a time reasonably corresponding to the time of the sale used to determine the export price or constructed export price...." 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(A).

If the only wood inputs into the subject merchandise were market economy inputs, contemporaneity would not outweigh all other factors. See Lasko, 43 F.3d at 1446; Shakeproof, 268 F.3d at 1382. Commerce must look at the record. If the administrative record does not reveal whether market economy purchases were the only inputs for the relevant wood inputs, this is one factor which Commerce may weigh. Another factor is that the surrogate value data chosen by Commerce have notable flaws: 1) Commerce's Philippine Harmonized Tariff Schedule ("HTS") subheadings 4407.10.90, 4407.99.90, and 4408.90.906 show a significant and unexplained increase over the market economy purchases made during the immediate prior calendar year,7 and 2) HTS subheading 4407.90.90 is a basket category that includes lumber other than the poplar, birch, and elm used by Huafeng. Accuracy is important. Using the actual inputs, if available and where they yield reliable values, would seem to promote accuracy more than does using flawed surrogate values.

Here, Commerce did not examine Huafeng's market economy purchases and therefore made no factual determination as to whether the relevant wood inputs were from market economy purchases. Commerce also did not determine whether or not such purchases were reliable indications of normal value. Commerce did not weigh the merits of using slightly non-contemporaneous market economy purchases of actual inputs versus contemporaneous surrogate values. Instead, Commerce found that accuracy could be determined solely by examining whether or not the values were from the POR. In defense of this position, Commerce stated that "using POR and pre-POR values to calculate NV may introduce distortions." Issues and Decision Memorandum 49. Yet Commerce frequently uses non-POR values for a variety of reasons. See, e.g., infra § III(A). Where two data sets are equally accurate, Commerce may prefer the contemporaneous data set over the non-contemporaneous data set. See Shakeproof Assembly, 30 CIT at 1178-79 (finding that Commerce may prefer one surrogate value over another on the basis of contemporaneity). Commerce, however, never determined whether the two data sets were equally accurate because it explicitly declined to look at Huafeng's non-contemporaneous market economy purchases. Commerce cannot create a blanket rule that prevents it from comparing the merits of contemporaneous and non-contemporaneous data, and thereby prevents Commerce from determining the best available information.8

Because Commerce relied upon contemporaneity to the exclusion of all other factors and failed to make necessary factual findings, Commerce's interpretation is not in accordance with law. The court remands this matter to Commerce to determine the wood input factor of production in accordance with the statutory or regulatory framework, as well as to make any necessary factual determinations.9

II. Surrogate Value of Poly Foam

AFMC argues that Commerce's decision to value poly foam as a non-cellular plastic imported under the Philippine HTS heading 3920, rather than as a cellular plastic imported under HTS heading 3921, is unsupported by substantial evidence. AFMC Br. 11. AFMC's argument has merit.

Huafeng describes its poly foam as "packing material to protect goods in the containers." Huafeng Resp. to Request for Information, AFMC App., Tab 6, at Ex. D-5.10 Initially, Huafeng classified its poly foam under HTS subheading 3904.10.00, "Poly(vinyl chloride), not mixed with any other substances[.]"11 Asean Harmonized Tariff Nomenclature (AHTN) Book, 2010 Nomenclature ("AHTN Book"), Ch. 25-40, at 39.20-39.21. available at http://www.tariffcommission.gov.ph/AHTN Chapter39.pdf (last visited Sept. 17, 2012); AFMC Br. 5. In response to Commerce's critique that Huafeng's suggested classification was likely incorrect, Huafeng changed its categorization of poly foam to HTS subheading 3920.30.90, non-cellular "polymers of styrene."12 Resp. of Dalian Huafeng to the Dep't of Commerce's Sept. 21, 2010 Supplemental Questionnaire ("First Supplemental Resp.") (October 12, 2010), P.R. 391, HMI App., Tab 15, at 4-5; see also AHTN Book at 39.20-39.21. Commerce asked Huafeng to explain its selection of HTS subheading 3920.30.90. Resp. of Dalian Huafeng to Questions 43-72 of the Dep't of Commerce's Oct. 25, 2010 Supplemental Questionnaire ("Second Supplemental Resp.") (Nov. 8, 2010), P.R. 429, HMI App., Tab 17, at 2-3. Huafeng responded that the "[p]oly foam reported by Dalian Huafeng consists of polyethylene, the composition of which is shown on the [Value Added Tax ("VAT")] invoice issued by the supplier."13 Id. at 3. Confused,14 Commerce asked a follow up question:

Id.15 In response, Huafeng changed its categorization again and responded that "[p]oly foam reported by Dalian Huafeng consists of polythene, which should be classified under Philippine HTS 3920.10[.]90." Id. In the Final Results, Commerce classified poly foam as polyethylene, under HTS subheading 3920.10.90. Issues and Decision Memorandum 17. Commerce found that Huafeng had twice classified its poly foam as a non-cellular plastic under HTS heading 3920. Id. Commerce determined that, "Petitioners have cited to nothing on the record contradicting Huafeng's consistent statements that its poly foam should be classified under HTS categories for products consisting of non-cellular plastic." Id.

Commerce's determination relied entirely on Huafeng's "consistency" in classification. Custom and Border Protection ("CBP") Ruling NY J81106, stating that plastic foam is cellular polyethylene and should be classified under HTS subheading 3921.19, calls that classification into question. AFMC's Post Preliminary Results Surrogate Value Submission (March 7, 2011), P.R. 489, AFMC App., Tab 20, at Attach. 13. Additionally, the World Customs Organization ("WCO") Explanatory Notes state that cellular plastics include foam plastics. Id. at Attach. 14, VII 39-12. These sources support the common definition of foam in the industrial context: Foam is a "material in a lightweight cellular spongy or rigid form produced by foaming," such as "expanded plastic." Foam, Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary, Unabridged, Merriam-Webster (2002) (emphasis added), available at http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/ (last visited Sept. 17, 2012).16 Huafeng has not disputed these characterizations of poly foam in its briefs and did not appear at oral argument to answer any questions on this issue. HMI also did not brief the issue or respond to questions at oral argument on this issue. Given the evidence on the record, Commerce must do more than refer to the inconsistent statements of a respondent to unseat conventional wisdom. Although Huafeng twice chose an HTS subheading which was non-cellular, Huafeng has offered three different classifications in response to Commerce's three requests for information.17 Huafeng's answers were consistently unresponsive to Commerce's questions and in tension with a CBP Ruling and the WCO Explanatory Notes.

The Government counters that "Huafeng's responses are more specific to their own input than general dictionary definitions...." Def. Resp. Br. 22. Despite Commerce's requests for Huafeng to explain its classification, no record evidence supports the Government's conclusion.18 Additionally, Commerce's dismissal of the CBP Ruling on the basis that "the poly foam under consideration was cellular and thus [inapplicable] to Huafeng's non-cellular poly foam" fails to address AFMC's core point: Poly foam is necessarily cellular. Issues and Decision Memorandum 17. Commerce also did not address the WCO Explanatory Notes. Id. Thus, other than Huafeng's inconsistent responses, Commerce has provided no basis to believe that poly foam is ever non-cellular.

In the light of overwhelming evidence that poly foam is cellular, Huafeng's word alone does not constitute substantial evidence that its poly foam is non-cellular. Thus, Commerce's determination to value poly foam under HTS heading 3920 is unsupported by substantial evidence. The court remands the issue to Commerce so that it can apply the correct HTS subheading and derive the appropriate value therefrom.19

III. Surrogate Value of Labor

A. Contemporaneity of Data & Selection of Bookend Countries

AFMC argues that Commerce erred when it selected the bookend countries using 2008 gross national income ("GNI") data instead of 2009 GNI data. AFMC Br. 22. This claim has merit.

In the methodology applied here Commerce selects bookend countries, two countries with the highest and lowest GNIs of countries which are economically similar to the PRC and produce comparable merchandise, in order to delineate the set of countries for wage rate calculations. Factor Valuation Memorandum (Jan. 31, 2011), App. to AFMC's Resp. Br. in Opp'n to Pls.' Mots. for J. on the Agency R. ("AFMC Resp. App."), Tab 16, at Attach. III, 1.20 Here, Commerce identified the bookend countries from the Surrogate Country Memorandum's list of economically comparable countries.21 Id.; Issues and Decision Memorandum 28. At the time the Surrogate Country Memorandum was drafted, only 2008 GNI data were available. Issues and Decision Memorandum 28-29. In January 2011, when Commerce identified the bookend countries, Commerce chose not to use 2009 GNI data which were also available. Commerce explained that "[t]he selection of bookend countries is inextricably linked to the 2008 GNI data that was available to the Department at the time the Surrogate Country Memorandum was issued." Id. at 28-29. Commerce added that "[t]o now reselect the bookend countries based on 2009 data... would result in identifying one set of economically comparable countries as a starting point for purposes of our initial surrogate country selection and a different, inconsistent, set of economically comparable countries as a starting point for purposes of our labor rate calculation." Id. at 29.

