Full opinion text
OPINION TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge. Plaintiffs, The Torrington Company (“Torrington”), Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. and Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. (collectively “Koyo”), NTN Corporation, NTN Bearing Corporation of America, American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corporation, NTN Driveshaft, Inc., NTN-Bower Corporation and NTN-BCA Corporation (collectively “NTN”), move pursuant to USCIT R. 56.2 for judgment upon the agency record in this consolidated action challenging various aspects of the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s (“Commerce”) final determination, entitled Final Results of Anti-dumping Duty Administrative Reviews of Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (“Final Results”), 64 Fed.Reg. 35,590 (July 1, 1999). Specifically, plaintiffs Koyo and NTN contend that Commerce unlawfully conducted a duty absorption inquiry under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4) (1994) for the ninth administrative review of the applicable an-tidumping duty order. Plaintiff NTN alleges that Commerce erred in its treatment of the following: (1) NTN’s home market sales with high profit levels and home market sample sales in Commerce’s calculation of normal value; (2) inputs that NTN obtained from affiliated parties in Commerce’s calculation of cost of production and constructed value; (3) downstream sales for which NTN did not report the total downstream sales value of merchandise sold by affiliated parties; (4) normal value in Commerce’s decision to base it on constructed value after both below-cost identical and similar merchandise was disregarded; (5) NTN’s claim for level of trade adjustment; (6) NTN’s United States and home market indirect selling expenses in Commerce’s recalculation of these selling expenses without regard to levels of trade; (7) NTN’s constructed export price profits in Commerce’s calculation of constructed export price after including NTN’s profits from export price sales; (8) NTN’s constructed export price profits in Commerce’s calculation of constructed export price without regard to levels of trade; (9) NTN’s home market packing expenses; (10) NTN’s directors’ retirement benefits in Commerce’s calculation of NTN’s general and administrative expenses; (11) NTN’s normal value in Commerce’s refusal to adjust NTN’s normal value by home market commissions to affiliated parties that were not designated with the specificity necessary to presume arm’s length transactions. Plaintiff Torrington contends that Commerce erred in accepting Koyo’s home market “adjustment number two” as direct adjustment to price. BACKGROUND This case concerns the ninth administrative review of the outstanding 1989 anti-dumping duty order on antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof (“AFBs”) imported from Japan for the period of review (“POR”) covering May 1, 1997 through April 30, 1998. See Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,599, 35,617. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.213 (1998), Commerce initiated the administrative review of this order on June 29, 1998, see Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 63 Fed.Reg. 35,188, and published the preliminary results of the subject review on February 23, 1999. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Rescission of Administrative Reviews of Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (“Preliminary Results ”), 64 Fed.Reg. 8790, 8791. Commerce published the Final Results on July 1, 1999. See 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,590. Since the administrative review at issue was initiated after December 31, 1994, the applicable law in this case is the antidump-ing statute as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), Pub.L. No. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809 (1994) (effective Jan. 1,1995). JURISDICTION The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a) (1994) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (1994). STANDARD OF REVIEW In reviewing a challenge to Commerce’s final determination in an anti-dumping administrative review, the Court will uphold Commerce’s determination unless 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); see NTN Bearing Corp. of America v. United States (“NTN Bearing”), 24 CIT --, -, 104 F.Supp.2d 110, 115-16 (2000) (detailing Court’s standard of review for antidump-ing proceedings). DISCUSSION I. Duty Absorption Inquiry A. Background Title 19 of the United States Code, § 1675(a)(4) provides that during an administrative review initiated two or four years after the “publication” of an anti-dumping duty order, Commerce, if requested by a domestic interested party, “shall determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter subject to the order if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer who is affiliated with such foreign producer or exporter.” Section 1675(a)(4) further provides that Commerce shall notify the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of its findings regarding such duty absorption for the ITC to consider in conducting a five-year (“sunset”) review under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c), and the ITC will take such findings into account in determining whether material injury is likely to continue or recur if an order were revoked under § 1675(c). See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(l)(D). On May 29, 1998, and July 29, 1998, Torrington requested that Commerce conduct a duty absorption inquiry pursuant to § 1675(a)(4) with respect to various respondents, including Koyo and NTN, to ascertain whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the ninth period of review (“POR”). See Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,600, 35,617. In the Final Results, Commerce determined that duty absorption had in fact occurred for the ninth review. See id. at 35,591, 35,600-02. In asserting its authority to conduct a duty absorption inquiry under § 1675(a)(4), Commerce first explained that for “transition orders” as defined in § 1675(c)(6)(C) (that is, antidump-ing duty orders, inter alia, deemed issued on January 1, 1995), regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.213(j) provides that Commerce would make a duty absorption inquiry, if requested, for any antidumping administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998. See id. at 35,600. Commerce concluded that (1) because the antidumping duty order on the AFBs in this case has been in effect since 1989, the order is a transition order pursuant to § 1675(c)(6)(C), and (2) since this review was initiated in 1998 and a request was made, it had the authority to make a duty absorption inquiry for the ninth POR. See id. at 35,600-02. B. Contentions of the Parties Koyo and NTN contend that Commerce lacked authority under § 1675(a)(4) to conduct a duty absorption inquiry for the ninth POR of the outstanding 1989 anti-dumping duty order. See Koyo’s Mem. P. & A. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. (“Koyo’s Mem.”) at 5-7; Koyo’s Reply Br. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. (“Koyo’s Reply”) at 2-19; NTN’s Mem. J. Agency R. (“NTN’s Mem.”) at 2, 6, 12-13; NTN’s Reply at 6-7. In the alternative, Koyo asserts that even if Commerce possessed the authority to conduct such an inquiry, Commerce’s methodology for determining duty absorption was contrary to the law and, accordingly, the case should be remanded to Commerce to reconsider its methodology. See Koyo’s Mem. at 7-9; Koyo’s Reply at 19-21. Commerce argues that it: (1) properly construed subsections (a)(4) and (c) of § 1675 as authorizing it to make a duty absorption inquiry for antidumping duty orders that were issued and published pri- or to January 1, 1995; and (2) devised and applied a reasonable methodology for determining duty absorption. See Def.’s Mem. Partial Opp’n Pls.’ Mot. J. Agency R. (“Def.’s Mem.”) at 13-23. Also, Commerce asserts that no statutory provision or legislative history specifically provides that Commerce is precluded from conducting a duty absorption inquiry with respect to merchandise covered by a transition order. See id. at 2,19. Torrington generally agrees with Commerce’s contentions. See Torrington’s Resp. Pls.’ Mot. J. Agency R. (“Torring-ton’s Resp.”) at 2-4, 17-37, 46^8. In addition, Torrington asserts that Commerce has inherent authority, aside from § 1675(a)(4), to conduct a duty absorption inquiry in any administrative review. See id. at 3, 38-45. C. Analysis In SKF USA Inc. v. United States (“SKF I”), 24 CIT —, 116 F.Supp.2d 1257 (2000), SKF USA Inc. v. United States (“SKF II ”), 2000 WL 1225803, 2000 Ct. Intl Trade LEXIS 109 (CIT Aug. 23, 2000), SKF USA Inc. v. United States (“SKF III”), 24 CIT -, 94 F.Supp.2d 1351 (2000), this Court determined that Commerce lacked statutory authority under § 1675(a)(4) to conduct a duty absorption inquiry for antidumping duty orders issued prior to the January 1, 1995, the effective date of the URAA. See SKF I, 24 CIT at - , 116 F.Supp.2d at 1260; SKF II, 2000 WL 1225803 at *3, 2000 Ct. Intl Trade LEXIS 109 at *8-9, SKF III, 24 CIT at -, 94 F.Supp.2d at 1357-59. The Court noted that Congress expressly prescribed in the URAA that § 1675(a)(4) “must be applied prospectively on or after January 1, 1995 for 19 U.S.C. § 1675 reviews.” Id. (citing URAA’s § 291). Because Commerce’s duty absorption inquiry, its methodology and the parties’ arguments at issue in this ease are practically identical to those presented in SKF I, SKF II and SKF III, the Court adheres to its reasoning as it is stated in these cases. Moreover, contrary to Torrington’s assertion, the Court finds that Commerce does not have inherent authority to conduct a duty absorption inquiry in any administrative review. See id. Rather, the statutory scheme, as noted, clearly provides that the inquiry must occur in the second or fourth administrative review after the publication of the antidumping duty order, not in any other review, and upon the request of a domestic interested party. See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4). Accordingly, the Court finds that Commerce does not have statutory or inherent authority to undertake a duty absorption investigation for the outstanding 1989 antidumping duty orders in dispute. II. Commerce’s Inclusion of NTN’s Home Market Alleged Sample Sales and Sales with High Profit Levels in the Normal Value and Constructed Value Calculation A. Background Commerce is required to base its normal value (“NV”) calculation upon “the price at which the foreign like product is first sold ... in the ordinary course of trade ....” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i) (1994). Analogously, constructed value must be calculated using “amounts incurred ... for profits, in connection with the production and sale of a foreign like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(A). NTN contended during the review that Commerce, in calculating NV and CV, should have excluded sales with high profit levels because they were outside of the ordinary course of trade. See Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,620. Commerce rejected NTN’s contention, explaining as follows: [Under Commerce’s current practice, Commerce] may consider sales or transactions to be outside the ordinary course of trade if [Commerce] determines, based on an evaluation of all of the circumstances particular to the sales in question, that such sales or transactions have characteristics that are extraordinary for the market in question. Examples of sales that [Commerce] might consider as being outside the ordinary course of trade are sales or transactions involving off-quality merchandise or merchandise produced according to unusual product specifications, merchandise sold at aberrational prices or with abnormally high profits, merchandise sold pursuant to unusual terms of sale, or merchandise sold to an affiliated party at a non-arm’s-length price. [ ] NTN provided no evidence, other than the allegedly high profits of some sales, to suggest that any of these sales, whether “high profit” or sample sales, are outside the ordinary course of trade. The simple fact of high profits, standing alone, is not sufficient for us to determine that a sale is outside the ordinary course of trade .... “[T]he presence of profits higher than those of numerous other sales does not necessarily place the sales outside the ordinary course of trade. In order to determine that a sale is outside the ordinary course of trade due to abnormally high profits, there must be unique and unusual characteristics related to the sale in question which make it unrepresentative of the home market.” [Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews on Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, 63 FR 33320 (June 18, 1998).] Thus, it would only be appropriate to exclude these sales from our normal-value calculation if there were circumstances surrounding these sales which would lead us to conclude that they were, in fact, made outside the ordinary course of trade. See id. at 35,620-21 (emphasis in the original). B. Contentions of the Parties NTN argues that Commerce’s failure to exclude NTN’s sales with unusually high profit levels from the NV and CV calculations, despite what NTN considers to be sufficient evidence on record indicating that these sales were outside of the ordinary course of trade, was inconsistent with 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(l)(B), the SAA and the regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b) (1998), all of which are read by NTN as clearly instructing Commerce to make such exclusion. See NTN’s Mem. at 2-3, 7, 15-19. NTN also argues that Commerce erred in including its home market sample sales in the calculation of NV because facts on the record support that the sales were made outside of the ordinary course of trade. See id. at 13-15. NTN, therefore, requests that its sales with high profit levels and samples sales be disregarded in the calculation of NV. See id. at 3, 15,19. Commerce alleges that it properly exercised its discretion in rejecting NTN’s argument that Commerce must disregard sales with high profit levels as sales not in the ordinary course of trade because NTN failed to adequately show that profits earned were aberrational or abnormal or otherwise outside of the ordinary course of trade. See Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,620-21. Torrington claims that Commerce properly rejected NTN’s request to exclude high profit levels sales from the NV and CV calculation and sample sales from the NV calculation because of the following: (1) a higher profit on a particular sale does not establish per se that a sale is outside the ordinary course of trade; and (2) NTN failed to provide sufficient evidence that the contested sales were not in the ordinary course of trade. See Tomngton’s Resp. at 56-59. C. Analysis The term “ordinary course of trade” is defined as: the conditions and practices which, for a reasonable period of time prior to the exportation of the subject merchandise, have been normal in the trade under consideration with respect to merchandise of the same class or kind. [Commerce] shall consider the following transactions, among others, to be outside the ordinary course of trade: (A) Sales disregarded under section 1677b(b)(l) of this title. (B) Transactions disregarded under section 1677b(f)(2) of this title. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(15) (1994) (emphasis supplied). Section 1677b(b)(l) deals with sales below cost of production. Section 1677b(f)(2) deals with sales to affiliated parties. Therefore, Commerce must consider below cost sales and sales between related parties as sales outside the ordinary course of trade. Although § 1677b(b)(l)’s sales below cost of production and § 1677b(f)(2)’s affiliated party transactions are specifically designated as outside the ordinary course of trade, the “among others” language of § 1677(15) clearly indicates that other types of sales could be excluded as being outside the ordinary course of trade. Commerce “may consider sales or transactions to be outside the ordinary course of trade if [Commerce] determines, based on an evaluation of all of the circumstances particular to the sales in question, that such sales or transactions have characteristics that are extraordinary for the market in question.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b) (emphasis supplied). Examples of what could be considered outside the ordinary course of trade include: (1) off-quality merchandise; (2) merchandise produced according to unusual product specifications; (3) merchandise sold at aberrational prices or with abnormally high profits; (4) merchandise sold pursuant to unusual terms of sale; or (5)merchandise sold to an affiliated party not at an arm’s length transaction. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b). Determining whether a sale or transaction is outside the ordinary course of trade is a question of fact. In making this determination, Commerce considers not just “one factor taken in isolation but rather ... all the circumstances particular to the sales in question.” Murata Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 17 CIT 259, 264, 820 F.Supp. 603, 607 (1993) (citation omitted). Commerce’s methodology for making this determination is codified in section 351.102(b) of Commerce’s regulations. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b); see also Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,620. Thus, Commerce has the discretion to interpret § 1677(15) and to determine which sales are outside the ordinary course of trade, such as sales involving aberrational prices and abnormally high profit levels. See Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., Inc. v. United States (“Mitsubishi ”), 22 CIT -, -, 15 F.Supp.2d 807, 830 (1998) (“Congress granted Commerce discretion to decide under what circumstances highly profitable sales would be considered to be outside of the ordinary course of trade.”); cf. Koenig & Bauer-Albert AG v. United States, 22 CIT -, -n. 8, 15 F.Supp.2d 834, 850 n. 8 (1998) (noting that although Commerce has the discretion to decide under what circumstances highly profitable sales are outside of the ordinary course of trade, “Commerce may not impose this requirement arbitrarily, ... nor may Commerce impose impossible burdens of proof on claimants” and citing NEC Home Elecs, v. United States, 54 F.3d 736, 745 (Fed.Cir.1995) (holding that “burden imposed to prove a level of trade adjustment was unreasonable because claimant could, under no practical circumstances, meet the burden”)). Section 351.102(b) of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations effectively interprets the term “outside the ordinary course of trade.” Cf. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(15). In resolving questions of statutory interpretation, the Chevron test requires this Court first to determine whether the statute is clear on its face. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (“Chevron”), 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). If the language of the statute is clear, then this Court must defer to Congressional intent. See id. If the statute is unclear, however, then the question for the Court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. See id. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778; see also Corning Glass Works v. United States, 799 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.Cir.1986) (finding that the agency’s definitions must be “reasonable in light of the language, policies and legislative history of the statute”). Here, the statutory provision defining what is considered outside the ordinary course of trade is unclear. While the statute specifically defines “ordinary course of trade,” it provides little assistance in determining what is outside the scope of that definition. The statute merely identifies a non-exhaustive list of situations in which sales or transactions are to be considered outside the “ordinary course of trade.” This Court finds the statute to be ambiguous as to what constitutes a sale outside the ordinary course of trade. What Congress intended to exclude from the “ordinary course of trade” is also not immediately clear from the statute’s legislative history. In the Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”), accompanying the URAA, Congress stated that in addition to the specific types of transactions to be considered outside the ordinary course of trade, “Commerce may consider other types of sales or transactions to be outside the ordinary course of trade when such sales or transactions have characteristics that are not ordinary as compared to sales or transactions generally made in the same market.” H.R. Doc. 103-826, at 834 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4163. Congress also stated that because the statute does not provide an exhaustive list of situations which qualify as being outside the ordinary course of trade, “the Administration intends that Commerce will interpret 19 U.S.C. § 1677(15) in a manner which will avoid basing normal value on sales which are extraordinary for the market in question.” Id. This Court finds the legislative history is also ambiguous as to what constitutes a sale outside the ordinary course of trade. Because neither the statutory language nor the legislative history explicitly establishes what is considered to be outside the “ordinary course of trade,” the Court assesses the agency’s interpretation of the provision as codified by the regulation to determine whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable and in accordance with the legislative purpose. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. “In determining whether Commerce’s interpretation is reasonable, the Court considers, among other factors, the express terms of the provisions at issue, the objectives of those provisions and the objective of the antidumping scheme as a whole.” Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at -, 15 F.Supp.2d at 813. The purpose of the ordinary course of trade provision is “to prevent dumping margins from being based on sales which are not representative” of the home market. Monsanto Co. v. United States, 12 CIT 937, 940, 698 F.Supp. 275, 278 (1988). Commerce’s methodology for deciding when sales are outside the “ordinary course of trade” has been to examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the sale or transaction in question to determine whether the sale or transaction is extraordinary. Commerce’s regulation specifically states, “sales or transactions [may be considered] outside the ordinary course of trade if ... based on an evaluation of all of the circumstances particular to the sales in question, [ ] such sales or transactions have characteristics that are extraordinary for the market in question.