Full opinion text
OPINION TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge. Plaintiffs, NTN Bearing Corporation of America, American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corporation, NTN Bower, Inc. and NTN Corporation (collectively “NTN”), move pursuant to USCIT R. 56.2 for judgment upon the agency record challenging the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s (“Commerce”) final determination, entitled Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearing's, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan {“Final Results”), 63 Fed.Reg. 63,-860 (Nov. 17,1998). Specifically, NTN contends that Commerce erred in: (1) adjusting NTN’s reported home market billing adjustment; (2) denying an adjustment to United States indirect selling expenses for interest allegedly incurred in financing cash deposits for antidumping duties; (3) calculating constructed export price profit without regard to levels of trade; (4) including profits from export price sales in the calculation of constructed export price profit; (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 home market and United States indirect selling expenses without regard to level of trade; (7) denying a price-based level of trade adjustment for constructed export price sales; (8) applying a 99.5% test to determine whether sales to NTN’s affiliated parties were made at arm’s length; (9) including sample transactions that were allegedly made for no consideration; (10) including certain NTN sales allegedly outside the ordinary course of trade in Commerce’s margin calculations and in Commerce’s constructed value profit calculations; (11) relying upon the sum-of-deviations methodology for Commerce’s model match analysis; (12) using its level of trade sales match program; and (13) using an incorrect level of trade adjustment factor for certain export price sales. BACKGROUND The administrative determination at issue concerns the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings (“TRBs”) and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from Japan (A-588-604), for the period of review (“POR”) covering October 1, 1996, through September 30, 1997. See Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 63,860-61. On July 10, 1998, Commerce published the preliminary results. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan (‘Preliminary Results”), 63 Fed. Reg. 37,344. Commerce published the Final Results on November 17,1998. See 63 Fed.Reg. 63,860. JURISDICTION The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a) (2000) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2000). STANDARD OF REVIEW In reviewing a challenge to Commerce’s final determination in an antidumping 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., 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’ 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 Adjustment to NTN’s Reported Home Market Billing Adjustment A. Background During the POR, NTN provided Commerce with “its [home market] sales data via computer tape.” Mem. Opp’n Pis.’ Mot. J. Agency R. (“Def.’s Mem.”) at 9-10. Commerce used the home market sales data from the computer tape and calculated both a positive and negative home market billing adjustment for NTN. See id. at 10 (citing App. NTN’s Mot. and Mem. Supp. J. Agency R. (“NTN’s App. Mem.”) Attach. 3 at 2-3 n. 1) (proprietary version). NTN also provided Commerce with “its [home market] sales volume and value reconciliation worksheet” which contained a total positive home market billing adjustment. Def.’s Mem. at 10 (citing App. Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Pis.’ Mot. J. Agency R. (“Def.’s App. Mem.”) Ex. 1 (proprietary version); NTN’s App. Mem. Attach. 2 at A2-a (proprietary version)). In the Final Results, Commerce stated: [Commerce] agrees with [Timken], In [Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan ] {“95/96 TRB Final”), [63 Fed.Reg. 2558, 2563 (Jan. 15, 1998) ], Timken argued that because there were certain inconsistencies between NTN’s computer tape home market billing adjustment total and the billing adjustment figure reported in NTN’s volume and value worksheet, [Commerce] should modify accordingly the reported adjustments to be consistent with those appearing on the volume and value reconciliation worksheets.... For the current review, as Timken has indicated, these same inconsistencies exist between NTN’s reported data and its volume and value reconciliation worksheets (provided [in NTN’s App. Mem. Attach. 2 at] A2-a through A2-c [ (proprietary version) ] ... ). NTN attempts to explain such inconsistencies in its supplemental response at [Def.’s App. Mem. Ex. 1 at] 4 [ (proprietary version) ] and at [NTN’s App. Mem. Attach. 2 at] A2-e [ (proprietary version) ], using a hypothetical example which purportedly demonstrates why it claims the totals reported on the sales tape and the totals reported on the volume and value worksheet are not necessarily equal. However, NTN’s attempt to reconcile these totals does not sufficiently explain the significant discrepancies between them. Therefore, for these final results, [Commerce] ha[s] adjusted NTN’s reported home market billing adjustment total to be consistent with that on its volume and value worksheet. ... Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 63,861. Commerce explained its methodology stating that [because the] billing adjustment reconciliation chart provided by NTN did not clearly demonstrate why there was such a significant difference between the billing adjustment totals [that is, between NTN’s volume and value worksheet and the total billing adjustment derived from NTN’s home market database] ... [Commerce] adjusted NTN’s reported transaction-specific billing adjustments to reflect the total from its volume and value worksheet. .... In order to calculate a billing adjustment amount representative of the volume and value worksheet [amount], [Commerce] systematically sorted through NTN’s home market database until [Commerce] arrived at a [certain value], that, when added to the existing positive billing adjustment value ... equaled the total reported billing adjustment from the worksheet. The remaining negative billing adjustments were then set equal to zero. NTN’s App. Mem. Attach. 