Commerce has not explained what links the selection of possible surrogate countries to the selection of the bookend countries for the purpose of wage rate calculations. Additionally, Commerce explicitly excluded surrogate wage calculations from its Surrogate Country Memorandum, P.R. 248, at 2, and considered the list of surrogate countries "non-exhaustive." Id. at 1; Factor Valuation Memorandum, AFMC Resp. App. Tab 16, at Attach. III, 1, n. 3; see Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 755 F.Supp.2d 1291, 1298 (CIT 2011) ("Dorbest V") (finding that the surrogate country list was not exhaustive as it "allow[ed] for the possibility of introducing a more balanced range of countries from which to draw labor wage rate data").

Commerce did not "reselect" (nor would it have been required to "reselect") the bookend countries, as it claims, Def. Resp. Br. 29, because selection of bookend countries took place after the 2009 GNI data were available. Furthermore, Commerce has identified no impact from selecting bookend countries that differ from those listed in the Surrogate Valuation Memorandum. See Dorbest V, 755 F.Supp.2d at 1298 ("[T]here is no indication here that the methodology applied in Fujian Lianfu Forestry to select a primary surrogate country is similar to the methodology for determining surrogate wage rates. [Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 638 F.Supp.2d 1325, 1348-49 (CIT 2009).]"). Finally, as the prior wood input discussion indicates, Commerce clearly places a high value on using data within the POR. See supra § I; Def. Resp. Br. 23 27; Issues and Decision Memorandum 49. Here it has ignored the fact that this is POR data.

Commerce has insufficiently explained the connection between the selection of surrogate countries and the selection of bookend countries. Absent a new and persuasive explanation, on these facts Commerce's decision to reject contemporaneous data in favor of non-contemporaneous data is unreasonable. The court remands the selection of bookend countries for redetermination or further explanation.

B. Absolute/Relative Differences

AFMC argues that Commerce erred when it used absolute differences in GNI rather than relative differences when selecting the range of countries considered to be economically comparable to China. AFMC Br. 27. AFMC concedes that the substantively identical issue was before the court in Dongguan Sunrise. Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd. v. United States, 865 F.Supp.2d 1216, 1237-39, Slip Op. 2012-79, 2012 WL 2045753, at *12 (CIT June 6, 2012); see AFMC Br. 28. In Dongguan Sunrise, the court found that "[a]lthough AFMC has pointed out an alternative method for determining which countries are economically comparable that would result in a more preferable rate for AFMC, it has not shown that Commerce's methodology or the use of absolute differences is unreasonable or unsupported." Dongguan Sunrise, 865 F.Supp.2d at 1238, 2012 WL 2045753, at *12. Here, Commerce used the same methodology and explained itself in essentially the same manner. See Issues and Decision Memorandum 29. AFMC's current arguments add nothing. The court agrees with the reasoning of Dongguan Sunrise and sustains this aspect of the determination.

IV. Financial Statements

AFMC argues that Commerce should rely on the financial statements of Kirsten, Inc. ("Kirsten") and Cancio Associates, Inc. ("Cancio") to establish surrogate financial ratios because Commerce erred in finding that they had significant retail operations. AFMC Br. 18, 20. AFMC also argues that Commerce should not rely on the financial statement of Insular Rattan and Native Products Corp. ("Insular Rattan") because the financial statement does not include a line item for taxes, which is necessary to determine whether the company received tax subsidies. AFMC Br. 7-8. AFMC's argument with regard to Insular Rattan has merit although its arguments with regard to Kirsten and Cancio do not.

