Full opinion text
OPINION TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge. Plaintiffs, NTN Corporation, NTN Bearing Corporation of America, American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corporation, NTN Driveshaft, Inc., NTN-Bower Corporation and NTN-BCA Corporation (collectively “NTN”), move pursuant to USCIT R. 56.2 for judgment upon the agency record challenging the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s (“Commerce”) final determination entitled Final Results of Anti-dumping Duty Administrative Revieivs and Revocation of Orders in Part on Anti-friction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Singapore, Siveden and the United Kingdom (“Final Results”), 65 Fed.Reg. 49,219 (August 11, 2000). The Torrington Company (“Timken”), as defendant-intervenor, supports Commerce’s arguments that the Final Results are supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. Specifically, NTN contends that Commerce erred in: (1) restating NTN’s home-market and United States inland freight expenses and unjustifiably applied facts available; (2) using adverse facts available margins for United States sales of NTN models compared to sales to home-market affiliates; (3) including export price (“EP”) sales in its calculation of the constructed export price (“CEP”) profit adjustment; (4) not calculating CEP profit on a level-of-trade (“LOT”) basis; (5) recalculating NTN’s home-market inventory carrying costs and refusing to adjust normal value (“NV”) for all home-market commissions; (6) reallocating NTN’s United States and home-market selling expenses without regard to LOT; (7) including NTN’S sample sales and sales with allegedly abnormally high profits in the calculation of NV and constructed value (“CV”) profit; (8) making adjustments to NTN’s cost of production (“COP”) and CV; and, (9) failing to use CV after disregarding below-cost sales from the calculation of NV. BACKGROUND The administrative determination at issue concerns the antidumping duty order on antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof from Japan for the period of review covering May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999. See Final Results, 65 Fed.Reg. at 49,219. On April 6, 2000, Commerce published the preliminary results of the subject review. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Revieivs, Partial Rescission of Administrative Revieivs, and Notice of Intent to Revoke Orders in Part on Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Sweden, Singapore and the United Kingdom, (“Preliminary Results”) 65 Fed.Reg. 18,033. 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 The Court will uphold Commerce’s final determination in an antidumping administrative review 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. National Resources Defense Council, 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 Dep’t of Commerce, 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 1. Commerce Properly Restated NTN’s Home-Market and United States Inland Freight Expenses and Justifiably Applied Facts Available A. Statutory Background Under the antidumping duty statute, Commerce may determine that imported merchandise is sold in the United States “at less than its fair value,” and that such practice causes material injury to a domestic industry. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673 (1994). Once such a determination is made, Commerce may levy an antidumping duty upon such merchandise. See id. The anti-dumping duty is “in an amount equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price ... for the merchandise.” Id. Section 1677a(e) of Title 19 of the United States Code specifies increases and reductions to the price used to establish export price (“EP”) and constructed export price (“CEP”). See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(e) (1994). Specifically, the statute states that the price used to establish EP and CEP is increased “when not included in such price, the cost of all containers and coverings and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the subject merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(l). The EP and CEP is decreased by “the amount, if any, included in such price, attributable to any additional costs, charges, or expenses, and United States import duties, which are incident to bringing the subject merchandise from the original place of shipment in the exporting country to the place of delivery in the United States.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(2). In calculating normal value (“NV”), section 1677b(a)(6) (1994) of Title 19 of the United States Code specifies increases and decreases that are to be made to the price used for NY. The statute directs that the price be “increased by the costs of all containers and coverings and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the subject merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(6)(A). The price is to be decreased by, “when included in the price described in paragraph (1)(B), the cost of all containers and coverings and all other costs, chargés, and expenses incident to placing the foreign like product in condition packed ready for shipment to the place of delivery to the purchaser.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(6)(B)(i). Additionally, the price is to be decreased by “the amount, if any, included in the price described in paragraph (1)(B), attributable to any additional costs, charges, and expenses incident to bringing the foreign like product from the original place of shipment to the place of delivery to the purchaser.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(6)(B)(ii). Commerce’s regulations state that “the interested party that is in possession of the relevant information has the burden of establishing to the satisfaction of [Commerce] the amount and nature of a particular adjustment.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(b)(1) (1999). Commerce’s regulations also address the allocation of expenses and price adjustments, stating that Commerce “may consider allocated expenses and price adjustments when transaction-specific reporting is not feasible, provided [Commerce] is satisfied that the allocation method used does not cause inaccuracies or distortions.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(g)(1). In addition, the regulations state that “any party seeking to report an expense or a price adjustment on an allocated basis must demonstrate to [Commerce’s] satisfaction that the allocation is calculated on as specific a basis as is feasible, and must explain why the allocation methodology used does not cause inaccuracies or distortions.