3 at 3. B. Contentions of the Parties NTN argues that Commerce erred when it used facts available to “adjust NTN’s total billing adjustment in the home market.” NTN’s Mot. and Mem. Supp. J. Agency R. (“NTN’s Mem.”) at 12; see NTN’s Reply Def. and Def.-Int.’s Mem. Opposing Pis.’ Mot. J. Agency R. (“NTN’s Reply”) at 2-3. In particular, NTN maintains that there is no basis under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (1994) for Commerce to use facts available. See NTN’s Mem. at 13; see also NTN’s Mem. at 13-14 (relying on Olympic Adhesives v. United States, 899 F.2d 1565 (Fed.Cir.1990)). Therefore, NTN requests that this Court remand to Commerce to use NTN’s originally submitted data for the total billing adjustment in the home market. See NTN’s Mem. at 14; NTN’s Reply at 2-3. In the alternative, NTN argues that even if Commerce was correct in adjusting NTN’s reported home market billing adjustments, Commerce’s “methodology is flawed in that it only accounts for billing and quantity adjustments during the period of review” (that is, Commerce ignored billing adjustments made before and after the period of review). NTN’s Mem. at 14-15. Commerce responds that its treatment of NTN’s home market billing adjustments is supported by substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. See Def.’s Mem. at 9-16. Commerce maintains that “ ‘[n]either the pre-URAA nor the amended law imposes standards establishing the circumstances under which Commerce is to grant or deny [billing] adjustments to normal value [ (“NV”) ].’ ” Def.’s Mem. at 14 (quoting Timken Co. v. United States, 22 CIT 621, 628, 16 F.Supp.2d 1102, 1108 (1998)). Moreover, Commerce argues that “[t]his Court has previously upheld disparate treatment by Commerce of upward and downward [home market] billing adjustments.” Def.’s Mem. at 13; see also Def.’s Mem. at 13-14 (relying on SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 23 CIT 402 (1999)). Additionally, responding to NTN’s argument that Commerce erroneously ignored billing adjustments made before and after the period of review, Commerce asserts that “Commerce considered all the billing adjustment information submitted by NTN[ ] ... [and] chose to accept the positive billing adjustment total from NTN’s volume and value worksheet because NTN failed to meet its burden to reconcile that billing adjustment total with the different totals drawn from NTN’s computer tape sales data.” Def.’s Mem. at 15 (citing Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 63,861). Commerce further maintains that it requested that NTN clarify its claimed billing adjustments, and NTN failed to do so. See Def.’s Mem. at 16 (citing Def.’s App. Mem. Ex. 1 at 4 (proprietary version)). Timken agrees with Commerce and contends that NTN’s argument that Commerce erroneously used “facts available” to adjust NTN’s home market billing adjustment is misplaced because “Commerce’s adjustment to NTN’s billing adjustments was simply an action to reconcile conflicting data which NTN had submitted on the same issue.” Resp. Timken Pis.’ Mot. J. Agency R. (“Timken’s Resp.”) at 8; see also Timken’s Resp. at 7-12. C. Analysis The Court finds that NTN’s argument that Commerce erroneously used “facts available” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e when Commerce adjusted NTN’s billing adjustment in the home market has no merit since NTN clearly misreads the clear language of that statute. The anti-dumping statute mandates that Commerce use “facts otherwise available” (commonly referred to as “facts available”) if “necessary information is not available on the record” of an antidumping proceeding. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(1). In addition, Commerce may use facts available where an interested party or any other person: (1) withholds information that has been requested by Commerce; (2) fails to provide the requested information by the requested date or in the form and manner requested, subject to 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(c)(1), (e) (1994); (3) significantly impedes an antidumping proceeding; and (4) provides information that cannot be verified as provided in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) (1994). See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2)(A)-(D). Section 1677e(a) provides, however, that the use of facts available shall be subject to the limitations set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) (1994). The legislative goal behind Commerce’s right to use facts available is to “induce respondents to provide Commerce with requested information in a timely, complete, and accurate manner.... ” National Steel Corp. v. United States, 18 CIT 1126, 1129, 870 F.Supp. 1130, 1134 (1994). Consequently, Commerce enjoys very broad, although not unlimited, discretion with regard to the propriety of its use of facts available. See generally, Olympic Adhesives, 899 F.2d 1565 (acknowledging Commerce’s broad discretion with regard to the use of facts available but pointing out that Commerce’s resort to facts available is an abuse of discretion where the information Commerce requests does not and could not exist). During the review at issue, NTN reported home market billing adjustments via its computer tape. See Def.’s Mem. at 9-10; NTN’s App. Mem. Attach. 3 at 2. Pursuant to Commerce’s supplemental questionnaire, NTN also provided Commerce with a sales volume and value reconciliation worksheet. See Def.’s Mem. at 10; NTN’s App. Mem. Attach. 3 at 2-3 (proprietary version); NTN’s App. Mem. Attach. 