This "profit cap" prevents the "various possible calculation methods from yielding anomalous results that stray beyond the ‘amount normally realized’ from sales of merchandise in the same general category." Atar S.R.L. v. United States , 730 F.3d 1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2013). But the Statement of Administrative Action, which Congress has deemed authoritative, anticipated that there would be scenarios in which the expressly identified information is not available:
Thus in Atar S.R.L. v. United States, we upheld Commerce's use of surrogate data from a prior review period in calculating an exporter's constructed value profit cap because the record demonstrated that the market had not meaningfully changed between periods. 730 F.3d 1320, 1327 (Fed.Cir.2013). But that is not the case here.
Thus in Atar S.R.L. v. United States, we upheld Commerce's use of surrogate data from a prior review period in calculating an exporter's constructed value profit cap because the record demonstrated that the market had not meaningfully changed between periods. 730 F.3d 1320, 1327 (Fed.Cir.2013). But that is not the case here.
Standard of Review We review decisions of the Court of International Trade without deference, applying the same substantial evidence standard of review that the court itself applies in reviewing Commerce's determinations. Atar S.R.L. v. United States, 730 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2013). In addition, we give substantial deference to an agency's interpretations of its own regulations, unless they are plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations.
See Corus Staal BV v. Dep't of Commerce, 395 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed.Cir.2005); ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. v. United States, 603 F.3d 928, 932 (Fed.Cir.2010). We apply anew the same standard of review used by the Trade Court. Atar S.r.l. v. United States, 730 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2013). Accordingly, we must uphold Commerce's scope determination unless it is “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Pursuant to the APA arbitrary and capricious standard of review, "[w]here, as here, a bid protester challenges the procurement official's decision as lacking a rational basis, we must determine whether the contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion[.]" AgustaWestland N. Am., Inc. v. United States, 880 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Atar S.R.L. v. United States, 730 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("Courts look for a reasoned analysis or explanation for an agency's decision as a way to determine whether a particular decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion." (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)).