Full opinion text
OPINION TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge. Plaintiffs and defendant-intervenors, NSK Ltd. and NSK Corporation (collectively “NSK”), NTN Corporation, NTN Bearing Corporation of America, American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corporation, NTN Driveshaft, Inc. and NTN-Bower Corporation (collectively “NTN”), and The Torrington Company (“Torrington”), move pursuant to USCIT R. 56.2 for judgment upon the agency record challenging various aspects of the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s (“Commerce”) final determination, entitled Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews of Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Beanngs) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (“Final Results”), 63 Fed.Reg. 33,320 (June 18, 1998), for the period of review (“POR”) from May 1, 1996, through April 30,1997. Specifically, NSK argues that Commerce erred in: (1) calculating the constructed value profit by (a) excluding below-cost sales, and (b) applying Commerce’s methodology; (2) denying partial level-of-trade adjustment; and (3) treating repacking expenses in the United States as direct selling expenses. NTN maintains that Commerce erred in: (1) denying an adjustment to indirect selling expenses for interest incurred in financing cash deposits for antidumping duties; (2) including sample transactions for which no compensation was received; (3) refusing to exclude home market sales with high profits and home market sample sales from the dumping margin calculation; (4) disregarding sales to affiliated customers in Commerce’s calculation of normal value; (5) using the affiliated supplier’s cost of production for inputs in those cases when the cost was higher than the transfer price in Commerce’s calculation of cost of production and constructed value; (6) recalculating indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States without regard to levels of trade; (7) recalculating normal value based on sales of identical or similar merchandise before resorting to constructed value in instances where below-cost sales were disregarded; (8) disallowing a claim for level-of-trade adjustment; (9) calculating constructed export price profit without regard to levels of trade; (10) including profits from export price sales in Commerce’s calculation of constructed export price profit; and (11) recalculating home market indirect selling expenses without regard to levels of trade. Finally, Torrington asserts that Commerce erred in: (1) accepting, as a direct adjustment to price, Koyo Seiko Co. and Koyo Corporations of U.S.A.’s (collectively “Koyo”) (a) home market lump sum billing adjustment, and (b) rebates; (2) accepting, as a direct adjustment to price, NSK’s home market billing adjustment; and (3) accepting, as a direct adjustment to price, NTN’s home market discounts. BACKGROUND The administrative review at issue covers the period of review from May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997. Commerce published the preliminary results of the subject review on February 9, 1998. See Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative reviews and partial termination 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”), 63 Fed.Reg. 6512. On June 18, 1998, Commerce published the Final Results at issue. See 63 Fed.Reg. 33,320. 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)(l)(B)(i) (1994). I. Substantial Evidence Test Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). Substantial evidence “is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966) (citations omitted). Moreover, “[t]he court may not substitute its judgment for that of the [agency] when the choice is ‘between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo. ’ ” American Spring Wire Corp. v. United States, 8 CIT 20, 22, 590 F.Supp. 1273, 1276 (1984) (quoting Penntech Papers, Inc. v. NLRB, 706 F.2d 18, 22-23 (1st Cir.1983) (quoting, in turn, Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 488, 71 S.Ct. 456)). II. Chevron Two-Step Analysis To determine whether Commerce’s interpretation and application of the anti-dumping statute is “in accordance with law,” the Court must undertake the two-step analysis prescribed by Chevron U.S.A Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (“Chevron”), 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Under the first step, the Court reviews Commerce’s construction of a statutory provision to determine whether “Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Id. at 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778. “To ascertain whether Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, [the Court] employ[s] the ‘traditional tools of statutory construction.’ ” Timex V.I., Inc. v. United States, 157 F.3d 879, 882 (Fed.Cir.1998) (citing Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2778). “The first and foremost ‘tool’ to be used is the statute’s text, giving it its plain meaning. Because a statute’s text is Congress’s final expression of its intent, if the text answers the question, that is the end of the matter.” Id. (citations omitted). Beyond the statute’s text, the tools of statutory construction “include the statute’s structure, canons of statutory construction, and legislative history.” Id. (citations omitted); but see Floral Trade Council v. United States, 23 CIT 20, 22 n. 6, 41 F.Supp.2d 319, 323 n. 6 (1999) (noting that “[n]ot all rules of statutory construction rise to the level of a canon, however.” Citation omitted). If, after employing the first prong of Chevron, the Court determines that the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the Court becomes whether Commerce’s construction of the statute is permissible. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. Essentially, this is an inquiry into the reasonableness of Commerce’s interpretation. See Fujitsu Gen. Ltd. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1034, 1038 (Fed.Cir.1996). Provided Commerce has acted rationally, the Court may not substitute its judgment for the agency’s. See Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 36 F.3d 1565, 1570 (Fed.Cir.1994) (holding that “a court must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of a statute even if the court might have preferred another”); see also IPSCO, Inc. v. United States, 965 F.2d 1056, 1061 (Fed.Cir.1992). The “[C]ourt will sustain the determination if it is reasonable and supported by the record as a whole, including whatever fairly detracts from the substantiality of the evidence.” Negev Phosphates, Ltd. v. United States, 12 CIT 1074, 1077, 699 F.Supp. 938, 942 (1988) (citations omitted). In determining whether Commerce’s interpretation is reasonable, the Court considers the following non-exclusive list of factors: the express terms of the provisions at issue, the objectives of those provisions and the objectives of the antidumping scheme as a whole. See Mitsubishi Heavy Indus, v. United States, 22 CIT 541, 545, 15 F.Supp.2d 807, 813 (1998). DISCUSSION I. Commerce’s Calculation of Profit For Constructed Value A. Background The enactment of the URAA, which governs the case at bar, introduced a number of changes in the antidumping law. Specifically, the constructed value (“CV”) provisions relating to profit determination were altered to provide for: (1) a preferable method based upon the actual amounts incurred and realized by the particular party being reviewed, see 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2) (A) (1994); and (2) alternative methods that are to be used when actual data are not available. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B) (1994). Specifically, Commerce is to rely in its calculations on the actual amounts incurred and realized by the specific exporter or producer being examined in the ... review 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, [unless,] if the actual data are not available with respect to the[se] amounts ..., then [Commerce is to rely in its calculations on: (1) ] ... the actual amounts incurred and realized by the specific exporter or producer being examined in the ... review for ... profits, in connection with the production and sale [of a foreign like product], for consumption in the foreign country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the subject merehandise[; (2) ] the weighted average of the actual amounts incurred and realized by exporters or producers that are subject to the ... review (other than the exporter or producer described in clause [ (1) ]) 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[;] or [ (3) ] the amounts incurred and realized for ... profits, based on any other reasonable method, except that the amount allowed for profit may not exceed the amount normally realized by exporters or producers (other than the exporter or producer described in clause [ (1) ] in connection with the sale), for consumption in the foreign country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the subject merchandise .... 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e) (1994). The URAA also amended the definition of the term “ordinary course of trade” to provide that below-cost sales that Commerce disregards in the determination of normal value (“NV”) under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a) (1994) fall outside the “ordinary course of trade.” Generally, [t]he term “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. [Commerce] shall consider the following sales and transactions, among others, to be outside the ordinary course of trade: ... [s]ales disregarded under [19 U.S.C. § ] 1677b(b)(l) [ (1994) ].... 19 U.S.C. § 1677(15) (1994). Section 1677b(b) (1) provides, in turn, that certain below-cost sales are to be disregarded in the determination of NV. Specifically, it provides that [if Commerce] determines that sales made at less than the cost of production[ ] ... have been made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and [such sales] were not at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, such sales may be disregarded in the determination of [NV]. Whenever such sales are disregarded, [NV] shall be based on the remaining sales of the foreign[-]like product in the ordinary course of trade. If no sales made in the ordinary course of trade remain, [NV] shall be based on [CV] of the merchandise. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(1) (1994). Moreover, the Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”), a document that represents an authoritative expression regarding the interpretation and application of the URAA for purposes of United States domestic law, provides that 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(A) establishes as a general rule that Commerce will base amounts for ... profit only on amounts incurred and realized in connection with sales in the ordinary course of trade of the particular merchandise in question (foreign[-]like product). Commerce may ignore sales that it disregards as a basis for [NV], such as those disregarded because they are made at below-cost prices. H.R. Doc. 103-316 at 839 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4175-76. During the review at issue, Commerce, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(A): (1) excluded below-cost sales for the purposes of calculating CV profit; and (2) applied the “preferred method” for calculation of CV profit. See Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 33,333-34. B. Contentions of the Parties Commerce maintains that it “properly excluded the below-cost sales that [were] disregarded in [the] determinfation of] NV” because [i]t is clear from the statutory language that the use of all sales, including below-cost sales, would have been appropriate only if Commerce had, in fact, determined CV profit under the alternative methods provided in 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B). This is so because the preferred method [under 19 U.S.C. § ] 1677b(e)(2)(A) requires that the determination be based upon the production and sale of a foreign[-]like product in the “ordinary course of trade” and the term “ordinary course of trade” excludes below-cost sales that have been disregarded in determining NV. Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Pis.’ Mot. J. Agency R. (“Def.’s Mem.”) at 14-15 (relying on 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677(15) and 1677b(b)(l) and pointing out that only the alternative methods, unlike the preferred method, allow the determination of profit to be based on data other than the production and sale of a product in the “ordinary course of trade”). Responding to this statement by Commerce, NSK “abandon[ed] its claim that Commerce violated the antidumping law by calculating CV profit for ball bearings based on the entire database for above[-]cost sales,” see [NSK’s] Reply Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. (“NSK’s Reply”) at 1 (emphasis supplied), but asserts that Commerce must calculate CV profit for cylindrical roller bearings on a model or family basis when using the statutory preferred methodology. See id. Pointing to Commerce’s statement that “ ‘Section 1677(16) ... establishes a descending hierarchy,’ ” NSK asserts that this proposition dispenses with Commerce’s discretion and invalidates Commerce’s assertion that “ ‘[w]here[ ] ... the subject merchandise is complex, ... the foreign[-]like product typically embraces more than one of the categories established in [Sjection 1677(16), and Commerce’s selection of a particular category will depend upon the particular circumstances.’ ” Id. at 2 (quoting Def.’s Mem. at 17). NSK maintains that Commerce must examine each ... category in order [of statutorily provided preference] and, once merchandise is presented that meets the criteria stated by a category, use the profit of that merchandise to calculate CV profit. Id. Torrington supports Commerce’s position and points out that Commerce’s methodology was reasonable in view of the statutory mandate of the provisions involved. See Resp. Torrington, Def.