2 at A2-a (proprietary version). In the Final Results, Commerce stated that inconsistencies exist between NTN’s reported data and its volume and value reconciliation worksheets (provided [in NTN’s App. Mem. Attach. 2 at] A2-a through A2-c [ (proprietary version) ] ... ). NTN attempts to explain such inconsistencies in its supplemental response at [Def.’s App. Mem. Ex. 1 at] ... 4 [ (proprietary version) ] and at [NTN’s App. Mem. Attach. 2 at] A2-e [ (proprietary version) ], using a hypothetical example which purportedly demonstrates why it claims the totals reported on the sales tape and the totals reported on the volume and value worksheet are not necessarily equal. However, NTN’s attempt to reconcile these totals does not sufficiently explain the significant discrepancies between them. Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 63,861. Faced with the situation where the “billing adjustment reconciliation chart provided by NTN did not clearly demonstrate why there was such a significant difference between the billing adjustment totals” that is, between NTN’s volume and value worksheet and the total billing adjustment derived from NTN’s home market database, “[Commerce] adjusted NTN’s reported transaction-specific billing adjustments to reflect the total from its volume and value worksheet.” NTN’s App. Mem. Attach. 3 at 3. Since Commerce did not resort to any data other than that reported by NTN, Commerce’s adjustment to NTN’s reported billing adjustment did not constitute the “erroneous” use of “facts available” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. The Court also finds that Commerce’s methodology of adjusting NTN’s reported home market billing adjustments is reasonable, is supported by substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. See NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States (“NTN 2002”), 26 CIT —, —, 186 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1295-97 (2002); 95/96 TRB Final, 63 Fed.Reg. at 2563; see also Timken Co., 22 CIT at 628, 16 F.Supp.2d at 1108 (“Neither the pre-URAA nor the ... amended [law] imposes standards establishing the circumstances under which Commerce is to grant or deny adjustments to NV for [post-sale price adjustments, that is, billing adjustments]”). Moreover, the Court is not persuaded by NTN’s argument that Commerce’s methodology is flawed because NTN fails to point to any record evidence demonstrating error in Commerce’s adjustment methodology. Accordingly, the Court sustains Commerce’s adjustment to NTN’s reported home market billing adjustments. II. 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 63,865. “Commerce denied the adjustment and deducted the entire amount of [NTN’s] indirect selling expenses, including all interest, from the [constructed export price] (‘CEP’).” Def.’s Mem. at 17. Commerce explained: Antidumping duties, cash deposits of an-tidumping duties, and other expenses such as legal fees associated with participation in an antidumping case are not expenses that [Commerce] should deduct from [United States] price. To do so would involve a circular logic that could result in an unending spiral of deductions for an amount that is intended to represent the actual offset for the dumping.... Underlying [Commerce’s] logic in all of these instances 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 an antidumping duty order. Financial expenses allegedly associated with cash deposits are not a direct, inevitable consequence of an antidumping duty order. As [Commerce] 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.... 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. 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 because 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 in past reviews [Commerce] ha[s] removed expenses for financing cash deposits, [Commerce] ha[s] reexamined this issue and [Commerce’s] current policy is to deny the adjustment. [Commerce] has concluded that [Commerce’s] new policy is reasonable and best reflects commercial reality with respect to affiliated-importer situations .... Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 63,865-66 (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 NTN’s Mem. at 4, 15-18. NTN claims that Commerce’s rationale for denying NTN’s adjustment for interest expenses is flawed because irrespective of how a company opts to finance the cash deposits for antidumping duties, the amount of cash deposited will have to be made up by financing something else, a result that is a direct inevitable consequence of the anti-dumping duty order. See id. at 16. Further, NTN notes that Commerce has previously taken the position that interest expenses incurred in financing cash deposits of antidumping duties cannot be properly treated as indirect selling expenses and, therefore, has allowed for an interest-expense adjustment on antidumping duty cash deposits. See id. (citing Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews 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)). NTN also asserts that this Court has repeatedly held that the costs incurred solely in financing antidumping duty cash deposits cannot be categorized as selling expenses. See NTN’s Mem. at 16-17. In particular, NTN argues that Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 1438, 1440-41, 950 F.Supp. 1179, 1182-83 (1996), clearly refutes Commerce’s decision to deny NTN’s interest-expense adjustment. See NTN’s Mem. at 18. NTN notes that the court in Federal-Mogul found that there was no support for a domestic party’s “assertion that any expense related to antidumping proceedings is automatically a selling expense related to the sale of the subject merchandise. Indeed, pursuant to the rationale of (Daewoo Elecs. Co. v. United States, 13 CIT 253, 270, 712 F.Supp. 931, 947 (1989)), such expenses are not necessarily selling expenses.” Id. at 17 (quoting Federal-Mogul, 20 CIT at 1440-41, 950 F.Supp. at 1183). NTN points out that the court in Federal-Mogul found that, similar to the Daewoo court’s