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(g)(2). Under the regulations, an allocation method is not to be rejected solely because it “includes expenses incurred, or price adjustments made, with respect to sales of merchandise that does not constitute subject merchandise or a foreign like product.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(g)(4). Under section 1677e(a)(2) of Title 19 of the United States Code, Commerce shall use “facts otherwise available” when “(1) necessary information is not available on the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person — (A) withholds information that has been requested ... or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified ... in reaching the applicable determination under this subtitle.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) (1994). Furthermore, if Commerce determines that “an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information ... [then Commerce] may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b). B. Contentions of the Parties 1. NTN’s Contentions NTN contends that Commerce erred in: (a) rejecting NTN’s allocation of home-market and United States inland freight expenses, and (b) using adverse facts available in calculating NTN’s margin rate. See PL’s Mot. and Mem. Supp. J. Agency R. (“NTN’s Mem.”) at 9. NTN asserts that it adequately responded to Commerce’s request for an allocation of both home-market and United States inland freight expenses. See id. at 9-12. NTN contends that it cannot use weight in its allocation of freight expenses because home-market and United States inland freight expenses are based on multiple factors and NTN, as it explained in its response to Commerce, does not keep records based on weight. See id. at 10. Consequently, NTN allocated the freight expenses “based on value, logically choosing a factor which was common to all shipments.” Id. Furthermore, NTN elaborated that “freight in both [home-market and United States inland] is usually incurred based on factors that cannot be allocated, such as distance, bulk and mode of transportation .... ” Id. Commerce checked NTN’s allocation of the home-market and United States inland freight expenses and examined NTN’s contracts with freight companies. In the Issues and Decision Memorandum., however, Commerce rejected NTN’s allocation because “NTN did not explain why its allocation of freight expenses was not distortive.” NTN’s Mem. at 11. NTN argues that it fully and accurately responded to Commerce’s inquiry about its allocation by “demonstrat[ing] how the expenses are actually incurred and [that Commerce] accepted NTN’s methodology and resulting data at verification.” Id. at 11-12.; NTN further asserts that Commerce, on prior occasions, accepted NTN’s explanation and approved of NTN’s methodology. See id. at 12. NTN contends that Commerce’s application of facts available is unwarranted because Commerce verified NTN’s methods and there is no evidence indicating that any distortion occurred as a result of NTN’s allocation. See id. 2. Commerce’s Contentions Commerce responds that NTN did not adequately report home-market and United States inland freight expenses on the basis on which NTN incurred them. See Def.’s Mem. Part. Opp’n NTN’s Mot. J. Agency R. (“Def.’s Mem.”) at 9-15. Rather, Commerce contends that NTN reported allocated expenses incurred on both in-scope and out-of-scope merchandise. See id. at 11. In a supplemental questionnaire dated October 21, 1999, Commerce asked NTN to revise its response, if necessary, “to reflect the basis on which the expenses are incurred or, if [ ] not possible, explain why such a recalculation is impossible and demonstrate that [NTN’s] allocation methodology is not distortive.” Id. at 12 (quoting from supplemental questionnaire). While NTN responded that it does not incur freight expenses on a single basis, thereby making it impossible to report freight expenses on the basis they were incurred, Commerce contends that NTN “did not demonstrate that its • allocation methodology was not distortive. ' Rather, it merely stated that Commerce had accepted its methodology in prior reviews.” Id. Commerce asserts that it properly resorted to facts available because of NTN’s failure to show that its allocation methodology was not distortive. See id. at 12-13. Commerce rejects NTN’s argument that it had previously accepted NTN’s allocation in prior reviews. See id. at 13i Rather, Commerce maintáins that the acceptance of NTN’s allocation in prior reviews “does not relieve [NTN] of the responsibility to demonstrate that its claimed adjustment to normal value is not distortive.” Def.’s Mem. at 13 (quoting Issues & Decision Mem. at 65-66). In the Issues & Decision Mem., Commerce determined that it “can not regard the reported expenses as a reliable or reasonable indicator of what those expenses would be had NTN Japan reported them on a transaction-specific basis.” Issues .& Decision Mem. at 65. Commerce reasoned that it was unable to determined that NTN acted to the best of its ability in selecting the allocation methodology it used. Id. 3. Timken’s Contentions Timken generally agrees with Commerce’s decision to apply facts available for home-market and United States inland freight expenses incurred because NTN failed “to fully cooperate with Commerce’s instructions.... ” Resp. Timken, Def.-In-tervenor, R. 56.2 Mot. NTN (“Timken’s Resp.”) at 15. Timken contends that “Commerce properly determined that NTN has the burden of -proving entitlement to any favorable adjustment, and Commerce’s supplemental question went to what NTN had to show.” Id. Accordingly, Commerce appropriately required NTN to demonstrate non-distortion because NTN does not incur freight on the basis of sales value. See id. Timken argues that NTN “was evasive and offered no assurance to Commerce that the prior methodology would not result in distortions.” Id. at 16. Timken further contends that Commerce reasonably selected facts available for NTN’s home-market freight expenses and did not deny the entire adjustment. See id. Rather, Commerce selected the lowest reported rates. See id. For NTN’s United States inland freight expenses, Timken contends that denial of the adjustment would have benefitted NTN. See id. Consequently, “Commerce substituted an adverse rate based on reported NTN data.” Id. Timken argues that Commerce’s treatment of the allocations for home-market and United States inland freight expenses recognized the effects of denying the adjustment and provided an incentive for NTN to provide the requested data. See id. C. Analysis 1. Commerce Properly Rejected NTN’s Allocation The relevant statute, directs Commerce to increase or reduce EP and CEP when certain criteria are met. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c). Furthermore, under Commerce’s regulations, the interested party has the burden of demonstrating to Commerce the amount and nature of a specific adjustment to be made to EP, CEP or NY. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(b)(1). The regulations allow Commerce to consider allocated expenses and adjustments when “transaction-specific reporting is not feasible.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(g)(1). However, Commerce’s acceptance of allocated expenses and adjustments is contingent. Before any allocations are accepted, Commerce must first be “satisfied that the allocation method used does not cause inaccuracies or distortions.” Id. If Commerce is not satisfied, then it has the discretion to reject the allocations and adjustments sought by the interested party. See id. The Court rejects NTN’s contention that Commerce erred in rejecting NTN’s allocation of home-market and United States inland freight expenses. NTN argues that Commerce changed its methodology by requesting NTN to demonstrate that its allocation was not distortive. Commerce, however, has the discretion to change its methodology, so long as its decision is reasonably supported by the record. Agency statements provide guidance to regulated industries. “ ‘An [agency] announcement stating a change in the method ... is not a general statement of policy.’ ” American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. ICC, 659 F.2d 452, 464 n. 49 (5th Cir.1981) (quoting Brown Express, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.2d 695, 701 (5th Cir.1979) (internal quotations omitted)). While a policy denotes “the general principles by which a government is guided” by laws, Black’s Law Dictionary 1178 (7th ed.1999) (emphasis added), methodology refers only to the “mode of organizing, operating or performing something, especially to achieve [the goal of a statute].” Id. at 1005 (defining mode) (emphasis added). Accord Avoyelles Sportsmen’s League, Inc. v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897 (5th Cir.1983); Interstate Natural Gas Ass’n of Am. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 716 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir.1983); Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp. v. Train, 537 F.2d 620 (2d Cir.1976). Consequently, the courts are even less in the position to question an agency action if the action at issue is a choice of methodology, rather than policy. See, e.g., Metier, P.E. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 114 F.3d 1032, 1043 (10th Cir.) (citing Professional Drivers Council v. Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, 706 F.2d 1216, 1221 (D.C.Cir.1983)). Similarly, an agency decision to change its methodology, that is, to take an act of statutory implementation while pursuing the same policy, should be examined under the Chevron test and sustained if the new methodology is reasonable. See, e.g., Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 24 CIT 364, 373-74, 110 F.Supp.2d 934, 942 (2000) (stating that “ ‘the use of different methods [of] ealeulati[on] ... does not [mean there is a] conflict with the statute,’ ”) (quoting Torrington Co. v. United States, 44 F.3d 1572, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1995)). The Court finds that, in the case at bar, Commerce’s refusal to accept NTN’s allocation was a justifiable change of methodology reasonably supported by the record. Accordingly, Commerce’s rejection of NTN’s allocation of home-market and United States inland freight expenses is affirmed. 2. Commerce Properly Applied Facts Available to NTN’s Home-Market and United States Inland Freight Expenses The Court finds NTN’s argument that Commerce unjustifiably applied adverse facts available to NTN’s home-market and United States inland freight expense allocation has no merit. The anti-dumping duty 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. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(l) (1994). Commerce may apply facts available when it determines that an interested party withholds requested information or fails to cooperate with a request for information. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) & (b). 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 broad, although not unlimited, discretion with regard to the propriety of its use of facts available. See generally, Olympic Adhesives Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1565 (Fed.Cir.1990) (acknowledging Commerce’s broad discretion to use 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 subject review, Commerce requested that NTN show that its allocation methodology was not distortive. See Issues & Decision Mem. at 65. NTN responded by stating that Commerce had previously found its methodology not to be distortive. See id. Commerce’s acceptance of NTN’s allocation methodology and finding the method to not be distortive in a previous review does not relieve NTN from showing non-distortion in the current review. See NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States (“NTN 2003”), 27 CIT -, -, 248 F.Supp.2d 1256, 1268 (2003) (stating that “Commerce has the discretion to alter its policy, so long as Commerce presents a reasonable rationale for its departure from the previous practice”). Commerce requested NTN demonstrate that its allocation methodology was not distortive in order “to alleviate [Commerce’s] concern that NTN Japan’s allocation methodology might shift expenses incurred on non-subject merchandise to sales of subject merchandise.” Def.’s Mem. at 12 (quoting Issues & Decision Mem. at 65). The Court finds Commerce’s rationale for reconsidering its past position convincing and reasonable. Commerce properly determined that NTN had not cooperated with its request to provide information regarding the allocation method used by NTN. Moreover, Commerce justifiably applied facts available to state NTN’s home-market and United States inland freight expenses. II. Commerce Properly Used Adverse Facts Available Margins for United States Sales of NTN Models Compared to Sales to Home-Market Affiliates A. Statutory Background Section 1677b(a)(5) (1994) of Title 19 of the United States Code provides that for determining NV, “if the foreign like product is sold or ... offered for sale through an affiliated party, the prices at which the foreign like product is sold (or offered for sale) by such affiliated party may be used.... ” The statute, however, does not provide Commerce with guidance as to when the prices at which the foreign like product sold by an affiliated party should be used. Rather, Commerce’s regulations address when sales and offers for sales to an affiliated party and through an affiliated party may be used. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.403 (1999). For sales to an affiliated party by an exporter or producer, the regulations state that Commerce “may calculate normal value based on that sale only if satisfied that the price is comparable to the price at which the exporter or producer sold the foreign like product to a person who is not affiliated with the seller.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.403(c). For sales by an exporter or producer through an affiliated party (i.e., downstream sales), Commerce “may calculate normal value based on the sale by such affiliated party.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.403(d). Commerce, however, will normally not calculate NV using such prices, if the sales by an exporter or producer to affiliated parties “account for less than five percent of the total value (or quantity) of the exporter’s or producer’s sales of the foreign like product in the market in question or if sales to the affiliated party are comparable.... ” Id. Section 1677e(b) of Title 19 of the United States Code, provides that if Commerce determines that “an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information ... [then Commerce] may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” B. Contentions of the Parties 1. NTN’s Contentions NTN complains that Commerce erred in applying adverse facts available to determine the margin for United States sales of NTN models compared to sales to home-market affiliates. See NTN’s Mem. at 14-18. NTN argues that its response to Commerce’s request for total value of sales by home-market affiliates was adequate for the calculation of NTN’s margin. See id. Moreover, NTN asserts that “there is no evidence whatsoever that NTN’s actions meet any of the statutory mínimums which would warrant adverse ‘facts available.’ ” Id. at 15-16. NTN states that for Commerce to apply an adverse inference to facts available “an interested party must have failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.” Id. at 15. The statutory provisions, according to NTN, are intended to prevent the use of adverse facts available when a party makes its best effort to cooperate with Commerce. See id. NTN states that it responded to Commerce’s questions regarding downstream sales to affiliated parties as it had in previous reviews: “this data could not be provided because NTN was unable to obtain this information from its affiliated resellers.” Id. at 16. NTN submitted to Commerce letters from affiliated resellers that explained why they could not provide NTN with certain information. See id. In addition, NTN explained at verification that the resellers do not have access to NTN’s computer program and database that allows NTN to respond to Commerce’s questions. See id. NTN maintains that its computer program was created to allow NTN to categorize data in ways that allow it to respond to Commerce. The program is proprietary in nature, and NTN contends that it should not be required to share the program with affiliated or unaffiliated companies. See id. NTN further asserts that it provided Commerce with documentation from each reseller from whom it could not obtain resale information explaining why such information was unobtainable. See id. at 18. 2. Commerce’s Contentions Commerce responds that its determination to apply adverse facts available was supported by substantial record evidence and in accordance with law. Def.’s Mem. at 15-23. Specifically, Commerce contends that its regulations prevent the use of “home-market affiliated party sale[s] unless the exporter or producer or reseller demonstrates that the transaction was made at arm’s length.” Id. at 17. Accordingly, Commerce maintains that “the respondent has to present evidence establishing to Commerce’s satisfaction that the related party prices were comparable to unrelated party prices.” Id. To determine price comparability, Commerce states that its established practice is to examine whether related party prices are equal to or greater than unrelated party prices. See id. Furthermore, Commerce argues that “when a respondent fails to submit pertinent information, Commerce is authorized to resort to facts available.” Id. (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)). Here, Commerce contends that NTN failed to report resale information by its home-market affiliates. In its supplemental questionnaire, Commerce requested that NTN document the steps taken to obtain downstream sales data for each affiliate from which NTN could not obtain such information. See id. at 19. NTN’s response was that it requested, but was unable to obtain, the information for the same reasons it provided in past reviews. See id. Commerce requested that NTN provide the total downstream value of sales by affiliates in which NTN owns a majority interest. See id. at 20 (citing Issues & Decision Mem. at 7). While NTN provided information for three such affiliate resellers, it was unable to provide such information for two other affiliated resellers. See id. Thus, Commerce “resorted to adverse facts available for those [United States] sales of bearing models which were sold to those affiliates in which NTN Japan holds a majority interest....” Id. Commerce concedes that it did not apply its arm’s length test, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.403(c), to the sales price of two of NTN’s affiliated resellers prior to seeking downstream sales information. See id. at 23. Consequently, Commerce requests that the issue be remanded for Commerce to conduct the test and, if necessary, to open the record for additional information. See id. 3. Timken’s Contentions Timken generally agrees with Commerce that NTN failed to provide Commerce with the requested information. Timken’s Resp. at 18-24. Timken maintains that NTN “failed to either: (a) report downstream sales by these affiliates as instructed by the initial questionnaire, or (b) revise its data to at least provide the total downstream value of the sales by each affiliate as instructed by the supplemental questionnaire.” Id. at 22 (emphasis in original). Timken states that “Commerce’s rules on affiliated companies assume that companies ‘control’ their affiliates sufficiently to guarantee cooperation in answering questionnaires.” Id. (emphasis in original). Since NTN did not provide the requested information, Timken maintains that Commerce properly applied adverse facts available. See id. at 23. Timken disagrees with Commerce that the issue should be remanded. See id. at 23-24. Rather, Timken argues that the record evidence supports Commerce’s determination that the arm’s length test could not be reliably applied because NTN did not act to the best of its ability in reporting sales by home-market affiliates. See id. C. Analysis The Court finds that Commerce properly applied adverse facts available to sales by resellers in which NTN owns a majority interest. Under section 1677e(b) of Title 19 of the United States Code, if Commerce determines that a party has not acted to the best of its ability to provide requested information, then Commerce may use adverse facts available. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b). Here, Commerce reasonably determined that NTN had not acted to the best of its ability in responding to its requests for information on sales by affiliated resellers. The Court is not convinced that NTN fully complied with Commerce’s requests for information regarding downstream sales. While NTN did not obtain the requested information from its affiliated resellers for the same reasons NTN gave Commerce in previous reviews, NTN failed to document the steps it took to obtain the downstream sales data, as Commerce requested. See Issues & Decision Mem. at 7. Furthermore, for Commerce to use the sale price to an affiliated party, NTN must present evidence that “the price is comparable to the price at which the exporter or producer sold the foreign like product to a person who is not affiliated with the seller.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.403(c). NTN failed to demonstrate that the sales to and through NTN’s affiliates were made at arm’s length. See NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States (“NTN 1999”), 23 CIT 486, 498, 83 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1292 (1999) (stating that “there is a strong presumption that Commerce will not use a related-party price in the calculation of [fair market value] ‘unless the manufacturer demonstrates to Commerce’s satisfaction that the prices are at arm’s length’ ”) (quoting SSAB Svenskt Stal AB v. United States, 21 CIT 1007, 1009, 976 F.Supp. 1027, 1030 (1997)). Based on NTN’s inadequate responses, the Court finds that Commerce justifiably applied adverse facts available and was in accordance with law. In NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States (“NTN 2002”), 26 CIT -, -, 186 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1287-88 (2002), this Court upheld Commerce’s application of the arm’s length test to exclude certain home-market sales to affiliated parties from the NV calculation. The Court noted that, under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(5), Commerce is allowed considerable discretion in deciding whether to include affiliated party sales when calculating NV. See NTN 2002, 26 CIT at -, 186 F.Supp.2d at 1287 (citing Usinor Sacilor v. United States, 18 CIT 1155, 1158, 872 F.Supp. 1000, 1004 (1994)). The Court further noted that it has repeatedly upheld Commerce’s arm’s length test on the basis that respondents have failed to present “ ‘record evidence tending to show that ... Commerce’s test was unreasonable.’ ” NTN 2002, 26 CIT at -, 186 F.Supp.2d at 1287 (quoting NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States (“NTN 1995”), 19 CIT 1221, 1241, 905 F.Supp. 1083, 1100 (1995), and citing Torrington Co. v. United States, 21 CIT 251, 261, 960 F.Supp. 339, 348 (1997), NSK Ltd. v. Koyo Seiko Co., 190 F.3d 1321, 1328 (Fed.Cir.1999)). Here, NTN has failed to provide evidence that Commerce’s application of the arm’s length test was unreasonable. However, in light -of Commerce’s failure to apply the arm’s length test to the sales prices of the two affiliated resellers, the Court remands this issue to Commerce to conduct the arm’s length test, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.403(c), to determine whether the sales prices were comparable to the price at which NTN sold the subject merchandise to unaffiliated parties. III. Commerce Properly Included EP Sales in its Calculation of CEP Profit A. Statutory Background In calculating CEP, Commerce is required to deduct “the profit allocated to the expenses described in [19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(l) and (2) ],” from the price charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(3). “Profit” is defined as “an amount determined by multiplying the total actual profit by the applicable percentage.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(l). Under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(D), “actual profit” is defined as the “total profit earned ... with respect to the sale of the same merchandise for which total expenses are determined .... ” 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) (1994). B. Contentions of the Parties 1. NTN’s Contentions NTN contends that Commerce erred by including EP sales in the calculation of CEP profit. See NTN’s Mem. at 18. Specifically, NTN argues that there is no provision in the statute for the inclusion of EP expenses or profit in this calculation. See id. at 18-22. NTN asserts 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. See id. NTN argues that under the canon of statutory construction of expressio unius est exdn-sio the specific reference to CEP in the definition of “total expenses” precludes Commerce from including EP expenses in the calculation of CEP profit. See id. at 19. NTN asserts that “just as EP expenses cannot be considered for the CEP profit adjustment, it follows logically that sales revenue for EP sales also cannot be included [in the calculation of CEP profit.]” Id. at 20 (emphasis in original). NTN points out that the statutory definition of “total actual expenses” directly makes reference to the definition of total expenses. See id. NTN consequently deduces that Commerce must calculate total profit using the same transactions to calculate CEP total expenses. See id. 2. Commerce’s Contentions Commerce contends that the inclusion of revenues and expenses resulting from NTN’s EP sales in the calculation of CEP profit was a reasonable interpretation of the statutory scheme. See Def.’s Mem. at 23-28. 