A. Kirsten

AFMC argues that Commerce erred in excluding Kirsten's financial statements on the basis that Kirsten engaged in "significant retail operations" and the examined respondent did not. AFMC Br. 20-22. Specifically, AFMC argues that the absence of evidence in Kirsten's financial statements and on Kirsten's website regarding significant retail operations casts significant doubt on Commerce's claims that third-party websites demonstrate that Kirsten engaged in significant retail operations. Id. at 20-21.

Commerce determined that Kirsten may have significant retail operations based on Kirsten's website, an online business directory entry for Kirsten, and photographs of the outside of one of Kirsten's buildings. Issues and Decision Memorandum 39. Commerce found that Kirsten's website indicated that it operated showrooms and served the local market through an entity called "CASA MUEBLES SM." Id.; AFMC's Post-Preliminary Results Surrogate Value Submission (May 7, 2011), P.R. 489, AFMC App., Tab 20, at Attach. 1-B. Commerce paired Kirsten's address from an online business directory with an online picture of that address, which appeared to be located in a shopping mall. Issues and Decision Memorandum 39; Home Meridian Rebuttal Surrogate Value Submission (Mar. 17, 2011), P.R. 500, AFMC App., Tab 21, at Ex. 1. AFMC argues that because Kirsten's financial statements do not reference the existence of retail stores or operations, instead emphasizing manufacturing and exporting, Commerce's determination lacks substantial evidence. AFMC Br. 21. Kirsten's website, however, clearly states that the company has four showrooms.22 Commerce also noted that there were "multiple useable financial statements" on the record from other companies for which there was no indication of any retail activity. Thus, sufficient data was available to calculate the necessary financial ratios. Issues and Decision Memorandum 39. AFMC's contention relies on the principle that the silence of Kirsten's financial statements on the existence of retail operations disproves Commerce's interpretation of various websites. Commerce permissibly interpreted the record as evidence that Kirsten likely possessed significant retail operations. Thus, Commerce's determination that Kirsten's financial statements did not constitute the "best available information" for calculating surrogate financial ratios was supported by substantial evidence.

B. Cancio

AFMC argues that Commerce's exclusion of Cancio's financial statements, on the basis that Cancio had retail operations, is unsupported by substantial evidence. AFMC Br. 18. Specifically, AFMC contends that Cancio's financial statement "conclusively contradicts" Commerce's determination that the financial statements include the retail operations of CADI Showrooms. Id. at 19.

Commerce determined that expenses for CADI Showrooms were reflected in Cancio's financial statements. Issues and Decision Memorandum 43. CADI Showrooms sells Cancio's furniture and accessories to residential clients and is "managed by Cancio Associates." Id. CADI Showrooms has four main divisions: Cancio Contract, CADI Office Systems, CADI Showrooms, and Cancio Export. Id.; Home Meridian Rebuttal Surrogate Value Submission, P.R. 500, AFMC App., Tab 21, at Ex. 5, 1-2. Commerce interpreted this as evidence that the entity CADI Showrooms was a retail division covered by the financial statement. Issues and Decision Memorandum 43. Commerce supported this view with evidence of Cancio's outsized administrative rental expense (which comprised 26% of selling, general, and administrative ("SG & A") expenses) and the fact that Cancio and CADI Showrooms shared the same office address. Id. at 43 & n. 117. Commerce also noted again that "there are multiple usable financial statements on the record from other companies that do not have retail operations...." Id. at 43. Accordingly, it found the volume and range of information that it used sufficient to derive the necessary financial ratios, without Cancio's information.

Commerce's decision that Cancio's financial statements did not provide the "best available information" for calculating the financial ratios was reasonable based on the information available on the record. AFMC argues that a note in Cancio's financial statements on revenue contradicts Commerce's determination. AFMC Br. 19. The note states that "[t]his account consists of gross earnings on completed contracts amounting to P28,259,932 and P46,561,119 as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively." AFMC's Post-Preliminary Results Surrogate Value Submission, P.R. 489, AFMC App., Tab 20, Attach. 5-A, at 18. AFMC contends that this note indicates that Cancio's entire revenue was attributable to "completed contracts" and therefore CADI Showrooms' revenue and expenses cannot be included in the statements because retail sales cannot be contract sales. AFMC Br. 19. AFMC fails to explain why the phrase "completed contracts" is applicable only to non-retail transactions. Why cannot retail sales also be contract sales? Examples of contractual retail sales include credit card transactions, lay-away purchases, and installment plans. Additionally, "completed contract" typically refers to the completed contract accounting method23 and has no bearing on the relationship between a subsidiary retail operation and its parent company.24 Thus, Commerce's decision to exclude Cancio's financial statements has not been significantly undermined.