holding that legal expenses related to anti-dumping proceedings are not selling expenses, the interest expenses at issue did not qualify as selling expenses because they were not related to the sale of merchandise, but to NTN’s participation in the antidumping proceeding. See NTN’s Mem. at 18. NTN further points out that the court in Federal-Mogul “rejected the domestic party’s argument that NTN’s interest adjustment is duplicative of that allowed under the statute” and found “the adjustment for expenses for interest expenses on cash deposits is an actual expense, although not a selling expense, for which the statute does not compensate NTN.” Id. NTN also notes that in NSK Ltd. v. United States, 21 CIT 617, 638, 969 F.Supp. 34, 55 (1997), the Court reaffirmed its decision in Federal-Mogul to allow NTN’s adjustment for interest expenses on antidumping duty cash deposits. See id. NTN requests that the Court remand this issue to Commerce to grant NTN’s indirect selling expense adjustment for interest NTN allegedly incurred in financing cash deposits for antidumping duties. See id.; NTN’s Reply at 6. Commerce maintains that Commerce’s denial of an adjustment to NTN’s United States indirect selling expenses for interest allegedly incurred in financing anti-dumping duty cash deposits reflected Commerce’s reasonable reading and application of 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1) (1994). See Def.’s Mem. at 18-20. Commerce further maintains that it “has set forth a ... reasonable rationale for its departure from the previous practice.” Id. at 20. Timken supports Commerce’s contentions and points out that: (1) “the purpose of the statutory provision for interest on over and under deposits of duties would be defeated by allowing an expense reduction for interest on cash deposits,” Timken’s Resp. at 14; and (2) “NTN failed to demonstrate that it actually incurred interest expenses due to financing antidumping duty cash deposits,” id. at 15. 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 [the agency decision] unless it appears from the statute or its legislative history that the accommodation is not one that Congress would have sanctioned.’” Chevron, 467 U.S. 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 Chevron, 467 U.S. 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 the ability of administrative agencies to change their interpretations. See, e.g., 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)(1). 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)(1). 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 63,865-66. 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] recognizefs] 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., 22 CIT at 628, 16 F.Supp.2d at 1106. 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 then-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 cases, [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; see also Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 63,865-66 and 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, 63 Fed.Reg. 33,320, 33,348 (June 18, 1998). 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)(1) is reasonable. See 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 2002, 26 CIT at —, 186 F.Supp.2d at 1278; NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States (“NTN 2000”), 24 CIT —, —, 104 F.Supp.2d 110, 138 (2000), aff'd, 295 F.3d 1263 (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 anti-dumping duties. III. Commerce’s Decision to Calculate Constructed Export Price Profit Without Regard to Levels of Trade A. Background 1. Statutory Background In calculating CEP, Commerce must reduce the starting price used to establish CEP by “the profit allocated to the expenses described in paragraphs (1) and (2)” of 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d) (1994). 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(3). Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f) (1994), the “profit” that is deducted from this starting price is “determined by multiplying the total actual profit by [a] percentage” calculated “by dividing the total United States expenses by the total expenses.” 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677a(f)(1) and (2)(A). Section 1677a(f)(2)(B) defines “total United States expenses” as the total expenses deducted under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1) and (2), that is, commissions, direct and indirect selling expenses, assumptions, and the cost of any further manufacture or assembly in the United States. Section 1677a(f)(2)(C) establishes a tripartite hierarchy of methods for calculating “total expenses.” “Total expenses” could be the “expenses incurred with respect to the subject merchandise sold in the United States and the foreign like product sold in the exporting country” if Commerce requested such expenses for the purpose of determining NV and CEP. Id. 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C)(i). If Commerce did not request these expenses, then “total expenses” are the “expenses incurred with respect to the narrowest category of merchandise sold in the United States and the exporting country which includes the subject merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C)(ii). If the data necessary to determine “total expenses” under either of these methods is not available, then “total expenses” are the “expenses incurred with respect to the narrowest category of merchandise sold in all countries which includes the subject merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C)(iii). “Total actual profit” is based on whichever category of merchandise is used to calculate “total expenses” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C). See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(D). 2. Factual Background During this POR, NTN argued that profit levels differed by level of trade (“LOT”) and had an effect on prices and CEP profit and, therefore, Commerce should calculate CEP profit on an LOT-specific basis rather than for each class or kind of merchandise. See Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 63,866. NTN reasoned that 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C) “expresses a preference for the [CEP] profit calculations to be performed as specifically as possible and on as narrow a basis as possible.” Id. Commerce rejected NTN’s argument, concluding that: (1) “[n]either the statute nor the [Statement of Administrative Action] (‘SAA’) requires [Commerce] to calculate CEP profit on a basis more specific than the subject merchandise as a whole”; (2) basing the CEP profit calculation on an LOT specific basis would “add a layer of complexity to an already complicated exercise with no increase in accuracy”; and (3) a “subdivision [of] the CEP profit calculation would be more susceptible to manipulation.” Id. (Commerce also relied on its detailed explanation made in the sixth review of the antifriction bearings (“AFBs”)). B. Contentions of the Parties NTN contends that Commerce erred by-refusing to calculate CEP profit on an LOT specific basis. See NTN’s Mem. at 18. NTN argues that 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f) expresses a preference for the CEP profit calculation to be performed as specifically as possible. See id. at 19. Moreover, NTN claims that since constructed value (“CV”) profit is calculated by LOT and matching is by LOT, CEP profit should be calculated to account for differences in LOT. See id. at 20. NTN asserts that “[t]here is no reason to use a less specific, less accurate mode of calculation.” Id. NTN further asserts that Commerce’s speculation that an adjustment is susceptible to manipulation provides no grounds for rejecting an adjustment. See id. at 19. Commerce responds that it properly determined CEP profit without regard to LOT. See Def.’s Mem. at 22. Commerce notes that 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f) does not refer to LOT, that is, the statute does not require that CEP profit be calculated on an LOT specific basis. See id. at 23. Moreover, Commerce asserts that even assuming that a narrower basis for the CEP profit calculation is warranted in some circumstances, NTN has not provided any factual support for such a deviation from Commerce’s standard methodology for calculating CEP profit. See id. at 24. Timken generally agrees with Commerce’s CEP profit calculation. See Timken’s Resp. at 16-18. In addition, Timken argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the issue of Commerce’s calculation of CEP profit without regard to LOT because Commerce did not ultimately make an adjustment to NTN’s United States sales for CEP profit. Timken’s Resp. at 17 (proprietary version). C. Analysis Section 1677a(f), as Commerce correctly notes, does not make any reference to LOT. Accordingly, the Court’s duty under Chevron, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, is to review the reasonableness of Commerce’s statutory interpretation. See IPSCO, 965 F.2d at 1061 (citing Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778). Commerce’s refusal to calculate CEP profit on an LOT specific basis is reasonable and in accordance with law. See NTN 2000, 24 CIT at —, 104 F.Supp.2d at 133-35. The language of the statute clearly contemplates that, in general, the “narrowest category” will include the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of an investigation or review. See id., 24 CIT at —, 104 F.Supp.2d at 133-35. Subsections (ii) and (iii) of 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C)’s “total expense” definition lead to such a conclusion because both subsections refer to “expenses incurred with respect to the narrowest category of merchandise ... which includes the subject merchandise.” See id., 24 CIT at —, 104 F.Supp.2d at 135. The term “subject merchandise” is defined as “the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of an investigation, a review, a suspension agreement, an order under this subtitle or section 1303 of this title, or a finding under the Antidumping Act, 1921.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(25) (1994). Accordingly, the Court finds that Commerce reasonably interpreted 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f) in refusing to apply a narrower subcategory of merchandise such as one based on LOT. The Court, moreover, agrees with Commerce’s conclusion that a subdivision of the “CEP profit calculation would be more susceptible to manipulation,” a result that Congress specifically warned Commerce to prevent. Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 63,866. Finally, the Court agrees with Commerce that NTN failed to provide adequate factual support of how the CEP profit calculation was distorted by Commerce’s standard methodology. IV. Commerce’s Decision to Include Profits From Export Price Sales in the Calculation of CEP Profit A. Background Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(3), Commerce must, in order to calculate CEP, deduct “the profit allocated to the expenses described in” 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677a(d)(1) and (2) from the price charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. “Profit” is defined as “an amount determined by multiplying the total actual profit by the applicable percentage,” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(1), and “actual profit” is defined as the “total profit earned ... with respect to the sale of the same merchandise for which total expenses are determined....” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(D). The term “total expenses” means “all expenses in the first of [three] categories which applies and which are incurred by or on behalf of the foreign producer and foreign exporter of the subject merchandise and by or on behalf of the United States seller affiliated with the producer or exporter with respect to the production and sale of such merchandise....” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C). The first category covers “expenses incurred with respect to the subject merchandise sold in the United States and the foreign like product sold in the exporting country....” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C)(i). “Subject merchandise,” in turn, is defined as “the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of ... a review....” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(25). In the Final Results, Commerce included export price (“EP”) sales in the calculation of CEP profit. See generally, 63 Fed. Reg. at 63,866. B. Contentions of the Parties NTN contends that the statute clearly states that the adjustment of profit to the CEP is to be based on expenses incurred in the United States as a percentage of total expenses and that there is no provision in the statute for the inclusion of EP expenses or profit in this calculation. See NTN’s Mem. at 20-22. NTN deduces, therefore, that Commerce erred by including EP sales in the calculation of CEP profit. See id. at 20. Specifically, NTN relies on the definition of the term “total expenses.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C). NTN maintains that the specific reference to CEP within the definition precludes Commerce from the inclusion of EP expenses in the calculation of CEP profit. See generally NTN’s Mem. at 20-21. NTN further states that “just as EP expenses cannot be considered, it follows logically that sales revenue for EP sales also cannot be included” in the calculation of CEP profit since the definition of “total actual profit,” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(D), “directly references the definition of total expenses.” Id at 21-22. NTN, therefore, requests that EP sales be removed from NTN’s CEP profit adjustment calculation. See id. at 22. Commerce contends that the inclusion of revenues and expenses resulting from NTN’s EP sales in the calculation of CEP profit was in accordance with law because it was a reasonable interpretation of the statutory mandates of sections 1677a(f)(2)(C) and (D) and 1677(25) of Title 19. See Def.’s Mem. at 25-27. Specifically, Commerce points out that the term “subject merchandise” is defined as “ ‘the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of ... a review...Id. at 26-27 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1677(25)). Commerce notes that the term “subject merchandise” is referred to in the statute that defines “total expenses,” see 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C)(i), and therefore “total expenses” encompasses NTN’s EP and CEP sales. See Def.’s Mem. at 28. Commerce further articulates that: [Commerce’s September 4, 1997] Policy Bulletin ... indicates that section [1677a(f)(2)(D) ] ... clearly states that the calculation of total actual profit is to include all revenues and expenses resulting from the respondent’s EP sales as well as from its CEP and home market sales. The basis for total actual profit is the same as the basis for total expenses under [19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C) ]. The first alternative under [19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C) ] states that, for purposes of determining profit, the term “total expenses” refers to all expenses incurred with respect to the subject merchandise sold in the United States (as well as in the home market). Thus, where the respondent makes both EP and CEP sales to the United States, sales of the subject merchandise would necessarily encompass all such transactions. Therefore, as in the 95/96 TRB Final, [68 Fed.Reg. 2558], because NTN had EP sales, [Commerce] ... included these sales in the calculation of CEP profit. Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 63,866. Timken agrees with Commerce and contends that Commerce reasonably calculated CEP profit on the basis of all United States sales, including EP sales. See Timken’s Resp. at 18-19. C. Analysis Based upon the above-defined statutory scheme, Commerce concluded that where a respondent made both EP and CEP sales, “sales of the subject merchandise” encompassed all such transactions and, therefore, Commerce could “reasonably interpret] the statutory scheme as providing that the calculation of total actual profit is to include all revenues and expenses resulting from the respondent’s EP sales as well as from its CEP and home market sales.” Def.’s Mem. at 27. Commerce’s September 4,1997 Policy Bulletin provides: The calculation of total actual profit under [19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(D) ] includes all revenues and expenses resulting from the respondent’s [EP] sales as well as from its constructed export price and home market sales.... The basis for total actual profit is the same as the basis for total expenses under [19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C) ]. The first alternative under this section ... states that, for purposes of determining profit, the term “total expenses” refers to all expenses incurred with respect to the subject merchandise sold in the United States (as well as home market expenses). Thus, where the respondent makes both EP and CEP [sales], sales of the subject merchandise would encompass all such transactions.' Def.’s Mem. at 27. The SAA further clarifies the point and states the following: The total expenses are all expenses incurred by or on behalf of the foreign producer and exporter and the affiliated seller in the United States with respect to the production and sale of the first of the following alternatives which applies: (1) the subject merchandise sold in the United States and the foreign like product sold in the exporting country (if Commerce requested this information in order to determine the normal value and the constructed export price).... H.R. Doc. 103-316 at 824. Based upon its interpretation of the statutory language and upon the SAA’s