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b). Commerce’s methodology allows it, on a case-by-case basis, to examine all conditions and practices which may be considered ordinary in the trade under consideration and to determine which sales or transactions are, therefore, outside the ordinary course of trade. Because such a methodology gives Commerce wide discretion in deciding under what circumstances sales or transactions are outside the ordinary course of trade and circumstances differ in each case, this Court finds that, in light of the statute’s legislative purpose, Commerce’s interpretation of the statute and exercise of its discretion by requiring additional evidence demonstrating that sales with high profit levels were outside of the ordinary course of trade before excluding such sales from the NV and CV calculations was reasonable. NTN was or should have been aware of such a requirement. See NTN Bearing, 24 CIT -, 104 F.Supp.2d 110 (holding that Commerce’s request to NTN for additional evidence demonstrating that sales were outside of the ordinary course of trade was not an unreasonable exercise of Commerce’s discretion). NTN, however, failed to meet this requirement. NTN provided Commerce with no additional evidence arguing that Commerce should have excluded sales with abnormally high profits because of the following: (a) the mere fact of abnormally high profits puts these sales per se outside the ordinary course of trade; and (b) the sales with abnormally high profits represented a small percentage of total sales quantity. See Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,620-21; NTN’s Mem. at 17-18. The presence of profits higher than those of other sales is, however, merely an element which does not necessarily place the sales outside the ordinary course of trade under Commerce’s requirement for additional evidence. Similarly, a relatively small percentage of the sales with abnormally high profits in comparison to the total sales quantity is an element which does not necessarily place the sales outside the ordinary course of trade under Commerce’s requirement for additional evidence. The presence of either or both of these element does not strip Commerce of the right to exercise discretion and conclude that a relatively insubstantial number of sales with higher profits lacked the characteristics necessary to place these sales outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b). Consequently, because Commerce’s interpretation and application of the statute was reasonable and the record reflects that NTN did not provide sufficient additional evidence that supports NTN’s claim that the disputed sales were extraordinary for the market in question, Commerce was justified in its decision to include NTN’s sales with unusually high profit levels into the NV and CV calculations. Similarly, the Court finds that Commerce rightfully included NTN’s home market sample sales into the NY calculation because NTN failed to provide sufficient additional evidence that those sales fell outside the ordinary course of trade. III. Treatment of Inputs Obtained from Affiliated parties in Calculating Cost of Production and Constructed Value A. Statutory Background Normal value of the subject merchandise is defined, in pertinent part, as “the price at which the foreign like product is first sold ... for consumption in the exporting country .... ” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(l)(B)(i). However, whenever Commerce has “reasonable grounds to believe or suspect” that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV have been made at prices which represent less than the cost of production (“COP”) of that product, Commerce shall determine whether, in fact, such sales were made at less than the COP. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(l). A “reasonable ground” exists if Commerce disregarded below-cost sales of a particular exporter or producer from the determination of NV in the most recently completed administrative review. See § 167Tb(b)(2)(A)(ii). If Commerce determines that there are sales below the COP and certain conditions are present under § 1677b(b)(l)(A)-(B), it may disregard such below-cost sales in the determination of NV. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(l). Additionally, the special rules for the calculation of COP or CV contained in 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2)-(3) provide that, in a transaction between affiliated parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33), Commerce may disregard either the transaction or the value of a major input. Section 1677b(f)(2) provides that Commerce may disregard an affiliated party transaction when “the amount representing [the transaction or transfer price] does not fairly reflect the amount usually reflected in sales of merchandise under consideration in the market under consideration [that is, an arms-length or market price].” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2) (“fair-value” provision). If such “a transaction is disregarded ... and no other transactions are available for consideration,” Commerce shall value the cost of an affiliated-party input “based on the information available as to what the amount would have been if the transaction had occurred between persons who are not affiliated [that is, based on arm’s-length or market value].” Id. One of the elements of value to be considered in the calculation of COP, which is referred to in section 1677b(f)(2), is the cost of manufacturing and fabrication (“COM”). See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(3)(A). Section 1677b(f)(3)’s “major input rule” states that Commerce may calculate the value of the major input on the basis of the data available regarding COP, if such COP exceeds the market value of the input calculated under § 1677b(f)(2). See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3). Commerce, however, may rely on the data available only if: (1) a transaction between affiliated parties involves the production by one of such parties of a “major input” to the merchandise produced by the other, and, in addition, (2) Commerce has “reasonable grounds to believe or suspect” that the amount reported as the value of such input is below the COP. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3). For purposes of § 1677b(f)(3), regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.407(b) (1998) provides that Commerce will value a major input supplied by an affiliated party based on the highest of (1) the actual transfer price for the input; (2) the market value of the input; or (3) the COP of the input. Thus, paragraphs (2)' and (3) of 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f) authorize Commerce, in calculating COP and CV, to do the following: (1) disregard a transaction between affiliated parties if, in the case of any element of value that is required to be considered, the amount representing that element does not fairly reflect the amount usually reflected in sales of merchandise under consideration in the market under consideration; and (2) determine the value of the major input on the basis of the information available regarding COP if Commerce has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that an amount represented as the value of the input is less than its COP. See Timken Co. v. United States, 21 CIT 1313, 1327-28, 989 F.Supp. 234, 246 (1997) (holding that Commerce may disre-, gard transfer price for inputs purchased from related suppliers pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2), the