C. Insular Rattan

AFMC argues that Commerce erred when it used the 2009 financial statements from Insular Rattan when calculating the surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead, SG & A expenses, and profit because Insular Rattan's financial statements fail to disclose the company's tax expense, as required by the Philippine Accounting Standards. AFMC Br. 7-8. The parties agree that the same argument was contested in Dongguan Sunrise. AFMC Br. 17. As in the prior administrative review, Commerce defended its use of Insular Rattan's financial statements on the basis that the statements were "affirmed by the auditor to be prepared in accordance with the GAAP of the Philippines," Commerce "does not rely on income taxes in calculating financial ratios" and the record contained no evidence that Insular Rattan had received subsidies. Issues and Decision Memorandum 38; see Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, A-570-890, POR 1/1/08-12/31/08, at 88 (Aug. 11, 2010), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/PRC/2010-20499-1.pdf (last visited Sept. 17, 2012). In Dongguan Sunrise, the court found Insular Rattan's financial statements were potentially unreliable, but that "[w]ithout further information, the court cannot determine whether Commerce has decided unreasonably to use a dubious financial statement." Dongguan Sunrise, 865 F.Supp.2d at 1243, 2012 WL 2045753, at *16. Because the facts and arguments are identical, and the court agrees with Dongguan Sunrise, the court remands for reconsideration of the use of this statement or for an explanation as to why Commerce finds that Insular Rattan's financial statement is generally reliable and also unaffected by subsidies.

V. Combination Rates

AFMC argues that Commerce abused its discretion by refusing to develop the record with necessary information regarding circumvention in order to apply combination rates, and instead by requiring AFMC to supply conclusive proof of circumvention. AFMC Br. 29-32. AFMC relies on CBP data in the form of two sets of entry documents with sequential numbering from two different companies, and data that shows that the vast bulk of the entries were from the company with the lower rate, to argue that Commerce cannot decline to investigate in light of such prima facia evidence of circumvention.25 AFMC Br. 33-38.26 Because AFMC's evidence is not "speculative", as claimed by Commerce, and there also appears to be issue with AD circumvention with respect to WBF largely due to the large number of exporters involved and the widely varying rates applicable to the exporters, Commerce must investigate and decide whether combination rates are appropriate in the context of this subject merchandise.

It is a truism that "[t]he application of combination rates is left to the discretion of Commerce." Dongguan Sunrise, 865 F.Supp.2d at 1252, 2012 WL 2045753, at *24 (citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.107(b)(1)); Tung Mung Dev. Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1371, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2004). As the court has cautioned, however, "[a]n agency's failure to collect pertinent data ... in some situations may constitute an abuse of discretion." Dongguan Sunrise, 865 F.Supp.2d at 1252, 2012 WL 2045753, at *24 (citing U.S. Steel Grp. v. United States, 18 CIT 1190, 1202, 873 F.Supp. 673, 687 (1994), aff'd 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed.Cir. 1996)).

Here, Commerce asserts that "the application of combination rates would be too large of an administrative burden to be practicable,"27 the facts in the instant case do not match with the facts from a prior instance where Commerce imposed combination rates,28 and "there is no record evidence concerning specific producer/exporters shifting their exports from high-margin to low-margin exporters." Issues and Decision Memorandum 26.

These reasons are all unsupportive of Commerce's decision either because they are not explained or simply do not agree with the evidence of record. Because Commerce failed to investigate clearly raised allegations as to the circumvention of AD law in this administrative review of WBF, which were supported by apparently reliable record evidence, Commerce abrogated its duty to ensure that exporters and producers do not circumvent AD law. In Dongguan Sunrise, the court noted that:

Dongguan Sunrise, 865 F.Supp.2d at 1253, 2012 WL 2045753, at *25. Commerce argues that this case is just like Dongguan Sunrise, but, in fact, the companies at issue were treated differently. Unlike in Dongguan Sunrise, here Commerce did not apply the 216.01% PRC-wide rate to the company accused of routing other companies' sales through its low AD rate.29 Additionally, in Dongguan Sunrise, "Commerce examined and verified the sales of Nanjing Nanmu and determined that the sales were actually from Nanjing Nanmu." Dongguan Sunrise, 865 F.Supp.2d at 1252, 2012 WL 2045753, at *24. Commerce also found that the increase in Aosen's shipments through lower-rate companies could be attributed to legitimate business reasons. Id. Commerce made no such efforts or findings in the instant case except to state in a blanket manner that "in instances where companies may be improperly misreporting their entries to CBP, such instances will be reported to CBP for proper action under that agency's fraud provisions." Issues and Decision Memorandum 26. It is unclear whether Commerce in fact reported such instances CBP and, if they were reported, what actions were taken.

Accusations and evidence of circumvention date back to the third administrative review of WBF, indicating an issue that seems particular to the subject merchandise at issue in the instant case. Such behavior may be a byproduct of the complex network of hundreds of Chinese exporters and producers, which may necessitate greater investigation and oversight of WBF than other subject merchandise. Because Commerce did not collect data relating to the circumvention of AD law or otherwise explain why such data were unnecessary in this case to prevent circumvention, Commerce likely abused its discretion to apply antidumping duty remedies itself. Thus, the issue of combination rates is remanded to Commerce to investigate and decide whether combination rates are appropriate.

VI. Zeroing30

HMI asks the court to remand the issue of zeroing so that Commerce may comply with the Federal Circuit's holdings in Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2011) and JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378, 1383-84 (Fed.Cir.2011); HMI Br. 23. Because this issue was not raised in the brief at the agency level, the court first addresses administrative exhaustion before reaching the merits.

A. Administrative Exhaustion

The Government argues that the issue of zeroing should not be remanded because HMI failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Def. Resp. Br. 38. HMI counters that invoking administrative remedies with respect to zeroing would have been futile and the court therefore should excuse HMI's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. HMI Br. 28-29.

The court "shall, where appropriate, require the exhaustion of administrative remedies." 28 U.S.C. § 2637(d). Exhaustion may be waived in certain circumstances, including where unexpected legal developments arise or a challenge to agency action would have appeared futile. Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co. v. United States, 601 F.Supp.2d 1370, 1377 (CIT 2009) (discussing situations where waiver of the exhaustion requirement is appropriate); see Budd Co., Wheel & Brake Div. v. United States, 15 CIT 446, 452, n. 2, 773 F.Supp. 1549, 1555 n. 2 (1991). The futility exception requires a party to demonstrate that it would have been "required to go through obviously useless motions in order to preserve [its] rights." Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2007) (quoting Walsh v. United States, 151 Ct.Cl. 507, 511 (1960)).

The parties agree that HMI did not challenge Commerce's use of zeroing in administrative reviews in its administrative case brief. HMI Br. 23; Def. Resp. Br. 9. Nine days after HMI submitted its administrative case brief, the Federal Circuit announced a decision requiring Commerce to explain or abandon its inconsistent use of zeroing in administrative reviews but not in investigations. See Dongbu, 635 F.3d at 1373; HMI Br. 25-26; Def. Resp. Br. 9. Following Dongbu, HMI attempted to raise the issue of zeroing on two occasions before Commerce issued its final results. See infra n. 30.

"Both Dongbu and JTEKT came as a surprise to many because a long-line of cases seemed to allow Commerce great discretion in making the [zeroing] calculation at issue." Union Steel v. United States, 823 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1348 (CIT 2012), appeal docketed, Appeal No. 2012-1248 (Fed.Cir.2012). Considering the numerous past decisions affirming Commerce's use of zeroing in administrative reviews, see id. at 1350-52, HMI correctly believed that challenging Commerce's use of zeroing would have been futile. Moreover, the same day that Dongbu was issued, HMI promptly sent a letter notifying Commerce of the recent decision and indicated its intent to challenge the continued use of zeroing in administrative reviews.31 Thus, in the instant case, HMI's failure to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to zeroing is excused due to 1) an unexpected legal development, 2) a challenge to Commerce's use of zeroing in administrative reviews as a practical matter appeared futile prior to Dongbu, and 3) HMI acted promptly in attempting to rectify its understandable failure to exhaust once Dongbu was issued.

The Government and AFMC's view that nothing prevented HMI from raising the issue in its administrative case brief is too narrow on these facts. See Def. Resp. Br. 41-42; AFMC Resp. Br. 17. Defendants argue that "[t]he mere fact that an adverse decision may have been likely does not excuse a party from satisfying statutory or regulatory requirements to exhaust administrative remedies." Tianjin Magnesium Int'l. Co. v. United States, 722 F.Supp.2d 1322, 1330 (CIT 2010) (citations omitted); see also Def. Resp. Br. 42. Defendants seem merely to argue that because a subsequent case questioned the validity of Commerce's zeroing, it was not futile for HMI to make its argument to Commerce. That the law seemed to change due to a judicial opinion, however, is at the core of the recognized exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. Gerber Food, 601 F.Supp.2d at 1377. The Federal Circuit's decisions in Dongbu and JTEKT made a challenge to Commerce's use of zeroing tenable, in so far as those decisions required Commerce to provide an explanation for its differing use of zeroing in ongoing administrative reviews but not in new investigations.32 Thus, for a variety of reasons HMI's failure to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to zeroing is excused.

B. Commerce's Explanation

Having determined that the zeroing issue is properly before the court, HMI argues that the issue should be remanded to Commerce to calculate Huafeng's dumping margin without zeroing. HMI Br. 24-25. Dongbu, however, merely requires Commerce to provide a reasonable justification for its inconsistent use of zeroing.33 Dongbu, 635 F.3d at 1373; see also JTEKT, 642 F.3d at 1384-85 ("In order to satisfy the requirement set out in Dongbu, Commerce must explain why ... [it is] reasonable to continue zeroing in one phase, but not the other."). Because Commerce's use of zeroing was not challenged until after the briefing had concluded and Commerce declined to accept "untimely" arguments, Commerce in this administrative review provided no justification. This is very similar to the situation in Dongbu. As this matter is remanded on other grounds, this issue is also remanded to Commerce to provide an explanation for its differing use of zeroing in administrative reviews and investigations.

VII. Separate Rates of Other Respondents

AFMC argues that if Huafeng's separate-rate dumping margin is increased, Commerce should adjust the weighted-average separate-rate of the other respondents, which were calculated based on Huafeng's rate. AFMC Br. 38. The Government argues that only those respondents subject to an injunction of liquidation (Nanhai Baiyi,34 Great Rich (HK) Enterprise Co., Ltd., Dongguan Liaobushangdun, and Huafeng) may have their rates adjusted based on any changes to Huafeng's rates. Def. Resp. Br. 38; Pls. Home Meridian Int'l, Inc. d/b/a Samuel Lawrence Furniture Co. & Pulaski Furniture Co. & Import Svcs., Inc. & Consol. Pl. Great Rich (HK) Enterprises Co., Ltd. & Dongguan Liaobushangdun Huada Furniture Factory Reply Br. in Supp. of Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. upon the Agency R. 14. The court agrees with the reasoning in Dongguan Sunrise that the Government's argument has merit. Dongguan Sunrise, 865 F.Supp.2d at 1253, 2012 WL 2045753, at *25. Pursuant to the statutory scheme the way to obtain a change in final assessment rates when a court decision is not in agreement with the Commerce determination is to have liquidation of relevant entries enjoined. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(c), (e). Domestic parties, just as respondents, may have liquidation of entries enjoined. Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806, 811-12 (Fed.Cir.1983). Thus, AFMC could have preserved this relief. AFMC has not sought this relief. Accordingly, its request is denied.35

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court remands the matter for Commerce to reconsider or explain whether a surrogate value or market economy purchases constitute the best available information for certain wood inputs, apply the correct HTS sub-heading for poly foam, reconsider or explain its reliance on 2008 GNI data for labor wage rate calculations, reconsider or explain why Insular Rattan's financial statement is generally reliable and usable, obtain the necessary information to decide whether combination rates are appropriate, and provide the required explanation of its zeroing practice. If Commerce calculates a different separate rate for Huafeng, Commerce shall make appropriate adjustment for assessment purposes to the separate rates of the parties before the court in this litigation. Commerce's determination is sustained in all other respects.

As further investigation is ordered, Commerce shall file its remand determination with the court within 120 days of this date. The parties shall have 30 days thereafter to file objections, and the Government will have 15 days thereafter to file its response.