is unsupported by substantial evidence because Commerce relied on the non-cooperation of 110 respondents, which is tantamount to applying adverse facts available to cooperative respondents, and imper-missibly considered the presence of non-de minimis calculated rates for separate rate respondents, including Changzhou Hawd, in the First and Second Administrative Reviews. PL’s Br., ECF No. 132, at 4-11. These arguments remain as unpersuasive as before, when Plaintiffs used them to challenge the same inference in the Second Redetermi-nation. See Second Redetermination, ECF No. 52, at 4 (Commerce making the same inference); Pis.’ Comments on Second Redeter-mination, ECF No. 69, at 15-19 (Plaintiffs making the same argument against it); Changzhou Hawd, - CIT at -, 44 F.Supp.3d at 1385-87 (<HOLDING>). 29 . Plaintiff argues this does not follow
holding the same for the other separate rate plaintiffs in this action holding that the proper rate for prejudgment interest is the rate fixed by the parties in a contract holding that the respondents statelaw claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine holding that under the filed rate doctrine a question regarding reasonable rates should be addressed to the department of insurance and that the rate plaintiff was charged is conclusively presumed reasonable under the filed rate doctrine holding that commerces inference of a greater than de minimis separate rate is supported by substantial evidence is not the equivalent of applying afa to separate rate respondents and does not impermissibly consider rates from subsequent stages rather using them permissibly for corroboration