predecessor to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2), if the transfer price or any element of value does not reflect its normal value and citing NSK Ltd. v. United States, 19 CIT 1319, 1323-26, 910 F.Supp. 663, 668-70 (1995), aff'd, 119 F.3d 16 (Fed.Cir.1997)). In determining whether transaction prices between affiliated parties fairly reflect the market prices, Commerce’s practice has been to compare the transaction prices with market prices charged by unrelated parties. Commenting upon the current regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 351.407, which implemented 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2), Commerce stated that it believes that the appropriate standard for determining whether input prices are at aim’s length is its normal practice of comparing actual affiliated party prices with prices to or from unaffiliated parties. This practice is the most reasonable and objective basis for testing the arm’s length nature of input sales between affiliated parties, and is consistent with [19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2) ]. Final Rule on Antidumping Duties, Countervailing Duties (‘‘Final Rule ”), 62 Fed.Reg. 27,296, 27362 (May 19, 1997). Pursuant to the major input rule contained in 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3), in calculating COP or CV, Commerce values a major input purchased from an affiliated supplier using the highest of the transfer price between the affiliated parties, the market price between unaffiliated parties, and the affiliated supplier’s COP for the major input. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.407(b), see also Final Results of An-tidumping Administrative Reviews on Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom, 62 Fed.Reg.2081, 2115 (Jan. 15, 1997); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey, 62 Fed.Reg. 9737, 9746 (Mar. 4, 1997). Commerce interprets 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3) as permitting it to analyze COP data for major inputs purchased by a producer from its affiliated suppliers when it initiates a COP investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(l) without a separate below-COP allegation with respect to inputs. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Silico-manganese From Brazil, 62 Fed.Reg. 37,-869, 37,871-72 (July 15, 1997). According to Commerce, the affiliation between the respondent and its suppliers “creates the potential for companies to act in a manner other than at arm’s length” and gives Commerce reason to analyze the transfer prices for major inputs. Id. at 37,871; see also Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v. United States, 23 CIT -, -, 77 F.Supp.2d 1302, 1312 (1999) (holding that 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677b(f)(2) and (3), as well as the legislative history of the major input rule, support Commerce’s decision to use the highest of transfer price, cost of production, or market value to value the major inputs that the producer purchased from the affiliated supplier). B. Factual Background Commerce disregarded sales that faded its cost test under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b) during the eighth review of AFBs with respect to NTN Japan. For this reason, Commerce concluded that it had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of normal value in the ninth review of AFBs may have been made at prices below the COP. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(2)(A)(ii). Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. •§ 1677b(b), Commerce initiated COP investigation of sales by NTN- in the home market. See Preliminary Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 8794 (Feb. 23, 1999). In order to obtain the necessary COP and CV information, Commerce requested NTN to list all inputs used to produce the merchandise under review, to identify those inputs that NTN received from affiliated parties, and for each input received from an affiliated party, provide the name of the party. See Def.’s Mem. At 49-52. In response, NTN referred Commerce to a number of NTN’s exhibits. See id. Commerce also requested NTN to list the major inputs received from affiliated parties and used to produce the merchandise under review. See id. In response, NTN referred to a few of the same' exhibits and stated that the transfer prices shown therein were standard costs. See id. Commerce also requested that NTN provide the per-unit cost of production incurred by the affiliated party in producing the major input and to specify the basis used by NTN to value each major input for purposes of computing the submitted COP and CV amounts. See id. at 50-51. In response, NTN referred to the same and different exhibits and explained that NTN’s standard cost, as adjusted by the variances, was used in computing COP and CV. See id. at 51-52. In its supplemental questionnaire, Commerce referred to NTN’s statement that the transfer prices shown on some of these exhibits were standard costs and asked whether the transfer prices are based on unadjusted standard costs or on standard costs adjusted for. variances. See id. NTN responded that the transfer prices were standard cost, submitted two revised exhibits “which show[ed] the actual cost as reported in the response for each component” and stated that this actual cost was the standard cost previously reported multiplied by NTN’s variance ratios also reported in NTN’s original response. See id. Additionally, referring to NTN’s prior statement that NTN’s standard cost as adjusted by variances was used in computing COP and CV, Commerce inquired whether these variances included the variances experienced by the suppliers of affiliated party inputs for which NTN report standard costs. NTN replied that the response was prepared using NTN’s standard cost for the component from an affiliated or unaffiliated supplier; that this standard cost, in turn, was based upon the price from the supplier, and that NTN’s standard cost was then adjusted to actual cost using the variance ratios appearing on a certain exhibit. See id. Consequently, for major inputs that NTN had obtained from affiliated suppliers, Commerce adjusted the reported costs (based upon transfer prices) using the highest of (1) the transfer price, (2) the market price, or (3) thé affiliate’s cost of producing the input. See Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,612. For minor inputs, Commerce used the higher of (1) the transfer price or (2) the market price (except for instances where there was no market price, in which case Commerce used the affiliate’s cost of producing the input as a surrogate for market price). See id. The adjustment was the difference between the highest of (1) transfer price; (2) the market price; or (3) the affiliate’s cost of producing the input and the transfer price. See id. Commerce added the adjustment to the total cost of manufacturing. Additionally, Commerce recalculated general and administrative expenses to be based on the revised COM. In instances where transfer price was higher than either the market price or the affiliate’s cost of producing the input, the adjustment was zero. See id. C. Contentions of the Parties NTN argues the following: (1) Commerce should have used NTN’s reported actual cost for affiliated party inputs, that is, the transfer price multiplied by the variance; (2) neither section 1677b(f)(2), nor sections 1677b(f)(3) of Title 19 of the United States Code, which provide for disregarding certain affiliated transactions, does apply; and (3) Commerce’s calculation of the adjustment does not take into consideration