reference to CEP, NTN claims that there are only two categories of expenses that Commerce could use in calculating CEP profit: those used to calculate NV and those used to calculate CEP. See NTN’s Mem. at 21. Additionally, NTN states that just as EP expenses cannot be used in calculating CEP profit, neither can sales revenue be used for EP sales since the definition of “total actual profit” under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(D) refers to the definition of “total expenses” in 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C). See id. at 21-22. NTN, however, ignores two issues. To start, the first category of total expenses under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C) is not limited to expenses incurred with respect to CEP sales made in the United States and the foreign like product sold in the exporting country. It also covers expenses incurred with respect to EP sales because it refers to “expenses incurred with respect to the subject merchandise sold in the United States.” The term “subject merchandise” is defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(25) as the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of a review; and the class or kind of merchandise in this review includes both CEP and EP sales. Second, as the SAA explains, the total expenses are all expenses incurred with respect to the production and sale of the first of the three alternatives. In referring to the first category of expenses, the SAA specifically refers to “the subject merchandise sold in the United States,” which by definition means the class or kind of merchandise which is within the scope of a review and, in this review, includes both CEP and EP sales. H.R. Doc. 103-316 at 824. For these reasons the Court is not convinced by NTN’s argument that Commerce’s interpretation of the statutory scheme is unreasonable and sustains Commerce’s inclusion of EP sales in the calculation of CEP profit. See Chevron, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778. Y. Commerce’s Use of Affiliated Supplier’s Cost of Production for Inputs When the Cost Was Higher Than the Transfer Price A. Background During the review at issue, Commerce used the higher of the transfer price or the actual cost in calculating cost of production (“COP”) and CV in situations involving inputs that NTN had obtained from affiliated producers. See Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 63,868. In the Final Results, Commerce stated that [Commerce] disagree[s] with NTN’s contention that it is not appropriate for [Commerce] to rely on section [19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2) (1994) and 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3) (1994) ] in [the case at bar], [Commerce] note[s] that section 351.407(a) and (b) [ (1998) ] of [Commerce’s] regulations sets forth certain rules that are common to the calculation of CV and COP. This section states that for the purpose of section [19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3) ] ... [Commerce] will determine the value of a major input purchased from an affiliated person based on the higher of: (1) the price paid by the exporter or producer to the affiliated person 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 person of producing the major input. Furthermore, [Commerce] ha[s] relied on this methodology in [previous determinations] .... In each of these determinations [Commerce] concluded that in the case of a transaction between affiliated persons involving a major input, [Commerce] will use the highest of the transfer price between the affiliated party, the market price between unaffiliated persons involving the major input, or the affiliated supplier’s cost of producing this input. Accordingly, for the Final Results, [Commerce] ha[s] continued to rely on the higher of transfer price or actual cost for NTN’s affiliated-party inputs when calculating COP and CV. Id. (citations omitted). B. Contentions of the Parties NTN contends that Commerce “erroneously adjusted NTN’s COP and CV for affiliated party inputs.” NTN’s Mem. at 22; see NTN’s Mem. at 4-5, 22-24; NTN’s Reply at 7-8. In particular, NTN maintains that: (1) there is no record evidence that the affiliated party inputs did “not reflect the amount usually reflected in sales of this merchandise in the market under consideration,” NTN’s Mem. at 24, see also, NTN’s Mem. at 22-23 (relying on 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2)); and (2) the Final Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 63,868, “make no reference to any record evidence which would give [Commerce] reasonable grounds to believe that the reported [COP] of the affiliated party inputs in question was less than the actual [COP].” NTN’s Mem. at 23. Moreover, according to NTN, a plain language reading of 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f) (1994) makes clear that “the automatic recalculation of reported COP and CV data contemplated in 19 C.F.R. § 351.407 [ (1998) ] is not contemplated in the statute itself.” Id. NTN, therefore, requests that this Court “hold 19 C.F.R. [§ ] 351.407 invalid as a matter of law ... and remand this case to [Commerce] to restore NTN’s reported affiliated party input data in calculating COP and CV.” NTN’s Reply at 8. Commerce argues that its “use of the affiliated supplier’s COP for major inputs rather than the transfer prices is supported by substantial record evidence and otherwise in accordance with law.” Def.’s Mem. at 30; see Def.’s Mem. at 29-40. Commerce further argues that NTN’s contentions are without merit. See id. at 37-40. Specifically, Commerce maintains inter alia that: (1) Commerce did provide its reasons for conducting a below-cost sales test, see id. at 38 (citing Preliminary Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 37,347; Def.’s App. Mem. Ex. 2 at 5); and (2) “Commerce has properly exercised the discretion granted to [Commerce] in 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3) to analyze the cost of major inputs purchased by a producer from its affiliated suppliers when [Commerce] initiates a COP investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(1) without a separate below-COP allegation with respect to inputs.” Def.’s Mem. at 39. Timken supports Commerce’s position and adds that “the statute provides Commerce the authority to request cost data for inputs.” Timken’s Resp. at 22; see id. at 20-24. C. Analysis The special rules for the calculation of COP and CV contained in the pertinent provision state that, in a transaction between affiliated persons, either the transaction or the value of a major input may be disregarded. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f). The part of the statutory provision addressing transactions that may be disregarded reads as follows: A transaction directly or indirectly between affiliated persons may be disregarded if, in the case of any element of value 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. If a transaction is disregarded under the preceding sentence and no other transactions are available for consideration, the determination of the amount shall be based on the information available as to what the amount would have been if the transaction had occurred between persons who are not affiliated. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2). The so-called “major input rule,” or the part of the statutory provision addressing the value of a major input that may be disregarded, states, in turn, that, [i]f, in the case of a transaction between affiliated persons involving the production by one of such persons of a major input to the merchandise, [Commerce] has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that- an amount represented as the value of such input is less than the cost of production of such input, then [Commerce] may determine the value of the major input on the basis of the information available regarding such cost of production, if such cost is greater than the amount that would be determined for such input under paragraph [19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(2) ]. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3). 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. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(3)(A) (1994). Section 1677b(b)(3)(A) shall be read in conjunction with 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677b(f)(2) and 1677b(f)(3) that authorize Commerce, in calculating COP and CV, to: (1) disregard a transaction between affiliated persons if the amount representing an element does not fairly reflect the amount usually re-fleeted 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 the COP of the input. In determining whether transaction prices between affiliated persons fairly reflect the market, Commerce’s practice has been to compare the transaction prices with market prices charged by unrelated parties. Commerce’s practice was later reduced to writing in 19 C.F.R. § 351.407, a regulation which implements 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f). Commenting on the regulation, Commerce stated that it believes that the appropriate standard for determining whether input prices are at arm’s length is its normal practice of comparing actual affiliated party 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) ]. Defi’s Mem. at 33 n. 3 (citation omitted). 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 following: (1) the transfer price between the affiliated parties; (2) the market price between unaffiliated parties; and (3) the affiliated supplier’s COP for the major input, since, in Commerce’s view, the affiliation between the respondent and its suppliers “ ‘creates the potential for the companies to act in a manner that is other than arm’s length’ and gives Commerce reason to analyze the transfer prices for major inputs.” Def.’s Mem. at 33-34 (quoting Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Silicomanganese From Brazil, 62 Fed.Reg. 37,869, 37,871-72 (July 15, 1997)). In addition, if Commerce disregards sales that failed the below-cost sales test pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(1) in the prior review with respect to merchandise of the respondent being reviewed, Commerce has “reasonable grounds to believe or suspect” that sales under consideration might have been made at prices below the COP. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(2)(A)(ii) (1994). Commerce disregarded sales that failed its below-cost sales test pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(1) (1994) during the previous review with respect to NTN’s merchandise. See Preliminary Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 37,347; Def.’s App. Mem. Ex. 2 at 5. For this reason, Commerce concluded that it had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration may have been made at prices below the COP. Accord 19 U.S.C. § 1677b (b) (2) (A) (ii). Therefore, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(l), Commerce initiated a COP investigation of sales by NTN in the home market. See Preliminary Results, 63 Fed.Reg. at 37,347. As part of its investigation, Commerce distributed a questionnaire, which, in pertinent part, requested NTN to provide COP and CV information. See Def.’s Mem. at 36. Specifically, Commerce requested NTN to: (1) “list all inputs used to produce the merchandise” under review; (2) “identify those inputs that NTN received from affiliated” persons; (3) “provide the per-unit transfer price charged for the input by the affiliated” producer; (4) provide “the per-unit [COP] incurred by the affiliated [person] in producing the major input[;]” (5) “provide documentation showing the price paid for the input by the unaffiliated purchaser” “[i]f the affiliated party sells the identical input to other, unaffiliated purchasers[;]” (6) “provide documentation showing the unaffiliated party’s sales