-Intervenor, Rule 56.2 Mots. NSK and NTN, Pls. (“Torrington’s Resp.”) at 9-12. C. Analysis During the review at issue, Commerce applied the “preferred” method for calculating CV profit contained in 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e) (2)(A). See Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 33,333. Specifically, Commerce determined an actual profit ratio for each respondent by: (1) first calculating for each respondent the profit for each sale of the foreign-like product in the ordinary course of trade by subtracting all costs and expenses from the home market price; and then (2) aggregating the profit for all the respondent’s sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) and dividing this profit by the respondent’s aggregate total cost for the same sales. See Preliminary Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 6516. In doing so, Commerce relied on the fact that “foreign[-]like product” is defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16) as merchandise in the first of the following categories in respect of which a determination ... can be satisfactorily made: (A) [t]he 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) [m]er-chandise[ ] (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) [m]erchandise[ ] (i) produced in the same country and by the same person and of the same general class or kind as the merchandise which is the subject of the investigation, (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) (emphasis supplied). Section 1677(16), same as a corresponding pre-URAA Section 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16) (1988), establishes the approach for model matching. Specifically, Section 1677(16) first instructs Commerce to conduct a comparison using merchandise that is identical in physical characteristics. If such comparison is not feasible, Commerce must look for merchandise that is like that merchandise in component materials and in the purposes for which used. Finally, if neither identical nor like merchandise is available, Commerce must look for merchandise that is either: (1) produced in the same country and by the same person and of the same general class or kind as the merchandise which is the subject of the investigation; or (2) like that merchandise in the purposes for which it is used; or (3) which Commerce determines may reasonably be compared with that merchandise. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16)(C). Therefore, Section 1677(16) establishes a descending hierarchy of preferential modes that Commerce must select for matching purposes. As Commerce correctly points out, the use of the term “determination” that “can be satisfactorily made” in the language of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16)(C) indicates, however, that Commerce enjoys discretion in determining when to select a particular category of the foreign-like product. See Def.’s Mem. at 17. Consequently, Commerce operated under an assumption that in the cases where the subject merchandise is complex, encompassing numerous characteristics [suitable] for matching [in accordance with different subcategories], the foreign[-]like product typically embraces more than one of the categories established in [S]eetion 1677(16), [and, therefore] Commerce’s selection of a particular category [should] depend upon the particular circumstances. Id. Thus, if either identical or similar merchandise is not available, merchandise of the “same general class or kind” as the subject merchandise could qualify as a foreign-like product. Consequently, Commerce aggregated each respondent’s profits for the foreign-like products sold in the ordinary course of trade, explaining that an aggregate calculation that encompasses all foreign like products under consideration for normal value represents a reasonable interpretation of [the pertinent] section.... Moreover, [Commerce] believe[s] that, in applying the preferred method for computing CY profit ..., the use of aggregate data results in a reasonable and practical measure of profit that [Commerce] can apply consistently in each case. By contrast, a method based on varied groupings of foreign[-]like products, each defined by a minimum set of matching criteria shared with a particular model of the subject merchandise, would add an additional layer of complexity and uncertainty to antidumping duty proceedings without necessarily generating more accurate results. It would also make the statutorily preferred CV-profit method inapplicable to most cases involving CV. Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 33,333. The SAA sets out the two situations in which the preferred CV profit method would be inapplicable: [19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B) ] establishes alternative methods for calculating amounts for ... profit in those instances where the method described in section [1677b(e)(2)(A) ] cannot be used, either because there are no home market sales of the foreign [-] like product or because all such sales are at below-cost prices. H.R. Doc. 103-316 at 840, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4176. In the case at bar, because the actual amounts for profit realized by NSK were available, Commerce applied the preferred method, as mandated by Section 1677b(e)(2)(A), by aggregating those profits. The application, however, was justified only with respect to merchandise that “is complex [and] encompassing numerous characteristics,” accord Def.’s Mem. at 17, that is, merchandise that has no matching counterpart present in the review at issue. The arguments by Commerce, however, cannot be warranted with regard to merchandise that can actually be matched in accordance with the statutorily provided hierarchy. The sole fact that grouping of merchandise into numerous categories for the purpose of valuation, specifically: (1) a category of merchandise that is sufficiently complex and encompassing numerous characteristics; and (2) one or more categories of merchandise that could be matched in accordance with the statutorily provided hierarchy, “would add an additional layer of complexity,” Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 33,333, cannot justify blatant disregard of a clear statutory requirement. See Timex V.I., Inc., 157 F.3d at 882 (pointing out that “[bjecause a statute’s text is Congress’ [ ] final expression of its intent, if the text answers the question, that is the end of the matter”). NSK asserts that Commerce must calculate CV profit for cylindrical roller bearings on a model or family basis when using the statutory preferred methodology. See NSK’s Reply at 2-8. The Court is provided with no sufficient explanation whether cylindrical roller bearings at issue are: (1) complex merchandise that encompasses characteristics so numerous that the process of valuation shall be entrusted to Commerce’s discretion; or (2) merchandise that can be matched in accordance with the statutorily provided hierarchy. If this Court is “to play [its] statutorily required role[] in reviewing Commerce’s determination[], it is important that [the Court] ha[s] clear guidance from Commerce as to what [are the] actual[]” characteristics of the merchandise at issue. SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 263 F.3d 1369, 1383 (Fed.Cir.2001). Therefore, the issue is remanded to Commerce to: (1) determine whether NSK’s cylindrical roller bearings at issue are (a) complex merchandise that encompasses characteristics so numerous that the process of valuation shall be entrusted to Commerce’s discretion, or (b) merchandise that can be matched in accordance with the statutorily provided hierarchy; and (2) if Commerce concludes that NSK’s cylindrical roller bearings are merchandise that could be matched in accordance with the statutorily provided hierarchy, change Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. 