NTN’s cost accounting methodology pursuant to which NTN’s actual cost is based on cost of manufacture at standard cost multiplied by variances. See NTN’s Mem. at 19-21. Commerce rejected NTN’s contentions, stating that [pjursuant to [19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3) ], in the case of a transaction between affiliated [parties] involving the production of a major input, [Commerce] may consider whether the amount represented as the value of the major input is less than its COP. In addition, section 351.407 of [Commerce’s] regulations states that, for purposes of [19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3) ], the value of a major input purchased from an affiliated party will be based on the higher of (1) the price paid by the exporter or producer to the affiliated [party] for the major input, (2) the amount usually reflected in sales of the major input in the market under consideration, or (3) the cost to the affiliated [party] of producing the major input. [Commerce has] relied upon this methodology in past AFB reviews as well as in other cases. See[J e.g., AFBs 6, 62 [Fed.Reg.] at 2117, AFBs 7, 62 [Fed.Reg.] at 54[,]065, AFBs 8, 63 [Fed.Reg.] at 33[,]337, and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Round Wire from Taman, 64 [Fed.Reg.] 17[,]336 (April 9, 1999) .... In this case, [Commerce] asked NTN in [Commerce’s] COP questionnaire to provide a list of the major inputs it received from affiliated parties which it used to produce the subject merchandise. NTN responded to the question by directing [Commerce] to several exhibits. These exhibits list inputs which NTN considered to be major inputs and identify the respective transfer prices and supplier’s cost information for the inputs. [Commerce] examined this information and determined that in some instances the company’s reported transfer prices were less than its respective costs. As there were no other market prices available in most instances, [Commerce] restated NTN’s COP and CV in the instances where the affiliated supplier’s cost of producing the inputs was higher than the transfer price. Therefore, since [Commerce] reasonably relied upon the information provided by NTN regarding the cost of major inputs it used in manufacturing the subject merchandise, [Commerce] applied [19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3) ] correctly for purposes of determining COP and CV for [Commerce’s] analysis. NTN argues that [Commerce] must have reasonable grounds to believe that inputs are being sold at less than COP before it may use COP information. [Commerce] considers the initiation of a cost investigation concerning home-market sales a specific and objective reason to believe or suspect that the transfer price from a related party for any element of value may be below the related supplier’s COP .... Finally, [Commerce] disagrees with NTN that [Commerce’s] methodology is distortive. NTN’s cost-reporting methodology does not account for the fact that the affiliate’s cost is higher than the transfer price. NTN calculated its variances by comparing its standard costs to its actual costs, which are, for all inputs it purchased from all suppliers, based on the transfer prices from each supplier. As a result, the affiliate’s costs do not enter into the calculation of NTN’s variances and NTN’s reported “actual” costs are based on transfer prices. Therefore, because the reported costs are based on transfer prices, it was appropriate to adjust the reported costs for the difference between the affiliate’s cost and the transfer price when the affiliate’s cost is higher than the transfer price. Therefore, [Commerce] conclude[s] that there is no reason to alter [Commerce’s] methodology. Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,612-13. Torrington similarly believes that Commerce properly restated NTN’s COP and CV in the instances where the affiliated supplier’s COP for inputs used to manufacture the merchandise under review was higher than the transfer price. See Tor-rington’s Resp. at 59-63. D. Analysis Citing to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2), NTN argues that there is no record evidence that the affiliated party inputs did not “fairly reflect the amount usually reflected in the sales of merchandise under consideration” and that the statute makes no reference to cost. NTN’s Mem. at 20. Commerce, however, explained in the Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,612, that Commerce followed 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3), which permits Commerce to determine the value of a major input on the basis of the information available regarding cost of production. Alternatively, NTN alleges that 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3) does not support Commerce’s methodology because the use of that section is only permitted for “major inputs” and, in the current review, Commerce failed to discriminate between major and minor inputs and applied the major input rule to any input from an affiliated party as well as to “processes which are clearly different from major inputs.” NTN’s Mem. at 20-21. In making its determinations, Commerce relied upon the exhibits that listed those inputs that NTN itself considered to be major inputs. See Def.’s Mem. at 49-52, 55-57. NTN did not point to any “minor” input for which Commerce used COP rather than transfer value. See id. NTN similarly failed to explain why the major input rule should not cover processes applied to inputs or demonstrate that Commerce’s application of the major input rule to the parts that NTN purchased from affiliated parties is in any way unreasonable. See generally, NTN’s Mem. at 19-21. Commerce concedes that the determinations made in the Final Results do not explain Commerce’s test for distinguishing major inputs from minor inputs, nor does it explain the methodology Commerce used to determine the value for minor inputs in this case. See Def.’s Mem. at 56-57. With regard to NTN’s claim that Commerce applied the major input rule to processes which are clearly different from major inputs, Commerce explained that Commerce believes as follows: [19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3) ] directs [Commerce] to examine the costs incurred for transactions between affiliated [parties]. These transactions may involve either the purchase of materials, subcontracted labor, or other services. Thus, [Commerce] applied the major-input rule properly to the production processes performed by [NTN’s] affiliates. This decision is consistent with our practice in prior reviews. Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,612 (citation omitted). NTN offers this Court no basis to substantiate its assertion that it is unreasonable for Commerce to apply the major input rule to affiliated party transactions involving production processes. For the foregoing reasons, the Court sustains Commerce’s application of the major input rule to production processes as reasonable. See Chevron, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778. The issue is remanded to Commerce to clarify what action it took with respect to inputs that NTN obtained from affiliated parties, to articulate the reasoning for this action, and to open the record for additional information, if found necessary. Accord Indus. Quimica Del Nalon, S.A. v. United States, 16 CIT 84, 85 (1992). IV. Downstream Sales for Which the Total Downstream Value Of Merchandise Sold by Affiliated Parties Was Not Reported A. Background Commerce’s regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.403(c) (1998) provided the following: [i]f an exporter or producer sold the foreign like product to an affiliated party, [Commerce] may calculate normal value based on that sale only if satisfied that the price is comparable to the price at which the exporter or producer sold the foreign like product to a person who is not affiliated with the seller. (Emphasis supplied.) Additionally, Commerce’s regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.403(d) (1998) states the following: [i]f an exporter or producer sold the foreign like product through an affiliated party, [Commerce] may calculate normal value based on the sale by such affiliated party. However, [Commerce] normally will not calculate normal value based on the sale by an affiliated party if sales of the foreign like product by an exporter or producer to affiliated parties account for less than five percent of the total value (or quantity) of the exporter’s or producer’s sales of the foreign like product in the market in question or if sales to the affiliated party are comparable, as defined in [19 C.F.R. § 351.403(c) ]. Therefore, pursuant to these regulations, Commerce could not utilize the home market affiliated party sale unless the exporter or producer, or reseller demonstrated that the transaction was made at arm’s length. To make the requisite showing, the respondent had to present evidence establishing to Commerce’s satisfaction that related party prices were comparable to unrelated party prices. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.403(c); see also NEC Home Elecs., Ltd., 54 F.3d at 739 (recognizing Commerce’s practice in the context of pre-URAA statute and regulations). Commerce’s established practice has been to determine price comparability by examining whether, on average, related party prices were equal to or greater than unrelated party prices. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Japan, 58 Fed.Reg. 48,-826, 48,829 (Sept. 20, 1993). B. Contentions of the Parties NTN argues that, in refusing to use affiliated party sales in its calculation of normal value, Commerce erroneously applied the arm’s length test and used adverse facts available. See NTN’s Mem. at 3-4, 8, 21-26. Specifically, NTN argues that, in determining whether the prices were comparable, Commerce should not have relied solely on the determination whether or not the prices of the sales to affiliated parties were higher or lower than that of unrelated parties but should have examined other factors as well. See id. at 24. Citing to NEC Home Elecs, Ltd. v. United States (“NEC”), 22 CIT -, 3 F.Supp.2d 1451 (1998), NTN alleges that the price in affiliated party transactions need be merely comparable, that is not only greater or the same, but also lower. See NTN’s Mem. at 25-26. Torrington supports Commerce’s exclusion of NTN’s related party sales from the calculation of NV. See Torrington’s Resp. at 64-68. In addition, Torrington asserts that Commerce has the authority to exclude related party sales, unless Commerce is satisfied with the price. See id. Torrington also asserts that NTN has not demonstrated that Commerce’s determination was unreasonable. See id. C. Analysis While it is correct that “Commerce cannot penalize [a party] for a lack of unrelated party sales data when there is statutory authority to consider [the party’s] related sales data,” this proposition merely means that where there are no sales to unaffiliated parties during the administrative review and it is impossible to make a comparison of prices of unaffiliated party sales with those of affiliated party sales, “the only price information ... is that of its sales to the related [parties].” NEC, 22 CIT at -, 3 F.Supp.2d at 1455. In the given case, no such situation exists because NTN made sales to both affiliated and unaffiliated parties during the administrative review and Commerce determined that the prices were not comparable after comparing prices involved in the transactions with affiliated and unaffiliated parties. NTN concedes that, in general, prices to related parties were lower than prices to unrelated parties. See NTN’s Mem. at 25. Further, NTN failed to show why Commerce’s test on price is unreasonable. See id. The Court, therefore, affirms Commerce’s test. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, NTN Bearing Corp. of America v. United States (“NTN Bearing II ”), 23 CIT -, -, 83 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1291-92 (1999). The statutory standard for implementing adverse inference is if “an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from [Commerce].” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) (1994), see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.308(a) (1998). In the given case, Commerce used adverse facts available on the basis of the following reasoning: With regard to sales by home-market affiliates, [Commerce] requested that NTN report total value of sales by affiliates on a class-or-kind basis. [Commerce] also requested that, if NTN could not “obtain this information for all affiliated resellers, [NTN should] provide [the information] for at least those companies in which NTN owns a majority interest.” See supplemental questionnaire dated Sep. 24, 1998, at 1. [Commerce] asked this question to determine whether sales to affiliates would be a reasonable substitute for sales by affiliates in [Commerce’s] calculation of normal value. Because NTN did not provide this information, [Commerce was] not able to make this determination. Therefore, the use of facts available is warranted. Contrary to NTN’s assertion, [Commerce] did not indicate in [Commerce’s] supplemental questionnaire that NTN should only report this “where possible.” Instead, [Commerce] indicated that, if NTN could not obtain this information from affiliates in which it does not own a majority interest, NTN should at least obtain this information from affiliates in which it does own a majority interest. Furthermore, NTN’s explanation for why it could not obtain this information from those companies in which it owns a majority interest is not convincing .... As a result of [Commerce’s] analysis, [Commerce] determine[s] that NTN did not act to the best of its ability in responding to [Commerce’s] requests for information concerning sales by affiliated resellers. Therefore, the use of the adverse facts available with regard to NTN’s sales by affiliated resellers in which NTN owns a majority interest is appropriate. The use of facts available affects the calculation of normal value. Therefore, where [Commerce] compared U.S. sales to weighted-average normal values which are wholly or partly comprised of sales to affiliated resellers in which NTN owns a majority interest, [Commerce] applied facts available. Because it is appropriate to use the facts available to the extent [Commerce] use[s] these sales to calculate normal value, [Commerce has] adjusted the calculated net prices of these sales by increasing them by the class-or-kind-specific adverse facts-available rate applicable to NTN. In this manner, [Commerce] ensure[s] that the facts available are being used only when the sales are used to calculate normal value and, in instances where such sales are weight-averaged with sales to unaffiliated companies, the facts available are “diluted” accordingly. Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,596. The Court finds that Commerce’s application of 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.308(a) was reasonable and, therefore, upholds Commerce’s use of adverse facts available. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2000) (relying on Martin v. Occupational Safety and Health Re-vietv Comm’n, 499 U.S. 144, 150, 111 S.Ct. 1171, 113 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991)). Commerce, however, concedes that it erred in conducting the arm’s length test by wrongly increasing affiliated party sales prices “by the class-or-kind-specific adverse facts available rate applicable to NTN” prior to conducting the arm’s length test. Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,596. Accordingly, the Court remands the issue to Commerce to apply the test in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.403(c). V. Basing Normal Value Upon Constructed Value After Disregarding Below-Cost Identical and Similar Merchandise A. Background Normal value means “the price at which the foreign like product is first sold ... for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade” at a time reasonably corresponding to the time of the sale used to determine the export price (“EP”) or constructed export price (“CEP”) under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) (1994). 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i). The term “foreign like product” is defined as: merchandise in the first of the following categories in respect of which a determination ... can be satisfactorily made: (A) The subject merchandise and other merchandise which is identical in physical characteristics with, and was produced in the same country by the same person as, that merchandise. (B) Merchandise— (i) produced in the same country and by the same person as the subject merchandise, (ii) like that merchandise in component material or materials and in the purposes for which used, and (iii)approximately equal in commercial value to that merchandise. (C) Merchandise— (i) produced in the same country and by the same person and of the same general class or kind as the [subject merchandise], (ii) like that merchandise in the purposes for which used, and (iii)which the administering authority determines may reasonably be compared with that merchandise. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16). “Ordinary course of trade” means “the conditions and practices which, for a reasonable time prior to the exportation of the subject merchandise, have been normal in the trade under consideration with respect to ’merchandise of the same class or kind.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(15). Commerce shall consider sales and transactions, among others, to be outside the ordinary course of trade if: (1) the sales are disregarded under 19 U.S.C. 1677b(b)(l), or (2) transactions are disregarded under section 1677b(f)(2). See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(15). Section 1677b(b)(l) of Title 19 authorizes Commerce to disregard below-cost sales because they are not in the ordinary course of trade. Under the preURAA law, the plain language of the statute 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16) (1988) requires Commerce to base foreign market value (currently referred as normal value under the post-URAA law) on nonidentical but similar merchandise, rather than upon constructed value, when sales of identical merchandise have been found to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See CEMEX, S.A. v. United States (“CEMEX”), 133 F.3d 897, 904 (Fed.Cir.1998). Commerce followed Cemex during the review in issue. B. Contentions of the Parties NTN argues that Commerce unlawfully failed to use CY after disregarding below-cost sales from the calculation of normal value. See NTN’s Mem. at 4, 8, 26-28. NTN concentrates upon 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(1)(B), which provides that “[i]f no sales made in the ordinary course of trade remain, the NV shall be based on the constructed value of the merchandise.” NTN’s Mem. at 27-28. NTN then argues that, once Commerce has identified the foreign like product (identical merchandise in the case of NTN), Commerce cannot “redefine the foreign like product rather than using the statutory requirement of CV” because such “methodology violates that fundamental rule of statutory construction that where a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face it must be followed.” NTN’s Mem. at 28 (citing to Chevron, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778). Commerce asserts that it properly did not resort to constructed value when sales of identical merchandise were disregarded as below-cost sales. See Def.’s Mem. at 61-66. Commerce’s position is shared by Torrington. Torrington contends that Commerce properly calculated NV based on sales of identical or similar merchandise before resorting to CV in instances where below-cost sales were disregarded. See Torrington’s Resp. at 68-69. C. Analysis In rejecting NTN’s arguments that CE-MEX did not apply, Commerce stated the following: The [Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit] stated in CEMEX that “[t]he language of the statute requires Commerce to base foreign market value on nonidentical but similar merchandise ... rather than CV when sales of identical merchandise have been found to be outside the ordinary course of trade.” CE-MEX, 133 F.3d at 904. NTN is correct that there was no cost test in CEMEX and CEMEX was under the pre-URAA statute; however, under the URAA, below-cost sales which are disregarded pursuant to ... [19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(l) ] are now defined to be outside the ordinary course of trade and, therefore, not included in the normal value. Therefore, consistent with CE-MEX when making comparisons in accordance with section ... [19 U.S.C. § 1677(16), Commerce] considered all products sold in the home market that were comparable to merchandise within the scope of each order and which were sold in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, [Commerce] compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. Only where there were no sales of foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade did we resort to CV. Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,614-15. The statutory scheme supports Commerce’s determination. The pertinent part of 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(l)(B)(i) requires Commerce to base NV upon the price at which the foreign like product (which is defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16) as identical or like merchandise) is sold for consumption in the exporting country in the ordinary course of trade. The pertinent part of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(15) requires Commerce to consider below-cost sales that Commerce has disregarded pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(l) to be outside the ordinary course of trade. In a fashion similar to that of the court in the CEMEX decision, Commerce has interpreted the statutory scheme as requiring it to consider sales of similar foreign like product if it has disregarded sales of identical foreign like product as below-cost sales and to use CV for determining NV only if Commerce also disregards sales of the similar like product because they are below-cost. See Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,614-15. NTN ignores the fact that 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(l) does not define the terms “ordinary course of trade” or “foreign like product.” The definitions are provided by 19 U.S.C. § 1677(15) and (16). As Commerce explained in the Final Results, 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,614-15, Commerce considered and strived to harmonize all pertinent statutory provisions, including Sections 1677b(a)(l)(B)(i), 1677(15), 1677(16), and 1677b(b)(l) of Title 19. The changes made to the antidumping law by the URAA did not render the CE-MEX decision inapplicable.