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....’” See id. at 24 (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” includes NTN’s EP and CEP sales. See Def.’s Mem. at 24-27. Commerce further asserts that its September 4, 1997, Policy Bulletin states: The calculation of total actual profit under section [1677a(f)(2)(D) ] includes 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 of the subject merchandise would necessarily encompass all such transactions. See id. at 24-25 (citing Def.’s Mem. at Ex. 3). Commerce also asserts that the Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) clarifies the point by explaining that 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 three alternatives. See id. at 26. The first category referred to in the SAA is “the subject merchandise sold in the United States.” Id. Commerce contends that this “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.” Id. Consequently, Commerce maintains that it properly included these sales when it calculated CEP profit. See id. at 28. 3. Timken’s Contentions Timken agrees with Commerce that it is a reasonable interpretation of the statute and consistent with agency practice to calculate CEP profit on the basis of all United States sales. See Timken’s Resp. at 26-28. C. Analysis 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 18-21. Additionally, NTN states that just as EP expenses-cannot be used in calculating CEP profit, neither can sales revenue be used for EP sales. See id. at 20. 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 the statute refers to “expenses incurred with respect to the subject merchandise sold in the United States.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C). 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. The class or kind of merchandise in this review includes both CEP and EP sales. Sepond, 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. See H.R. Doc. No. 103M65, at 824, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4164. The Court agrees that the SAA’s reference to “the subject merchandise sold in the United States,” means the class or kind of merchandise which is vdthin the scope of a review. See id. Accordingly, the Court is not convinced that Commerce’s interpretation of the statutory scheme is unreasonable and sustains Commerce’s inclusion of EP sales in the calculation of CEP profit. IV. Commerce Properly Calculated CEP Without Regard to LOT A. Statutory Background In calculating CEP, Commerce must deduct “the profit allocated to the expenses described” in pertinent subparts of 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d) from the price at which the merchandise is sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. See 19 U.S.C: § 1677a(d)(3). The' term “profit” is defined as “an amount determined by multiplying the total actual profit by the applicable percentage.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(l). The term “actual profit” is, in turn, defined as the “total profit earned ... with respect to the sale of the same merchandise for which total expenses are determined under such subparagraph.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(D). The term “total expenses” is defined as: all expenses in the first of the following 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: (i) 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 such expenses were requested by the administering authority for the purpose of establishing normal value and constructed export price. (ii) 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. (iii) 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(£)(2)(C). B. Contentions of the Parties NTN complains that Commerce should calculate CEP profit on an LOT basis. See NTN’s Mem. at 21-22. NTN concedes that the Court has agreed with Commerce’s methodology in NTN 2000, 24 CIT at 411-14, 104 F.Supp.2d at 133-35, but maintains that under the preference expressed by the language of 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f), NTN’s profit should have been calculated on the narrowest possible basis. See NTN’s Mem. at 21-22. Consequently, NTN asserts that “since [CV] profit [is] calculated by level of trade, CEP profit should be calculated to account for level of trade differences.” Id. at 22. Commerce maintains that its calculation of NTN’s CEP profit is proper because the statute does not expressly refer to LOT. See Def.’s Mem. at 28-31. Commerce asserts that neither the statute nor the SAA require the calculation of CEP profit to be based upon a more specific category than the class or kind of merchandise. See id. at 30 (citing Issues & Decision Mem. at 18). Furthermore, Commerce argues that NTN’s interpretation of the statute is “misplaced.” See id. The statute refers to “narrowest category” in its description of the second and third alternative methods, which are based upon financial reports and not the first alternative. See id. Commerce maintains that- it applied the first alternative because NTN provided the necessary data. See id. Finally, Commerce asserts that in NTN 2000, 24 CIT at 411-14, 104 F.Supp.2d at 133-35, the Court found Commerce’s calculation of CEP without regard to LOT to be a reasonable interpretation of 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f). See Def.’s Mem. at 30. Timken supports Commerce’s position and asserts that the Court has affirmed Commerce’s calculation of CEP without regard to LOT for previous reviews. See Timken’s Resp. at 28-29. C. Analysis Section 1677a(f) of Title 19 of the United States Code does not reference LOT. Accordingly, the Court’s duty under Chevron is to review the reasonableness of Commerce’s statutory interpretation. See IPSCO, 965 F.2d at 1061 (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778). This Court upheld Commerce’s refusal to calculate CEP on an LOT-specific basis in NTN 2000, 24 CIT at 411-14, 104 F.Supp.2d at 133-35, finding it to be reasonable and in accordance with law. The Court examined the language of the statute and concluded that 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. The Court based its conclusion on its examination of the definition of “total expenses” contained in subsections (ii) and (iii) of 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C). See id. Both subsections refer to “expenses incurred with respect to the narrowest category of merchandise ... which includes the subject merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C). The term “subject merchandise” is defined as “the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of an investigation.... ” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(25). The statute envisions that the “narrowest category” will be the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of a particular review at issue. Commerce did not read