33,320, accordingly. II. Commerce’s Refusal of a Partial Level-Of-Trade Adjustment A. Background During the review at issue, Commerce identified two distinct commercial levels of trade (“LOTs”) for NSK: (1) original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) in the home market; and (2) aftermarket (“AM”) customers. See Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 33,330. Commerce further determined that: (1) there was one constructed export price (“CEP”) LOT for NSK and two home market LOTs; (2) the CEP LOT was not the same as either one of the two home market LOTs; (3) there was no information on the record that would enable Commerce to quantify the price differences in the home market between the CEP LOT and either one of the two normal value (“NV”) LOTs, and make an LOT adjustment. See id. Instead, because the home market LOTs were at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT, Commerce made a CEP offset for all such sales. See id. Therefore, in comparing CEP LOT sales with NSK’s home market LOTs, Commerce applied a CEP offset to NV for all of NSK’s CEP transactions. See id. The CEP offset applied by Commerce was the sum of indirect selling expenses incurred on the home market sale up to the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on the United States sale. See id. B. Contentions op the Parties While not contesting the manner in which Commerce determined the LOT of CEP or NV transactions, and agreeing with: (1) the LOT methodology used for home market OEM sales; and (2) Commerce’s conclusion that “there was no record information that would allow Commerce to quantify the downward price adjustment to adjust fully the AM NV [LOT] to the CEP [LOT],” NSK maintains that Commerce erred in “Commerce’s conclusion not to calculate a partial LOT adjustment ... for CEP sales matched to AM NV sales based on the price differences between OEM NV and AM NV sales.” Mem. P. & A. Supp. NSK’s Mot. J. Agency R. (“NSK’s Mem.”) at 22 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, NSK claims that the pertinent statute and legislative history require Commerce to make such a partial LOT adjustment. See id. at 22-23. Moreover, examining the language of Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 22 CIT 424, 427-28, 8 F.Supp.2d. 862, 865-66 (1998), NSK asserts that the distinctions between Koyo Seiko Co., 22 CIT at 427-28, 8 F.Supp.2d at 865-66, and the case at bar support NSK’s conclusion that a partial LOT adjustment is warranted in the given circumstances. See NSK’s Mem. at 25. Commerce maintains that Commerce properly denied NSK a partial LOT adjustment, operating under the mandates of 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677b(a)(7)(A) and 1677b(a)(7)(B) (1994) and in accordance with Commerce’s practice. See Def.’s Mem. at 26-32. Torrington supports Commerce’s position and asserts that Commerce’s reading and application of the pertinent statutory provisions was reasonable. See Torrington’s Resp. at 12-16. C. Analysis The relevant statute provides that LOT shall be calculated in the following manner: The price described in [19 U.S.C. § 1677](1)(B) shall ... be increased or decreased to make due allowance for any difference (or lack thereof) between the export price or constructed export price and the price described in [19 U.S.C. § 1677](1)(B) (other than a difference for which allowance is otherwise made under this section) that is shown to be wholly or partly due to a difference in level of trade between the export price or constructed export price and normal value, if the difference in level of trade[:] (i) involves the performance of different selling activities; and (ii) is demonstrated to affect price comparability, based on a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different levels of trade in the country in which normal value is determined. In a case described in the preceding sentence, the amount of the adjustment shall be based on the price differences between the two levels of trade in the country in which normal value is determined. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(7)(A). Therefore, an LOT adjustment is to be made to price-based NV only for a difference that is shown to be wholly or partly due to a difference in LOT between the CEP (or export price) and NV. Conversely, the statute provides that [w]hen normal value is established at a level of trade which constitutes a more advanced stage of distribution than the level of trade of the constructed export price, but the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine under subparagraph ... (ii) [of 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(7)(A) ] a level of trade adjustment, normal value shall be reduced by the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the country in which normal value is determined on sales of the foreign[-]like product but not more than the amount of such expenses for which a deduction is made under Section 1677a(d)(l)(D) of this title. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(7)(B). In other words, 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(7)(B) provides for a CEP offset. Accordingly, Commerce’s practice at the time of the review was to refuse to calculate an LOT adjustment in those cases where the home market data does not demonstrate that a CEP LOT exists with respect to any transactions. Commerce later on reduced this principle to writing, and the pertinent regulation provides that [Commerce] will determine that a difference in level of trade has an effect on price comparability only if it is established to the satisfaction of [Commerce] that there is a 'pattern of consistent price differences between sales in the market in which normal value is determined: (i)[a]t the level of trade of the export price or constructed export price (whichever is appropriate); and (ii)[a]t the level of trade at which normal value is determined. 19 C.F.R. § 351.412(d) (1998) (emphasis supplied). The Court holds that Commerce’s conclusion that 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(7)(A) does not provide for LOT adjustments other than those based upon price differences in the home market between CEP LOT and NV LOT is reasonable. See, e.g., NSK Ltd. v. United States, 25 CIT -, 170 F.Supp.2d 1280 (2001); Torrington Co. v. United States, 25 CIT -, 146 F.Supp.2d 845 (2001); SNR Roulements v. United States, 24 CIT-, 118 F.Supp.2d 1333 (2000); NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 24 CIT -, 104 F.Supp.2d 110 (2000); Koyo Seiko Co., 22 CIT 424, 8 F.Supp.2d 862. As Commerce correctly observes, the mere fact that the language of Section 1677b(a)(7)(A) of Title 19 employs the term “partly” could be reasonably interpreted as providing that where there is a home market pattern of price differences between the level of trade of the CEP and the [LOT] of the NV, Commerce must adjust only for that portion of the price differences which is associated with the difference in [LOT]. However, there is no indication [in the statutory language or in the legislative history of the statute] that the pattern of price differences between two [LOTs] in the home market, absent a CEP [LOT] in the home market, [warrants an LOT] adjustment [, whether it is] “whole” or “partial.” Def.’s Mem. at 30 (emphasis supplied) Commerce explained that [Commerce] may make [LOT] adjustments when there is “any difference ... between the export price or constructed export price and the normal value that is shown to be wholly or partly due to a difference in the level of trade between the export price or the constructed export price and normal value.” [Commerce, however,] find[s] no explicit authority to make [an LOT] adjustment between two home-market [LOTs] where neither level is equivalent to the level of the [United States] sale. Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 33,331 (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(7)(A)). The Court agrees. Indeed, 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(7)(A) is particularly deferential to Commerce in circumstances in which Commerce calculates a CEP offset in lieu of an LOT adjustment. Section 1677b(a)(7)(A) explicitly provides that the LOT adjustment need not be made where an “allowance is otherwise made” under the statute, and this statement encompasses all alternative scenarios in which such allowance could be made. Therefore, the Court disagrees with NSK that Koyo Seiko Co., 22 CIT at 427, 8 F.Supp.2d at 865, is distinguishable from the case at bar solely upon the basis that the plaintiff in Koyo Seiko Co., 22 CIT at 427, 8 F.Supp.2d at 865, sought a full LOT adjustment based upon a constructed NV, whereas in the case at bar “actual price-based NVs exist by which Commerce can calculate a partial LOT adjustment.” NSK’s Mem. at 25. Section 1677b(a)(7)(A) only provides for LOT adjustments based upon price differences in the home market between the CEP level of trade and the NV level of trade. While the Court appreciates the point advanced by NSK, “Commerce’s interpretation ... is reasonable, in light of the existence of the CEP offset to cover situations such as those at issue.” Koyo Seiko Co., 22 CIT at 429, 8 F.Supp.2d at 866. Based on the foregoing, the Court holds that Commerce reasonably: (1) interpreted 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(7)(A) as a mandate precluding a partial LOT adjustment in those cases where the home market sales are not at the same LOT as the CEP LOT; and (2) denied NSK a partial LOT adjustment. III. Commerce’s Treatment of United States Repacking Expenses as Direct Selling Expenses A. Background NSK delivered the subject merchandise to unaffiliated customers in the United States from warehouses owned and operated by NSK. See NSK’s Mem. at 6. During the process of bringing the merchandise through NSK’s warehouses, NSK incurred a number of expenses. See id. at 6-7. Consequently, NSK provided Commerce with a list of those expenses and included, among other items, the expenses incurred during United States repacking of the merchandise. See id. at 7. While reducing the United States price of the merchandise for all other expenses listed by NSK in accordance with 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677a(c)(2)(A) and 1677a(d)(l) — (3) (1994), Commerce denied NSK an allowance for the repacking expenses under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(2)(A) and, instead, treated NSK’s United States repacking expenses as direct selling expenses pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l)(B). See Preliminary Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 6515; Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 33,339. B. Contentions of the Parties NSK asserts that Commerce erred in treating NSK’s United States repacking expenses as direct selling expenses pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l)(B). NSK maintains that United States repacking expenses: (1) constitute expenses incidental to bringing the subject merchandise from the original place of shipment in a foreign country to the place of delivery within the United States; and (2) differ from direct selling expenses associated with, for example, credit, guarantees, and warranties, that is, expenses that are entirely unrelated to the process of bringing the merchandise from the place of shipment to NSK’s unaffiliated customers in the United States. See NSK’s Mem. at 26-29. Therefore, NSK concludes that its United States repacking expenses should have been deducted pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(2)(A). See id. Commerce reads 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(2)(A) as a provision that applies to “transportation and other expenses, including warehousing expenses, incurred in bringing the subject merchandise from the original place of shipment in the exporting country to the place of delivery in the United States,” SAA, H.R. Doc. 103-316, at 823, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4163, and thus, allows Commerce’s treatment of NSK’s repacking expenses as direct selling expenses. See Def.’s Mem. at 33-34. Commerce further explains that Commerce does not disagree with NSK[’s] ... charaterization [sic.] of repacking expense as a warehousing expense. [Rather, Commerce] regard[s] repacking expense as a direct selling expense because it was performed on individual products in order to sell the merchandise to the unaffiliated customer in the United States. Warehousing expense, on the other hand, is merely an expense associated with storing the merchandise in a location before or during the movement process .... [Repacking does not have to be performed in order for merchandise to be moved while warehousing may be required in the movement process. Thus, [Commerce] concluded] that [the United States] repacking expense is an expense associated with selling the merchandise. Id. at 33 (quoting Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 33,339, emphasis omitted). Torrington generally agrees with Commerce’s arguments. See Torrington’s Resp. at 16-19. Torrington notes that Commerce’s treatment of NSK’s repacking expenses as selling rather than movement expenses is consistent with the statutory mandates of 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677a(c)(2)(A) and 1677a(d)(l)(B). See id. at 17-19. . C. ANALYSIS The Court is not convinced by NSK’s argument. First, Section 1677(d)(1)(B) of Title 19 does not provide an exhaustive list of direct selling expenses and, thus, its application cannot be limited only to the expenses associated with, for example, guarantees or warranties. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l)(B); accord SAA, H.R. DoC. 103-316 at 823, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4163 (stating that direct selling expenses under § 1677a(d)(l)(B) are not limited to credit expenses, guarantees and warranties, but include “expenses which result from and bear a direct relationship to the particular sale in question”). Therefore, it was reasonable for Commerce to treat repacking expenses as direct selling expenses deductible pursuant to Section 1677(d)(1)(B) because the repacking “was performed on individual products in order to sell the merchandise to the unaffiliated customer in the United States.” Def.’s Mem. at 34 (quoting Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 33,339). Second, the Court finds that NSK’s United States repacking expenses were not incidental to bringing the subject merchandise from the original place of shipment to the place of delivery in the United States. Conversely, the Court holds that Commerce acted reasonably in its refusal to view repacking expenses as movement expenses. The repacking of subject merchandise in the United States bears no relationship to moving the merchandise from one point to another. The fact that repacking is not necessary to move merchandise is borne out by the fact that the merchandise was moved from the exporting country to the United States prior to repacking. Rather, [Commerce] view[s] repacking expenses as direct selling expenses respondents incur on behalf of certain sales which [Commerce] deduet[s] pursuant to ... [Section 1677a(d)(l)(B) ] ..., which directs [that CEP shall be reduced] by “expenses that result from, and bear a direct relationship to, the sale, such as credit expenses, guarantees, and warranties.” Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 33,339; accord RHP Bearings, Ltd. v. United States, 24 CIT -, 120 F.Supp.2d 1116 (2000). Therefore, the Court affirms Commerce’s decision to treat NSK’s repacking expenses as direct selling expenses. See RHP Bearings, Ltd. v. United States, 24 CIT -, 110 F.Supp.2d 1043 (2000), vacated on other grounds, RHP Bearings, Ltd. v. United States, 288 F.3d 1334 (Fed.Cir.2002); NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 24 CIT -, 104 F.Supp.2d 110 (2000). IV. Denial of an Adjustment to United States Indirect Selling Expenses For Interest Allegedly Incurred in Financing Cash Deposits For Anti-dumping Duties A. Background During the review at issue, NTN requested Commerce to make an adjustment to NTN’s United States indirect selling expenses for interest allegedly incurred by NTN in financing cash deposits for anti-dumping duties. See Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 33,347-48. Commerce denied the adjustment and deducted the entire amount of indirect selling expenses, including all interest, from NTN’s CEP. See id. at 33,348. Commerce explained that [Commerce] should not remove such financial expenses from reported indirect selling expenses under any circumstances because they do not bear directly on an expense that parties incur solely as a result of the antidumping duty order; this holds regardless of whether the party claims any link to antidumping duty deposits or other expenses, such as legal fees. As [Commerce] ha[s] stated previously: money is fungible. If an importer acquires a loan to cover one operating cost, that may simply mean that it will not be necessary to borrow money to cover a different operating cost. Even if [NTN] has a loan amount that equals its cash deposits or can demonstrate a “paper trail” connecting the loan amount to cash deposits, [Commerce] do[es] not consider the loan amount to be related to the cash deposits and will not remove it from the indirect selling expenses. Moreover, the result should not be different where an actual expense can not be associated in any way with the cash deposits. [Commerce] reject[s] imputation of an adjustment both for this reason [as well as another reason]: there is no real opportunity cost associated with cash deposits when the paying of such deposits is a precondition for doing business in the United States. As a result, [Commerce] ha[s] not accepted NTN’s reduction in indirect selling expenses based on actual' borrowings to finance cash deposits nor will [Commerce] accept such a reduction based on imputed borrowings. [Commerce] considers] all financial expenses the affiliated importer incurred with respect to sales of subject merchandise in the United States to be indirect selling expenses.... Although [Commerce] ha[s] allowed removal of expenses for financing cash deposits in [one previous case, Commerce] reexamined this issue ... and concluded that the new policy best reflects commercial reality with respect to affiliated importer situations. Id. (internal quotation and citations omitted). B. Contentions of the Parties NTN asserts that Commerce wrongly denied an adjustment to NTN’s United States indirect selling expenses for interest that NTN allegedly incurred in financing cash deposits for antidumping duties. See Rule 56.2 Mot. and Mem. J. Agency R. Submitted Behalf Pis. and Def.-Intervenors, NTN (“NTN’s Mem.”) at 7, 11-13. NTN contends that the denial is inconsistent with Commerce’s previous position that the costs incurred solely in financing antidumping duty cash deposits cannot be categorized as selling expenses. See id. at 11 (citing Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 1438, 1440-41, 950 F.Supp. 1179, 1182-83 (1996), and Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Re-vieivs of Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom (“Previous Ruling”), 62 Fed.Reg. 2087, 2104 (Jan. 15, 1997)). Commerce maintains that Commerce’s denial of an adjustment to NTN’s United States indirect selling expenses for the expenses related to the financing of anti-dumping duty cash deposits reflected Commerce’s reasonable reading and application of the statutory mandate. See Def.’s Mem. at 34-39. Torrington supports Commerce’s contention and points out that: (1) “allowing [United States] selling expenses to be reduced in the manner claimed by NTN runs counter to the purpose of the antidumping law, which is to discourage the unfair practice of dumping,” Torrington’s Resp. at 20; and (2) NTN failed to demonstrate that it actually incurred interest expenses attributable to financing payment of antidumping duty cash deposits. See id. at 21. C. Analysis 1. Commerce’s Changes of Policy Agency statements provide guidance to regulated industries. While “ ‘an agency does not act rationally when it chooses and implements one policy and decides to consider the merits of a potentially inconsistent policy in the very near future,’ ” Transcom, Inc. v. United States, 24 CIT -, -, 123 F.Supp.2d 1372, 1381 (2000) (quoting ITT World Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 725 F.2d 732, 754 (D.C.Cir.1984)), Commerce, in view of the rapidly-changing world of global trade and Commerce’s limited resources, should be able to rely on its “unique expertise and policy-making prerogatives.” Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.Cir.2000). “ ‘The power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created ... program necessarily requires the formulation of policy....’” Chevron 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778 (quoting Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 231, 94 S.Ct. 1055, 39 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974)). An agency decision involving the meaning or reach of a statute that reconciles conflicting policies “ ‘represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency’s care by the statute, [and a reviewing court] should not disturb [an agency’s decision] unless it appears from the statute or its legislative history that the accommodation is not one that Congress would have sanctioned.’ ” Id. at 845, 104 S.Ct. 2778 (quoting United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 382-83, 81 S.Ct. 1554, 6 L.Ed.2d 908 (1961)). Furthermore, an agency must be allowed to assess the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis. Under the Chevron regime, agency discretion to reconsider policies is inalienable. See id. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. Any assumption that Congress intended to freeze an administrative interpretation of a statute would be entirely contrary to the concept of Chevron which assumes and approves of an administrative agency’s ability to change their interpretations. See, e.g., Peter Maier, P.E. v. United States EPA, 114 F.3d 1032, 1043 (10th Cir.1997), J.L. v. Social Sec. Admin., 971 F.2d 260, 265 (9th Cir.1992), Saco Defense Sys. Div., Maremont Corp. v. Weinberger, 606 F.Supp. 446, 450-51 (D.Me.1985). In sum, underlying agency interpretative policies “are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Chevron 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778. 2. Commerce’s Determination at Bar Certain expenses incurred by the affiliated seller during the process of selling the subject merchandise in the United States are subject to deduction from the CEP of the seller. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l). However, Section 1677a(d)(l) of Title 19 does not provide a closed and exhaustive list of such expenses. See id. Consequently, Commerce considers certain ancillary expenses as part of the incurred indirect expenses subject to deduction under Section 1677a(d)(l). For example, while anti-dumping duties and cash deposits have never been considered by Commerce as expenses deductible from United States price, see Final Results of Antidumping Duty 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 {“Later Ruling”), 62 Fed.Reg. 54,043, 54,079 (Oct. 17, 1997), interest expenses incurred in connection with selling activities in the United States were deemed deductible from United States price. See Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 33,348. Therefore, for those expenses that Commerce deemed to be non-selling expenses, Commerce allowed an adjustment to indirect selling expenses. See id. For some period of time, Commerce’s practice was to deem financing interest of cash deposits as not a selling expense and, therefore, Commerce did allow respondents that incurred financing interest of cash deposits to deduct such interest from indirect selling expenses prior to the deduction of such indirect selling expenses from the CEP. See Previous Ruling, 62 Fed.Reg. at 2104. However, at a later point, Commerce reexamined this practice and the policies underlying it. Specifically, Commerce observed that [t]he statute does not contain a precise definition of what constitutes a selling expense. Instead, Congress gave [Commerce] discretion in this area. It is a matter of policy whether [Commerce] consider^] there to be any financing expenses associated with cash deposits. [Commerce] recognize[s] that [Commerce] ha[s], to a limited extent, removed such expenses from indirect selling expenses for such financing expenses in past reviews.... However, [Commerce] ha[s] reconsidered [Commerce’s] position on this matter and ha[s] now concluded that this practice is inappropriate. Later Ruling, 62 Fed.Reg. at 54,079. Commerce has the discretion to alter its policy, so long as Commerce presents a reasonable rationale for its departure from the previous practice. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, Timken Co. v. United States, 22 CIT 621, 628, 16 F.Supp.2d 1102, 1106 (1998). Commerce explained its rationale for the reconsideration as follows: Underlying [Commerce’s] logic ... is an attempt to distinguish between business expenses that arise from economic activities in the United States and business expenses that are direct, inevitable consequences of the dumping order. Financial expenses allegedly associated with cash deposits are not a direct, inevitable consequence of an antidump-ing order.... Companies may choose to meet obligations for cash deposits in a variety of ways that rely on existing capital resources or that require raising new resources through debt or equity.... In fact, companies face these choices every day regarding all their expenses and financial obligations. There is nothing inevitable about a company having to finance cash deposits and there is no way for [Commerce] to trace the motivation or use of such funds even if it were. So, while under the statute [Commerce] may allow a limited exemption from deductions from [United States] price for cash deposits themselves and legal fees associated with participation in dumping eases, [Commerce] do[es] not see a sound basis for extending this exemption to financing expenses allegedly associated with financing cash deposits.... [Commerce] see[s] no merit to the argument that, since [Commerce] do[es] not deduct cash deposits from [United States] price, [Commerce] should also not deduct financing expenses that are arbitrarily associated with cash deposits. To draw an analogy as to why this logic is flawed, [Commerce] also do[es] not deduct corporate taxes from [United States] price; however, [Commerce] would not consider a reduction in selling expenses to reflect financing alleged to be associated with payment of such taxes. Later Ruling, 62 Fed.Reg. at 54,079. The Court finds Commerce’s rationale for reconsideration convincing. Cf. Timken Co., 22 CIT at 628, 16 F.Supp.2d at 1106 (upholding Commerce’s reconsideration and noting that, while the Court could be concerned with Commerce’s sudden change in practice, Commerce is afforded significant deference in its statutory interpretation). Moreover, the Court holds that Commerce’s current interpretation of Section 1677a(d)(l) is reasonable. Accord Chevron, 467 U.S. at 845, 104 S.Ct. 2778; Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 26 CIT -, —, 186 F.Supp.2d 1332, 1337 (2002); NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, — CIT -, -, 186 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1322 (2002). Therefore, the Court affirms Commerce’s decision to deny an adjustment to NTN’s United States indirect selling expenses for interest allegedly incurred by NTN in financing NTN’s cash deposits for antidumping duties. V. CommerCe’s Decision to InClude in United States Sales Database Sample Transactions That Were Allegedly Made For No Consideration A. Background In order to calculate a respondent’s margin of dumping, Commerce compares NY with export price (“EP”) or CEP. EP and CEP are defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) and (b) (1994), respectively. Each definition refers to the price at which the subject merchandise “is first sold ...” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) and (b) (emphasis supplied). In NSK Ltd. v. United States, 115 F.3d 965 (Fed.Cir.1997), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held that the usage of the term “sale” in 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(a) and (b) indicates a reference to a transaction involving a material consideration. Specifically, the CAFC clarified that, in order to be considered a sale within the meaning of the antidumping law, a transaction must involve “both a transfer of ownership to an unrelated party and consideration.” NSK, 115 F.3d at 975; accord SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 23 CIT 299, 53 F.Supp.2d 1330 (1999). In accordance with NSK 115 F.3d at 975, Commerce revised its policy with respect to sales of sample products. As a result of its revised policy, Commerce ex-eludes from the margin calculation sample transactions for which a respondent has established that there is either no transfer of ownership or no receipts of a consideration. See, e.g., Later Ruling, 62 Fed.Reg. at 54,070; Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 33,342. Commerce, however, noticed that Commerce would not automatically exclude from its dumping analysis any transaction merely because the transaction is labeled by a respondent as a “sample sale.” Commerce explained that [i]n light of the CAFC’s opinion, [Commerce] ha[s] reevaluated and revised [its] policy with respect to sales of sample products. Therefore, pursuant to the CAFC’s opinion, [Commerce] now excludes from the margin calculation sample transactions for which a respondent has established that there is [either] no transfer of ownership [or] no consideration. This new policy does not mean that [Commerce] automatically excludes from analysis any transaction to which a respondent applies the label “sample.” In fact, in these reviews, [Commerce] determined that there were instances where [Commerce] should not exclude such alleged samples from [Commerce’s] dumping analysis. It is well-established that the burden of proof rests with the party in possession of the needed information. ... In several cases ... respondents failed to demonstrate or to submit documentation to show that their claimed sample sales lacked consideration. When respondents failed to support their sample claim, [Commerce] did not exclude the alleged samples from [Commerce’s] margin analysis. Because the inclusion of zero-priced transactions in the home-market database would benefit respondents by lowering average normal value, however, [Commerce] excluded zero-priced items from the home-market database when such unsupported transactions occurred in the home market. Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 33,342. B. Contentions of the Parties NTN contends that Commerce acted contrary to NSK, 115 F.3d 965, and SKF, 23 CIT 299, 53 F.Supp.2d 1330, when it included NTN’s sample sales in NTN’s United States sales database. See NTN’s Mem. at 13. Commerce maintains that Commerce properly included NTN’s zero-priced United States sales in NTN’s United States sales database and NTN’s dumping margin calculation as “facts available.” See Def.’s Mem. at 4(M5. Specifically, Commerce maintains that this action was warranted since “NTN withheld information requested by Commerce which would have permitted Commerce to evaluate whether NTN received consideration for these transactions.” Id. at 39-40. Torrington supports Commerce’s position and asserts that NTN’s zero-price transactions could be not free of broader forms of consideration as a part of some broad contractual agreement. See Torrington’s Resp. at 22-24. In addition, Torrington suggests that NTN could have been offering free samples to its clients as a part of a paid-for package, for example “ten [paid-for] units plus a [free] sample.” See id. at 23 (internal quotation omitted). C. Analysis Commerce is correct in its reading of the language of NSK 115 F.3d at 975, as stating that Commerce is not obligated to exclude any transaction from the United States sales database merely because such transaction is labeled as a sample sale. Cf. Def.’s Mem. at 41. Similarly, Commerce is correct in its conclusion that nothing in the statutory mandate or in the holding of NSK, 115 F.3d at 975, precludes Commerce from requiring a party to demonstrate that it received no consideration in return for the samples. See id. During the review at issue, Commerce distributed its questionnaire that requested respondents to identify reported sample transactions by a pertinent code and, in addition: (1) define transactions placed in a sample sale category; (2) describe how the orders for these sales were communicated; (3) list documents available to demonstrate that these sales were samples; and (4) state whether the customer in question purchased these particular items before the date of the claimed sample sale and, if so, the amount of items previously purchased. See NTN’s Mem. Ex. 2. In response, NTN stated that the samples were provided to customers for the purpose of allowing the customer to determine whether a particular product is suited to the customer’s needs and described NTN’s process of furnishing samples as follows: (1) a customer requests a sample; (2) the sample is being coded and the order number is recorded; and (3) there are no references made to the issue of whether the customer may have purchased the particular items previously. See id. NTN also clarified that a sample could be requested for any new application, regardless of previous furnishments of the same sample or purchases of the product identical to the sample. See id. Examining these responses, Commerce concluded that NTN failed to respond adequately to Commerce’s questions. See Def.’s Mem. at 43. Therefore, Commerce determined that it was appropriate to resort to facts available and to draw an adverse inference. See id. Commerce concluded that the information provided by NTN left Commerce in the dark on the issue of whether the items were provided as samples or as a discount in conjunction with other sales. See id. at 43-44. Consequently, Commerce included NTN’s claimed sample sales in NTN’s United States sales database because Commerce expected NTN, the party in possession of the pertinent information, to carry the burden of producing that information, particularly when NTN was seeking a favorable adjustment or exclusion. See id., see also Final Results, 63 Fed. Reg. at 33,343. Specifically, Commerce concluded that it was reasonable for Commerce to resort to “facts available” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2)(A) (1994) since Commerce’s determination was handicapped by NTN’s failure to clarify the history of parties receiving samples. See Def.’s Mem. at 43-44. While the Court disagrees with Commerce on the applicability of 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2)(A) and the reference to the usage of “facts available,” the Court holds that Commerce’s decision to include the sales designated by NTN as sample ones in NTN’s United States sales is reasonable. Indeed, the Court sees little reason in supplying and re-supplying and yet resupplying the very same sample to the very same customer in order to persuade the customer to purchase the item, if such supplies are made within reasonably short periods of time. It would be even less logical to supply a sample to a client that has made a recent bulk purchase of the very item being sampled to the client. Therefore, Commerce’s interest in the history of the samples furnished to particular clients was entirely legitimate. Commerce is correct in its observation that “[i]t is well settled that the party in possession of information has the burden of producing that information in order to obtain a favorable adjustment or exclusion.” Def.’s Mem. at 44 (relying on Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 988 F.2d 1573, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1993); Timken Co. v. United States, 11 CIT 786, 804, 673 F.Supp. 495, 513 (1987)). In the case at bar, NTN was the party either in possession of the information regarding the purchase history of its alleged samples, including the price and quantity for any prior or subsequent purchases of these products by the same or other customers, or the party obligated to create and preserve such information in order to obtain a more favorable margin. NTN’s failure to either trace or supply such information to Commerce does not impose an obligation on Commerce to interpret the gaps of information in NTN’s favor. Indeed, the statutory mandate and the language of NSK, 115 F.3d at 975, applies only to those situations when a respondent can show that the transaction at issue was a sample sale for no consideration. Neither the statute nor NSK 115 F.3d at 975, encompass the infinite variety of situations where Commerce could hypothesize that the transactions under review could have been sample sales for no consideration. As Commerce correctly observes, “NTN cannot be excused from responding to Commerce’s questions because, in [NTN’s] view, the history of prior purchases of samples ‘does not affect the status of subsequent sales.’ ” Def.’s Mem. at 44 (quoting NTN’s Mem. Ex. 2). Indeed, it is for Commerce and not for the respondents to deter