the statutory scheme as contemplating that it would have to consider a much narrower subcategory of merchandise, such as one based upon an LOT. See Issues & Decision Mem. at 18 (relying on H.R. Doc. 103-316 at 824-25, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4164, and 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(f)(2)(C)(i)). While NTN contends that Commerce should calculate CEP profit to account for differences because “[t]here is no reason [for Commerce] to use a less specific, less accurate mode of calculation,” NTN’s Mem. at 22, a CEP profit calculation based upon a broader profit line than the subject merchandise will not necessarily produce a distorted result. No distortion in the profit allocable to [United States] sales is created if total profit is determined on the basis of a broader product-line than the subject merchandise, because the total expenses are also determined on the basis of the same expanded product line. Thus, the larger profit pool is multiplied by a eom-mensurately smaller percentage. H.R. Doc. No. 103-465, at 825, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4164-65. Accordingly, as in NTN 2000, 24 CIT at 411-14, 104 F.Supp.2d at 133-35, 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. Based on the foregoing, the Court upholds Commerce’s refusal to calculate CEP profit for NTN on an LOT basis. V. Commerce Properly Recalculated NTN’s Home-Market Inventory Carrying Costs and Refused to Adjust NV for all Home-Market Commissions A. Statutory Background Section 1677b(a)(6) of Title 19 of the Unites States Code directs Commerce to increase or decrease the price used for NV “by the amount of any difference (or lack thereof) between the [EP] or [CEP] and the price described in paragraph (1)(B) ... that is established to the satisfaction of [Commerce] to be wholly or partly due to ... other differences in the circumstances of sale.” 19 U.S.C. 1677b(a)(6)(C) (1994). Furthermore, Commerce’s regulations provide guidance for the calculation of NY and the making of adjustments “to account for certain differences in the circumstances of sales in the United States and foreign markets.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.410(a). The regulations state that “with the exception of the allowance described in paragraph (e) of this section ... [Commerce] will make circumstances of sale adjustments under [19 U.S.C. 1677b(a)(6)(C)(iii) ] only for direct selling expenses and assumed expenses.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.410(b). “Direct selling expenses” is defined as expenses “such as, commissions, credit expenses, guarantees, and warranties, that result from, and bear a direct relationship to, the particular sale in question.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.410(c). “Assumed expenses” is defined as the selling expenses “assumed by the seller on behalf of the buyer.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.410(d). Pursuant to Commerce’s regulations, in making adjustments to NV, CV, or CEP, “the interested party that is in possession of the relevant information has the burden of establishing to the satisfaction of [Commerce] the amount and nature of a particular adjustment....” 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(b)(1) (1999). B. Commerce’s Recalculation of NTN’s Home-Market Inventory Carrying Costs 1. Contentions of the Parties NTN contends that Commerce erred in recalculating NTN’s home-market inventory carrying costs. See NTN’s Mem. at 22-23. Specifically, NTN argues that, at verification, Commerce “reviewed and accepted both NTN’s beginning and ending inventory values, the cost of goods sold, and the short term borrowing rate.” Id at 23. NTN states that Commerce has created a facts available situation even though there is adequate verified data on the record. See id. NTN additionally asserts that Commerce accepted NTN’s methodology in the previous reviews, “and has not presented any reasons for a change in its methodology in the ninth and tenth review.” Id. Commerce responds that it has been granted discretion to devise its own methodology to calculate credit expenses because the statute does not specify any method that Commerce should use. See Def.’s Mem. at 32. Commerce points out that it has been its practice “to impute [United States] and home-market inventory carrying costs for the period of time that the merchandise remains in inventory.” Id. at 32-33. Here, Commerce determined that NTN’s calculation of inventory carrying costs did not reflect costs accurately because it did not account for the time the subject merchandise remained in inventory. See Def.’s Mem. at 33 (citing Issues & Decision Mem. at 30-31). Commerce, therefore, recalculated the inventory carrying costs using its own standard formula. See Issues & Decision Mem. at 31. .Commerce finally argues that the verification of NTN’s inventory carrying costs does not mean that Commerce accepted NTN’s methodology for calculating the expense. See id. Rather, Commerce asserts that it simply verified the expense reported and not the actual method used to calculate the expense. See id. Timken agrees with Commerce that it was proper to recalculate NTN’s inventory carrying costs because NTN’s methodology was not consistent with Commerce’s methodology. Timken’s Resp. at 31-32. 2. Analysis The Court agrees with Commerce that 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(6) does not specify a method that Commerce should use in calculating credit expenses. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(6); Consequently, Commerce has discretion to create its own reasonable method to calculate credit expenses. NTN argues that Commerce accepted NTN’s methodology for calculating the inventory carrying costs at verification and therefore should have accepted NTN’s methodology for the Final Results. See NTN’s Mem. at 22-23. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. Commerce is directed under the antidumping duty statute to determine the antidumping duty “as accurately as possible.” See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1191 (Fed.Cir.1990). Accordingly, Commerce may reasonably determine that the method used to report an expense may prevent it from fulfilling a statutory duty. Furthermore, NTN argues that Commerce changed its methodology by refusing to accept NTN’s calculation methodology for the current review although Commerce had accepted it in previous reviews. See NTN’s Mem. at 23. This Court has repeatedly found, however, that Commerce may change its methodology as long as such change is reasonable. See NTN 2003, 27 CIT -, -, 248 F.Supp.2d at 1267-69; Peer Bearing Co. v. United States, 25 CIT -, -, 182 F.Supp.2d 1285, 1300-01 (2001); Timken Co. v. United States, 25 CIT -, -, 166 F.Supp.2d 608, 620-21 (2001). In the case at bar, Commerce reasonably rejected NTN’s calculation methodology because Commerce determined that NTN’s calculation failed to account for the number of inventory days and, therefore, did not reflect the costs accurately. Accordingly, the Court sustains Commerce’s recalculation of NTN’s home-market inventory carrying costs. C. Commerce Improperly Refused to Adjust NV for all Home-Market Commissions 1. Contentions of the Parties NTN complains that Commerce’s methodology for determining the arm’s length nature of commissions paid is unreasonable. See NTN’s Mem. at 24-26. Specifically, NTN contends that Commerce’s methodology is flawed because it does not account for actual services rendered in exchange for commissions. See id at 24. NTN asserts that it negotiates its commission rates individually with each selling agent, each of which “deals with a myriad of different product mixes and customers, making their jobs more or less intensive depending upon the totality of the circumstances.” Id at 25. During the review at issue, NTN responded to Commerce’s supplemental questionnaire regarding the activities of each commissionaire, and provided detailed contractual information regarding volume of sales and transactions. See id NTN contends that it provided Commerce with all the information needed to adjust NV for all home-market commissions but that Commerce “reduce[d] its analysis to a bare comparison of average rates and nominal selling functions [which] ignores commercial reality.” Id at 26. Consequently, NTN complains that Commerce “should not have adjusted the normal value for commission rates if their percentage for unaffiliated parties [is] less than the percentage for affiliated parties.” Id Rather, NTN argues that Commerce should have determined that the home-market commission rates were made at arm’s length and treated the rates as a direct expense in determining the NV calculation. See id Commerce responds that it acted properly in not adjusting NV for all home-market commissions paid to commissionaires affiliated with NTN. See Def.’s Mem. at 34-39. Commerce asserts that it followed its standard practice — comparing the commissions paid to affiliated selling agents with those paid to unaffiliated selling agents — to determine whether to make an adjustment to NV based upon the commissions paid. See id at 36. If Commerce determines that the commissions were not at arm’s length, then it disregards the commissions and treats them as intra-company transfers. See id Based on information submitted by NTN and the application of its arm’s length test, Commerce “determined that commissions paid by NTN to certain affiliates were not at arm’s length because the affiliates were paid a higher commission rate than unaffiliated agents for performing the same or similar functions.” Id at 37. Commerce asserts that “in order to make a determination that the commissions the respondent paid were at arm’s length ... some kind of comparison of the rates paid to affiliates to the rates paid to unaffiliated commissionaires” must be completed or conducted. See Issues & Decision Mem. at 34. Commerce contends that NTN did not provide suggestions or data that it could use to refine its analysis. See id Citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(b), Commerce maintains that NTN has the burden to prove that the commissions paid were at arm’s length and that NTN failed to meet this burden. See Def.’s Mem. at 36. Accordingly, Commerce asserts that it properly did not adjust NV for all home-market commissions paid to affiliated commissionaires. See id Timken agrees with Commerce that it was appropriate not to adjust NV for all home-market commissions. See Timken’s Resp. at 32-36. Furthermore, Timken points out that the statute does not prescribe a specific test for Commerce to use to determine whether the commission rates are at arm’s length. See id at 34. Consequently, Timken asserts that “this matter is committed to agency discretion, and the Court reviews Commerce’s methodology in accordance with the Chevron standard.” Id. Timken argues that the Court in Torrington Co. v. United States, 25 CIT -, -, 146 F.Supp.2d 845 (2001), rejected similar arguments made by NTN and that the same reasoning and conclusions apply in the case at bar. See Timken’s Resp. at 35. Timken also contends that “it is reasonable [for Commerce] to presume that commissions paid to affiliated] which are higher than those paid to unaffiliated parties are not at arm’s length.” Id. at 36. 2. Analysis “Commerce is given considerable deference in its decision to grant a circumstances-of-sale adjustment.” Outokumpu Copper Rolled Products AB v. United States, 18 CIT 204, 211, 850 F.Supp. 16, 22 (1994) (citing Smith-Corona Group, Consumer Products Div., SCM Corp. v. United States, 713 F.2d 1568, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1022, 104 S.Ct. 1274, 79 L.Ed.2d 679 (1984)). “As long as Commerce’s ‘decision is reasonable, then Commerce has acted within its authority even if another alternative is more reasonable.’” Id. (quoting Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 16 CIT 366, 372, 796 F.Supp. 517, 523 (1992), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 36 F.3d 1565 (Fed.Cir.1994)). The SAA additionally clarifies that “[C]ommerce’s ... practice with respect to this adjustment [is] to remain unchanged.” H.R. Doc. No. 103-465, at 828, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4167. Under 19 C.F.R. § 351.410(b), Commerce makes the “circumstances of sale” adjustments pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(6)(C)(iii) only for direct selling expenses and assumed expenses. Direct selling expenses include commissions “that result from, and bear a direct relationship to, the particular sale in question.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.410(c). Pursuant to its practice, Commerce has denied adjustments for commissions where it was not provided with sufficient evidence that commissions paid to affiliated commissionaires were made at arm’s length. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Belgium, 64 Fed.Reg. 49,771, 49,772 (Sept. 14, 1999); Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews on Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom, 62 Fed.Reg.2081, 2098-99 (Jan. 15, 1997); Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Finding on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan