Full opinion text
OPINION PUBLIC VERSION WALLACH, Judge. I. INTRODUCTION [Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record is denied.] Plaintiff, The Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers (the “Coalition”), brings this action pursuant to Rule 56.2 of the Rules of this Court for judgment on the agency record. Plaintiff contests certain aspects of the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s (“ITA” or “Commerce”) final results entitled Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China, 62 Fed.Reg. 9160 (1997) {“Final Determinations ”) and the final amended determinations entitled Notice of Amended Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China, 62 Fed.Reg. 15,-655 (1997). The period of investigation (“POI”) covered each exporter’s two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the filing of Plaintiffs petition. Final Determinations at 9161. For Respondent Southwest Import & Export Corp. (“Southwest”), the POI is June 1995 through December 1995. Id. For all other Respondents, the POI is July 1995 through December 1995. Id. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (1994). II. BACKGROUND On March 7, 1996, Plaintiff filed an anti-dumping petition with the ITA and the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) requesting the initiation of an antidumping investigation on certain brake drums and rotors from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC” or “China”). On April 3, 1996, the ITA published its notice of initiation of antidumping investigations of brake drums and rotors from China. Initiation of Anti-dumping Duty Investigations: Certain Brake Drums and Certain Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China, 61 Fed.Reg. 14,740 (1996). On October 10, 1996, Commerce published its preliminary determinations of sales at less-than-fair value (“LTFV”). Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determinations: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic of China, 61 Fed.Reg. 53,190 (1996) (“Preliminary Determinations ”). On February 28, 1997, Commerce published its final affirmative determinations of sales at LTFV for both brake drums and rotors. Final Determinations. On April 16, 1997, the ITC issued its decision finding that a United States industry was not being materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of certain brake drums from China. In contrast, the Commission made an affirmative injury determination concerning certain brake rotors. See Certain Brake Drums and Rotors From China, 62 Fed.Reg. 8,650 (1997). On May 16, 1997, Plaintiff filed two summonses in this Court contesting some aspects of Commerce’s affirmative LTFV determinations as to brake drums (Court No. 97-05-00874) and brake rotors (Court No. 97-05-00875). Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that Commerce erred in its: 1) decision not to apply “facts available” to all Respondents; 2) solicitation and reliance on publicly available information from the Respondents; 3) rejection of part of Plaintiffs administrative case brief; 4) determination to apply separate rates for selected Respondents; 5) ■ assignment of averaged selected Respondents’ rates to non-selected Respondents; 6) critical circumstances determination with regards to non-selected Respondents; 7) rejection of Indian surrogate values from Shivaji Works Limited (“Shivaji”); and 8) use of an Indian surrogate value from Jayaswals Neco Limited (“Jayaswals”) .for castings for Respondent and selection of surrogate values for various other factors of production. III. DISCUSSION A. The Standard of Review For ITA Determinations Requires Affirmation Unless A Determination Is Unsupported By Substantial Record Evidence Or Otherwise Not In Accordance With Law. The Court “shall hold unlawful any determination, finding or conclusion found ... to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(l) (1994). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consolidated Edison Co. of New York Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938). B. Commerce’s Determination To Rely On Respondents’ Reported Information Instead Of Facts Otherwise Available Is Supported by Substantial Evidence. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) (1994) Commerce is required to use facts otherwise available if necessary information is not available on the record, or: (2) an interested party or any other person— (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority or the Commission under this subtitle, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 1677m of this title, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this subtitle, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 1677m(i) of this title. Section 1677e(a) additionally provides that the use of facts available shall be subject to the limitations set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) (1994). 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) (1994). Section 1677m(d) provides that if Commerce: determines that a response to a request for information under this subtitle does not comply with the request, [Commerce] ... shall promptly inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the time limits established for the completion of investigations or reviews under this subtitle. If that person submits further information in response to such deficiency and either— (1) the [Commerce] finds that such response is not satisfactory, or (2) such response is not submitted within the applicable time limits, then [Commerce] may, ... disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses. This statute “is designed to prevent the unrestrained use of facts available as to a firm which makes its best effort to cooperate with the Department [of Commerce]. This section was enacted, as part of the URAA, Pub.L. 103-465 § 231, to implement portions of Annex II to the AD Agreement, which provides, in part, that information which ‘may not be ideal’ should not be disregarded if the party ‘has acted to the best of its ability.’ ” Borden Inc. v. United States, 4 F.Supp.2d 1221, 1245 (CIT 1998). If Commerce determines that use of facts available is warranted, Section 1677e(b) permits an adverse inference if Commerce can make an additional finding that “an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) (1994). In this case, after the ITA issued questionnaires, the investigated Respondents submitted responses, some of which were later found to contain errors and omissions. Commerce, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) (1994), allowed these Respondents to correct and supplement these errors before and during verification. Consequently, Commerce relied on this information, having found that the “revisions were not unduly extensive” and that there was “no basis to conclude that these errors affect the overall integrity of the response.” Final Determinations at 9167. Plaintiff initially argues that the ITA improperly allowed these Respondents to submit revisions and corrections to their questionnaire responses. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs Rule 56.2 Motion For Judgment Upon The Agency Record (“Plaintiffs Brief’) at 4-12. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Commerce should have rejected these Respondents’ data and applied “facts otherwise available” or the China-wide rate to calculate Respondents’ margin. Id. Plaintiff contends that these Respondents “significantly impede[d] a proceeding under the antidumping law by providing incorrect data or by failing to provide data.” Id. at 11 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2)(C)). Specifically, Plaintiff cites to numerous examples of errors raised in the verification reports of selected .Respondents. Id. at 4-12. Because many of these responses were allegedly “boilerplate and incomplete,” id. at 4, or “late corrections made days before or even at verification,” id. at 5, Plaintiff argues they should be rejected in favor of facts otherwise available. As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs contention that the ITA erroneously allowed Respondents to submit revisions to their questionnaire responses is misplaced. During the course of the investigation, Commerce informed Respondents that “[n]ew information will be accepted at verification only when' ... the information makes minor corrections to the information already on the record, or ... the information corroborates, supports, or clarifies information already on the record.” Letter from Gary Taverman to William J. Clinton of 10/17/96, ITA Pub.Doc. 357 at 2. Commerce’s action conforms with the statutory directive of 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) (1994) which allows for the submission of new information at verification in order to “remedy or explain” a deficiency. Cf. Koenig & Bauer-Albert AG v. United States, 15 F.Supp.2d 834, 845 (CIT 1998) (“Congress has afforded ITA a degree of latitude in implementing its verification procedures.”) (citation omitted). The Court must also reject Plaintiffs argument that the “quantity and substance of inaccurate and incomplete [questionnaire] answers” submitted by Respondents require the application of “facts available.” Plaintiffs Brief at 4. Commerce possesses the “ ‘discretion to determine whether a Respondent has complied with an information request.’ ” Helmerich & Payne, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.Supp.2d 304, 308 (CIT 1998) (quoting Daido Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 853, 861, 893 F.Supp. 43, 49-50 (1995)). Through verification, Commerce tests the information provided by a party for accuracy and completeness so that Commerce can justifiably rely upon that information. Tatung Co. v. United States, 18 CIT 1137, 1140 (1994). Commerce usually concludes that errors in a response that are not substantial do not effect the integrity of the response. See e.g., Ferrosilicon from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 Fed.Reg. 59,407, 59,409 (1996). “[T]he issue is not the value of the errors as a percentage of total U.S. sales, or the number of instances of errors. Rather the issue is the nature of the errors and their effect on the validity of the submission.” Tatung, 18 CIT at 1141. In this case, Respondents submitted the necessary information required to make a proper dumping determination, and Commerce verified the responses as accurate and reliable. Commerce found that Respondents’ revisions to their responses were not “unduly extensive” and the errors corrected by Commerce at verification did not “affect the overall integrity of the response.” Final Determinations at 9167. Moreover, as Defendant-Intervenor aptly notes, “in every instance in which the Department encountered errors, the Department was able to verify the correct information.” Defendanb-In-tervenors’ Response Memorandum of Law at 18; see also Final Determinations at 9167 (all such deficiencies can be corrected using verified data on the record). Therefore, “[i]n the end, the errors were corrected and the data were verified.” Magnesium Corp. of America v. United States, 938 F.Supp. 885, 903 (CIT 1996). Plaintiff does not allege that Commerce incorrectly calculated the margins or implemented an arbitrary verification methodology. Plaintiff “rather, proposed a blind, punitive use of [facts otherwise available], which is clearly disfavored.” Id. Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff argues for the application of adverse facts available, the Court finds that “ ‘Commerce could not resort to adverse [facts otherwise available] because [Respondents] complied with all information requests.’ ” Peer Bearing Co. v. United States, Ct. No. 97-01-00023, 1998 WL 283544, *4 (CIT May 27, 1998) (citing Shieldalloy v. United States, 975 F.Supp. 361, 363 (CIT 1997)). Therefore, upon .review of the administrative record, the Court concludes that Commerce’s determination to rely on the Respondents’ reported information and not resort to facts otherwise available is supported by substantial evidence and is otherwise in accordance with law. C. The ITA’s Decision To Request Publically Available Information From The Parties Is Supported By Substantial Evidence And In Accordance With Law. Well-settled principles of administrative law afford an agency broad discretion to fashion its own rules of administrative procedure, including the authority to establish and enforce time limits concerning the submission of written information and data. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 544-45, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978). In accord with those principles, Commerce has promulgated regulations which set forth the time limits governing the submission of factual information. For time limits generally, 19 C.F.R. § 353.31(a) (1997) requires that “submissions of factual information for the Secretary’s consideration shall be submitted not ‘later than ... seven days before the scheduled date on which the verification is to commence.’ ” In addition, 19 C.F.R. § 353.31(a)(2) (1997) allows any interested party to “submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested party ... at any time prior to the deadline provided in this section for submissions of such factual information or, if later, 10 days after the date such factual information is served on the interested party....” The regulations further provide time limits for instances where the Secretary requests or solicits factual information. 19 C.F.R. § 353.31(b) (1997) states, in part: (1) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the Secretary may request any person to submit factual information at any time during a proceeding. (2) In the Secretary’s written request to an interested party for a response to a questionnaire or for other factual information, the Secretary will specify the time limit for response. On December 19, 1996, Commerce solicited additional publicly available information (“PAI”) regarding surrogate values for its “factors of production” analysis from the parties and notified them that the deadline for “published information to be considered in the final determinations is January 10,1997.” Letter from Gary Tav-erman to Leslie Glick of 12/19/96, ITA Pub.Doc. 412. Two groups of ■ Respondents submitted PAI relating to surrogate country data within the established deadline. See Letter from Katten Muchin & Zavis to Secretary of Commerce of 1/9/97, ITA Pub.Doc. 434; see also Letter from White & Case to Secretary of Commerce of 1/10/97, ITA Pub.Doc. 443. Plaintiff did not submit any information within that period. Plaintiff, however, contends that Commerce improperly allowed Respondents to submit new PAI three months after the preliminary determination of October 10, 1996 and 49 days before the final determination. Plaintiffs Brief at 12. Instead of relying on the new PAI, Plaintiff argues that the ITA should have used the related data submitted by Plaintiff in its submission of August 20, 1996. Id. at 12-13.' In the alternative, Plaintiff argues that even if the ITA properly accepted Respondents’ PAI, the ITA erred by denying Plaintiff the ability to respond with rebuttal PAI pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 353.31(a)(2) (1997) (allowing 10 days to respond to new factual information). Id. at 13. Finally, Plaintiff argues that denial of Plaintiffs ability to respond to the PAI amounted to a violation of its procedural due process rights. Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum of Law (“Plaintiffs Reply Brief’) at 6. Since the regulations plainly permit Commerce to request factual information at any time, Commerce’s request for PAI after issuance of the preliminary determination was not contrary to law. 19 C.F.R. § 353.31(b) (1997); see Floral Trade Council of Davis, CA v. United States, 15 CIT 497, 502, 775 F.Supp. 1492, 1499 (1991) (“Clearly, the regulations give ITA flexibility to obtain information necessary to its decision.... ”); Torrington Co. v. United States, 965 F.Supp. 40, 44 (CIT 1997). In an antidumping investigation, “[t]he statute clearly permits Commerce to obtain information on its own initiative rather than just relying on information submitted to it.” Wieland-Werke AG v. United States, 4 F.Supp.2d 1207, 1212 (CIT 1998). Indeed, Plaintiff cites no authority to support its contentions and conceded at oral argument that Commerce possessed authority to request the information. Plaintiff also argues that 19 C.F.R. § 353.31(a)(2) (1997) requires that Plaintiff have ten additional days from the January 10, 1997 deadline established by Commerce to submit factual information rebutting Respondents’ PAI. Plaintiffs Brief at 13. Defendant argues that Plaintiff is simply attempting to set its own time limits for the submission of factual information. Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition to the Rule 56.2 Motion for Judgment Upon the Agency Record Filed by the Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers (“Defendant’s Response”) at 14. Whether or not the additional ten day time to respond should apply to 19 C.F.R. § 353.31(b)(2) (1997) is however, an issue which needs not be decided, as the administrative record is devoid of evidence indicating that Plaintiff requested or even attempted to submit rebuttal PAI. Since Plaintiff did not attempt to submit its “rebuttal” PAI, the Court is unable to examine whether or not this data would have fallen within the purview of 353.31(a)(2) by rebutting, clarifying, or correcting Respondents’ PAI. Cf., Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States, 18 CIT 320 (1994). Plaintiff raises its due process argument for the first time in its Reply Brief in violation of USCIT R. 81(1) which provides that “[a] reply brief shall be confined to rebutting matters contained in the brief of the respondents].” Nevertheless, “the Court may exercise its discretion to prevent knowingly affirming a determination with errors.” Torrington Co. v. United States, Ct. No. 95-03-00345, 1997 WL 589412, at *3 (CIT Sept. 19, 1997). If Plaintiff had raised a clear error in its argument, the Court could consider the argument. Plaintiffs argument, however, is clearly erroneous and the Court declines to permit its assertion. D. The ITA Did Not Err by Rejecting Part of Plaintiff’s Pre-Hearing Brief. As discussed above, the relevant regulation cautions parties that Commerce will not consider untimely, unsolicited factual information. See 19 C.F.R. § 353.31(a)(1)® (time limit for submitting factual information is no later than seven days before the scheduled date on which the verification is to commence). “Commerce’s policy of setting time limits on the submission of factual information is reasonable because Commerce ‘clearly cannot complete its work unless it is able at some point to “freeze” the record and make calculations and findings based on that fixed and certain body of information.’ ” Gulf States Tube Division of Quanix Corp. v. United States, 981 F.Supp. 630, 653 (CIT 1997) (citation omitted). In this case, Commerce rejected certain parts of Plaintiffs Pre-Hearing Brief on Behalf of Petitioner, The Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers (“Plaintiffs Pre-Hearing Brief’) as containing new and unsolicited, factual information submitted after the regulatory time limit. Letter from Commerce to Leslie Glick of 1/23/97, ITA Pub .Doc. 476. The information was attached as Exhibits 8 and 9 and incorporated on pages 30 and 31 of Plaintiffs Pre-Hearing Brief. Pre-Hear-ing Brief, ITA Pub.Doc. 460. The relevant portion of Exhibit 8 states that after the announcement of a 42-65% duty rate for PRC exports, “many factories increased prices in the 2 to 10% range.” Id. at Exh. 8. Based on this data, Plaintiff concluded that the lack of correlation between the large duty rate imposed and the small increase in price would “indicate a. massive diversion of shipments between companies in China to shift exports to the lower rate companies.” Id. Exhibit 9 contained an analysis of the public versions of the verification reports to determine if “the information reported was consistent with known and accepted practices in the industry for production, accounting, sales, etc:” Id. at 31. Based on this data, Plaintiff concluded that Respondents’ answers lacked credibility. Both exhibits were authored by Barry Breslow, an individual described by Plaintiff as an “industry expert” who has “had years of experience.” Id. Plaintiff argues that the data rejected by Commerce is not new and untimely factual information, but rather “analysis of old factual information that Plaintiff submitted earlier in the investigation.” Plaintiffs Brief at 15. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Exhibit 8 contains “an analysis of the imports of the subject merchandise” and Exhibit 9 contains “an analysis of the ITA’s verification reports for Respondents Laizhou CAPCO, CAIEC, Qingdao, Norenco, XCY, Shenyang Honbase, Laizhou Luyan, Midwest Air Technologies, Changzhi Automotive Parts Factory, Yangtze, MMB International, and Southwest.” Id. at 15-16. In the alternative, Plaintiff claims that even if its submissions could be construed as factual instead of analytical information, the regulations allow for.the submission of “additional factual information, ten days after the submission of data submitted by another party if it is to ‘rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested partyId. at 16 (citing 19 C.F.R. 353.31(a)(2)). Thus, Plaintiff contends that its submission should have been accepted “because it was submitted within ten business days of receiving the [PAI] information submitted by Defendant-Intervenors.” Id. Finally, according to Plaintiff, since the rejected information was submitted during the “course of the proceeding” pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(2), it should not have been removed from the administrative record. Id. Section 1516a(b)(2)(A) states, in pertinent part, that “the record ... shall consist of — (I) a copy of all information presented to or obtained by [Commerce] during the course of the administrative proceeding....” The Court finds that Commerce’s decision to reject part of Plaintiffs Pre-Hearing Brief is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. Plaintiffs proposed exhibits reveal new and untimely .factual information, and, therefore, Plaintiffs reliance on them is impermissible. Factual information is defined as “(1) Initial and supplemental questionnaire responses; (2) Data or statements of fact in support of allegations; (3) Other data or statements of facts; and (4) Documentary evidence.” 19 C.F.R. § 353.2(g) (1997). While it is true that information constituting a reinterpretation of evidence that was before Commerce is permissible, AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 988 F.Supp. 594, 602 (CIT 1997); see also Verson v. United States, 5 F.Supp.2d 963, 968 n. 11 (CIT 1998) (“At the court’s discretion, calculations are admissible into evidence if the underlying data upon which they are based is admissible.”), in this case, Plaintiffs rejected submission contains new factual data as opposed to calculations or analysis gleaned from the record. This data falls squarely into the regulatory definition of factual information as “data or statements of fact in support of allegations.” 19 C.F.R. § 353.2(g) (1997). Plaintiff has failed to carry its burden of proving that the rejected information was only an analysis of information already contained in the record. See Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States, 985 F.Supp. 133, 136 (CIT 1997) (“The burden of creating an adequate record lies with the party challenging Commerce’s determination. ...”). Plaintiffs only explanation is its cursory conclusion that the analysis was based on “old factual information that Plaintiff submitted earlier in the investigation — the verification reports.” Plaintiffs Reply Brief at 7. Plaintiff fails to indicate where in the reports the information can be found. Id. Moreover, as noted by Defendant, Plaintiffs argument fails because Bres-low’s analysis old factual information was expressly offered as an expert opinion. Breslow’s theories of mass diversion of shipments and his analysis of whether Respondents reported information was consistent with accepted industry standards clearly assumes the weight of evidence. Although Plaintiff contends in its Reply Brief that Mr. Breslow is “not an outside expert but an employee of a member of the Coalition that was providing an analysis of existing factual information,” Plaintiffs Reply Brief at 7, that argument is jejune. It ignores Plaintiffs designation of Breslow as an “industry expert” in its Pre-Hearing Brief, ITA Pub.Doc. 460 at 31 (“XII. ANALYSIS OF ERRORS AND INCONSISTENCIES BY INDUSTRY EXPERT”), and Plaintiffs “distinction” between in-house and outside experts goes only to the weight to be accorded Bres-low’s testimony, not his status. Because the administrative record reflects that Plaintiffs unsolicited factual information was submitted outside the time limit provided in 19 C.F.R. § 353.31(a)(1)® (1997), Commerce’s decision was in accordance with law. See Emerson Power Transmission Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 1154, 1160, 903 F.Supp. 48, 54 (CIT 1995) (“In general, this court has upheld Commerce’s rejection of untimely factual information pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 353.31(a).”) Even if the data rejected by Commerce in Exhibit 8 had been accepted, the record demonstrates that Commerce actually addressed Plaintiffs argument. In response to Petitioner’s concern over the mass diversion of shipments between exporters, Commerce stated that it, has established that the companies receiving separate rates in these investigations operate independently of each other and of government entities with respect to their exports of the subject merchandise. Thus, these respondents have been assigned rates based on their different cost and pricing structures. It would be a normal phenomenon that respondents with lower dumping margins would experience an increase in sales of the subject merchandise as a result of an increase in customers’ demand for products with lower duty margins. Final Determinations at 9167 (emphasis added). Thus, Commerce actually considered and reasonably rejected Plaintiffs arguments. Consequently, Plaintiffs interests were not prejudiced if Commerce erred by rejecting the relevant information. Intercargo Insurance Co. v. United States, 83 F.3d 391, 394 (Fed.Cir.1996) (“It is well settled that principles of harmless error apply to the review of agency proceedings.”). Plaintiffs alternative argument, that its submission construed as “factual information” falls within the permissible time limits, is misplaced. Plaintiff contends that the rejected information falls within the exception allowing for submissions of factual information beyond a deadline only to “rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested party.” 19 C.F.R. § 353.31(a)(2)(1997). Thus, according to Plaintiff, the rejected information must serve to “rebut, clarify, or correct” the PAI submitted by Respondents regarding the surrogate country data on January 10,1997. The Court finds, however, that Plaintiffs rejected factual information is wholly unrelated to Respondents’ PAI. While Plaintiffs data discusses increasing margins in relation to prices in the marketplace and accepted industry standards for reporting information, the Respondents’ PAI is responsive to Commerce’s request for more publicly available surrogate information and includes, inter alia, detailed financial reports from six Indian foundries for overhead, interest, depreciation and profit. See Letter from White & Case to Secretary of Commerce of 1/10/97, ITA Pub.Doc. 443 (responding to Commerce’s request for additional PAI). Plaintiffs submission simply does not rebut, clarify or correct Respondents’ PAI. Accordingly, the rejected portions of Plaintiffs Pre-Hearing Brief, even under this theory, remains untimely. Cf. Bowe-Passat v. United States, 17 CIT 335, 338 (1993) (“[T]he burden on the party attempting to submit untimely information remains high indeed.”). Finally, Plaintiffs reasoning that its submitted information was timely under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(2)(1994) is invalid. Plaintiffs contention that Breslow’s “analysis” must be accepted as part of the record by Commerce simply by virtue of its having been submitted “during the course of the administrative proceeding” ignores the plain language of the regulations and the broad discretion of Commerce. Plaintiffs theory, as noted by Defendant, see Defendant’s Response at 15, would render inoperable Commerce’s regulations establishing time limits for filing submissions. Thus, the Court finds that Commerce’s rejection of part of Plaintiffs Pre-Hearing Brief comports with the substantial evidence test and was made in accordance with law. E. The ITC’s Separate Rates Determination for Selected Respondents Is Supported by Substantial Evidence And In Accordance With Law Under the broad authority delegated to it from Congress, Commerce has employed “a presumption of state control for exporters in a non-market economy.” Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405 (Fed.Cir.1997). Under this presumption, all exporters receive one non-market economy country (“NME”) rate, or countrywide rate, unless an exporter can “ ‘affirmatively demonstrate’ its entitlement to a separate, company-specific margin by showing ‘an absence of central government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports.’ ” Id. (citations omitted); see also Transcom, Inc. v. United States, 5 F.Supp.2d 984, 989 (1998). To determine whether de jure government control exists, Commerce examines evidence of: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter’s business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; or (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of China, 56 Fed.Reg. 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) (establishing Commerce’s practice); see also Air Prod ucts and Chemicals, Inc., v. United States, 14 F.Supp.2d 737, 742 (CIT 1998) (citations omitted). Evidence supporting de facto absence of government control includes: (1) whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the government and other exporters; (2) whether each exporter can keep the proceeds from its sales; (3) whether the Respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) whether the Respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management. Id.; Final Determination At Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China, 59 Fed.Reg. 22,-585, 22,587 (1994). In the Final Determinations at issue here, Commerce assigned separates rates to all but two of the participating Respondents that requested them. Final Determinations, at 9161-62. First, Commerce found that all of the Respondents had provided sufficient documents and copies of relevant PRC laws to establish an absence of de jure control. Id. at 9161. Commerce explained that “[i]n prior cases, the Department has analyzed the laws which the respondents have submitted in this record and found that they establish an absence of de jure control.” Id. (citing Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain PartiaL-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers From the People’s Republic of China, 60 Fed.Reg. 54,472 (1995)). Due to inconsistent implementation of the government enactments among different jurisdictions in the PRC, however, Commerce accorded greater weight to its analysis of de facto control. Id. Upon review of the evidence presented to it regarding de facto control, Commerce determined that CAIEC/Laizhou CAPCO, CMC, Qingdao, Shenyang/Laizhou, Southwest, XCY, Xinjiang, and Yantai demonstrated that: (1) [t]hey establish their own export prices; (2) they negotiate contracts, without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations; (3) they make their own personnel decisions; and (4) they retain the proceeds of their export sales, use profits according to their business needs and have the authority to sell their assets and to obtain loans. Id. Commerce additionally found, in the questionnaire responses, evidence that the relevant Respondents engaged in company-specific pricing during the POI, indicating a lack of coordination among exporters. Id. at 9161-62. As for CNIGC and Dalian, Commerce determined that they failed to rebut the presumption that they operate under de facto government control. The record evidence obtained by Commerce demonstrated that CNIGC and Dalian still maintained ties to NORINCO. Id. at 9166 (“[Tjhere is evidence on the record that NORINCO is controlled by the government.”) Accordingly, Commerce denied these two Respondents separate rates. Id. Plaintiff contests Commerce’s assignment of separate rates. Plaintiffs Brief at 17. Plaintiff argues that the relevant Respondents failed to rebut the presumption of state control both in law and in fact. Plaintiff contends that an analysis of the laws of the PRC alone is insufficient to demonstrate the absence of de jure government control. Id. at 18. Instead, Plaintiff points to some alleged restrictive state stipulations on individual companies’ export licenses to show government control. Plaintiffs Brief at 19. For example, Plaintiff contends that some Respondents submitted- evidence showing that they were “required to submit their annual inspection reports, balance sheet, or profit/loss statement on a regular basis to the National Industrial and Commercial Administration in order for the license to be renewed.” Id. Also, Plaintiff argues that the questionnaire response for Respondent Shenyang shows a legal requirement to report the names of its board members to the Industry and Commercial Administration Bureau. Id. This, Plaintiff contends, demonstrates ' government control over management decisions. Id. Another Respondent, Southwest reported that a state authority will conduct annual inspections of the companies. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff argues “[i]t is clear that these inspections are a form of control of the government authority over the company operations.” Id. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that “[d]uring verification, the ITA should have investigated further to find out specific details about these inspections.” Id. With regard to an absence of de facto control, Plaintiff argues that Respondents failed to meet its burden. Specifically, Plaintiff indicates that several Respondents failed to provide minutes of employee meetings or employee evaluation forms, and Respondent Southwest only provided one pre-petition document. • Id. at 21-22. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that Respondents failed to ■ disclose any relationship with the Ministry of Machinery Industry and the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (“MOFTEC”). Id. This failure to- disclose should have resulted in the denial of separate rates to those Respondents requesting separate rates. Id. at 23. Finally, Plaintiff contends that “the diversion of shipments of the subject merchandise between exporters observed after the ITA’s preliminary determination in this investigation is strong indicia that the companies do not operate independently of each other....” Id. ■ The Court finds that Commerce properly assigned separate dumping margins for the relevant Respondents. As a threshold matter, to the extent that Plaintiff insinuates that separate rates should not have been assigned because most of the Respondents were “owned by the people,” its argument is unfounded. See Plaintiffs Brief at 18 (emphasizing that all Respondents affirmed ownership by the people). This Court has consistently upheld Commerce’s methodology for determining government control, de jure and de facto, including a presumption of state control, as a proper administration of the anti-dumping statute. Writing Instrument Manufacturers Association, Pencil Section v. United States, 984 F.Supp. 629, 642 n. 3 (CIT 1997) (citations omitted). Therefore, Commerce’s conclusion that “ownership of a company by ‘all the people’ does not require the application of a single rate,” is in accordance with the law. Final Determinations, 62 Fed. Reg. at 9161. Additionally, the evidence on the record supports Commerce’s determination that the Respondents sufficiently proved an absence of de jure state control. While it is true that business licenses containing restrictions may at times indicate control by the government, the issues raised by Plaintiff fail to raise any licensing restrictions which would indicate government control over exports. The fact that some Respondents are required to submit annual inspection reports and balance sheets to demonstrate that they are not engaging in activities outside the scope of their licensed businesses does not establish de jure control by the government over export activities. Instead, the Respondents are simply stating their compliance with the reporting laws of the PRC which require proof of operating within the scope of business in order to renew licenses. See Air Products and Chemicals, 14 F.Supp.2d at 743 (affirming Commerce’s finding of no de jure government control even though the company’s business license restricts the scope of its business in the PRC). If information reporting requirements necessarily negated free market status, few nations, including our own, could claim to be anything other than non-market economies. See e.g., Securities Act of 1933, § 5, 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a) (1994) (prohibiting sale of securities unless a registration statement has been filed). Moreover, in contrast to Plaintiffs assertions, an examination of Respondents’ questionnaire responses actually reveals their independence from government control. In response to Commerce’s questionnaire regarding its business licenses, Respondents Southwest, MMB Int’l., Inc., Yangtze Machinery Co., and Jiuyang Enterprise Corp. stated that “the license establishes that [a] company is an independent legal entity that is responsible for its own profits and losses.” Letter from Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins to Secretary of Commerce of 6/7/96, ITA Pub.Doc. 86 at 4. In addition, CAIEC noted that, other than the legal limitation to engage in the scope of its business activities, “[t]here are no other limitations imposed on Laizhou CAPCO or CAIEC, nor [sic] any entitlements granted to either company by this license.” Letter from White & Case to Secretary of Commerce of 6/11/96, ITA Pub.Doc. 97 at 5. Because Commerce did not find any licensing restrictions, Commerce did not err by failing to investigate further the details of the inspections. Commerce’s finding of an absence of de facto control is also supported by substantial evidence. During verification, Commerce found nothing to contradict the claims of the Respondents. In contrast to Plaintiffs allegations that the record lacked the breadth of information required to show lack of governmental control, Commerce fully examined and verified sales documents, bank statements, company correspondence, loan documents, long-term investments and the articles of incorporation of those Respondents that it found qualified for separate rates. ITA Pub.Doc. 416-435, Administrative Record (“A.R.”) Fiche Nos. 253-304 (verification exhibits). For Southwest, for example, Commerce evaluated the organization and corporate structure, and also examined “how Southwest negotiates sales and how prices are set,” and “sales terms, prices and other contract provisions for Southwest’s pre-selected sales.” Verification of Sales Response of Southwest, ITA Pub.Doc. 425 at 1-2 (emphasis in original). In order to ascertain that Southwest does not coordinate selling and pricing activities with other exporters and the China Chamber of Commerce, the ITA examined sales documentation, contracts, purchase orders and Southwest’s sales accounting system. Id. at 3. Additionally, Commerce verifiers examined the process by which Southwest deals with convertible currency from export sales, including whether there are any restrictions on the use of foreign currency. Id. Despite Plaintiffs contention that Southwest provided only one pre-petition document evidencing lack of de facto governmental control, Plaintiffs Brief at 21-22, a review of the record reveals that Southwest provided ample pre-petition documentation. In addition to the “Circular of Independent Financial Relation Between Headquarters and the Branches” with an attached “Debit Transfer Accounts Notice” issued January 17, 1987, Commerce examined a December 30, 1992 announcement for the change in names from China National Technical Import & Export Corp., Xinan Company to Southwest Technical Import & Export Corp., 1995 financial statements, a “1995 Proposed Plan from the General Manager,” a “1995 Conference Resolution” and a document entitled “Operating Indexes and Check-Up System for 1995.” Id. at 2-4. Also, in order to explain its sales process, Southwest provided a substantial amount of 1995 correspondence. Id. at 5. Plaintiff also argues that the failure by MOFTEC and all Respondents to provide documentary evidence of their relationship demonstrates a failure to prove an absence of governmental control and should have resulted in use.of facts available. Plaintiffs Brief at 22. The record indicates that Commerce met with the Ministry of Machinery Industry in order “to discuss the relationship between the Ministry of Machinery Industry and China North Industries Corp.” (National NORINCO) and the Ministry’s relationship with CNIGC and Dalian. Memorandum from Brian Smith to Gary Taverman of 1/16/97, ITA Pub.Doc. 458. While Commerce noted that Ministry officials did not provide some requested documentation, Commerce, in the end, denied separate rates for CNIGC and Dalian. Filial Determinations at 9162. As for the other Respondents, Plaintiff points to no evidence to demonstrate that Respondents “withheld relevant and material information.” Accordingly, Commerce’s finding that there was “no evidence that these respondents are controlled by MOFTEC or the Ministry of Machinery Industry, or any level of the PRC government,” Final Determinations at 9167, is reasonably supported by the record. As for Plaintiffs concern regarding the diversion of shipments, Commerce properly rejected Plaintiffs “expert testimony” as the untimely submission of factual information. However, as noted earlier, Commerce reasonably found that no concern for massive diversion of shipments between exporters existed since “the Department has established that the companies receiving separate rates in these investigations operate independently of each other and of government entities with respect to their exports of the subject merchandise.” Id. Thus, despite Plaintiffs arguments, the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence on the record to support Commerce’s determination of an absence of de jure and de facto governmental control for the relevant Respondents. F. The ITA Determination To Assign Selected Respondents’ Average Margins To Non-Selected Respondents Is Supported By Substantial Evidence And In Accordance With Law. In general, the antidumping law requires Commerce to calculate the estimated weighted average dumping margin for each exporter and producer individually investigated. 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(l)(B)(i)(I) (1994); 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-l(c)(l) (1994). As an exception, however, 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-l expressly permits the use of sampling and averaging. The relevant section provides that: If it is not practicable to make individual weighted average dumping margin determinations ... because of the large number of exporters or producers involved in the investigation or review, the administering authority may determine the weighted average dumping margins for a reasonable number of exporters or producers by limiting its examination to— (A) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available to the administering authority at the time of selection, or (B) exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise from the exporting country that can be reasonably examined. 19 U.S.C. § 1677f — 1 (c)(2) (1994). This section was added by the URAA, and remains consistent with the broad authority granted to Commerce in selecting sampling methodologies. See Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the URAA, H.R.Doe. No. 103-316, at 872 (1994) (“SAA”), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4200-01; Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. v. United States, 20 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed.Cir.1994) (granting discretion to Commerce in deciding when to average prices); Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 918 F.Supp. 386, 403-04 (CIT 1996) (granting broad discretion in sample selection methodology). In such cases, 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(l)(B)(i)(II) (1994) specifies that Commerce shall “determine, in accordance with paragraph (5), the estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated.... ” Paragraph 5 of that section establishes the method for determining the estimated all-others rate. “[T]he estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined ... on the basis of facts available.” 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)(A) (1994). However, “[i]f the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis margins,” or based entirely on facts available, “the administering authority may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, including averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.” 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)(B) (1994). With exporters from a NME, however, Commerce’s practice is to presume all exporters are under the control of the central government until they affirmatively demonstrate a de jure and de facto absence of government control. This approach was first announced in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Sparklers from the People’s Republic of China, 56 Fed.Reg. 20,588, 20,-589 (1991) and has been consistently upheld by this Court and the Federal Circuit. Air Products and Chemicals, 14 F.Supp.2d at 741-42; Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405 (Fed.Cir.1997). Commerce investigates each exporter individually, including those requesting separate rates, based on the “presumption that each is part of a single entity whose pricing practices are controlled by the government.” Zalok Memo, ITA Pub.Doc. 170 at 3. Those exporters who do not respond or fail to prove absence of de jure/de facto control are assigned the country-wide rate. Therefore, a NME exporter normally receives one of two rates: either -the separate rate for which it qualified or a country-wide rate. Transcom, 5 F.Supp.2d at 990. This approach obviates the need for an “all-others” rate calculation. The case at bar involves exports from a NME. Commerce assigned dumping margins to three categories of Respondents: (1)Respondents proving an absence of government control received separate company-specific rates; (2) Respondents responding fully to questionnaires but not investigated received averaged non-adverse “all others” rates; and (3) Respondents not qualifying for separate rates or not responding to questionnaires received the China-wide rate based on adverse facts available. See Final Determinations. Initially, Commerce anticipated receiving twenty-six complete responses to questionnaires. Zalok Memo, ITA Pub. Doc. 170 at 1. Because of the administrative burden associated with investigating twenty-six companies, Commerce decided to limit the number of investigated Respondents to seven in the brake rotors investigation and five in the drum investigations. Id. at 4 (“Due to the administrative burdens and the limited resources available to the Department, we recommend limiting our complete analysis in these cases.... ”). Consistent with the statutory provisions, Commerce selected as Respondents to investigate those Respondents with the largest sales volumes. Id. Those Respondents not selected also submitted full responses to the questionnaires and requested separate company-specific rates. Those Respondents that did not submit a questionnaire response or could not qualify for separate rates were assigned a China-wide rate based on adverse facts available. Final Determinations at 9162. After investigating the selected Respondents and finding all but two qualified for separate rates, Commerce concluded that an averaged margin based on the selected Respondents should be assigned to the fully cooperative but uninvestigated Respondents. Id. at 9173-74. Commerce reasoned that it would be inappropriate to assign a rate based on adverse “facts available” that would also apply to PRC exporters who refused to cooperate. Id. at 9173-74. For brake rotor non-selected Respondents, Commerce “assigned ... a weighted-average dumping margin based on the calculated margins of the selected brake rotors respondents, excluding margins which were zero, de minimis or based on facts available.” Id. at 9174. For brake drum non-selected Respondents, Commerce “assigned ... a rate which is the simple average of the dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.” Id. Commerce did not include selected brake drum Respondent, CNIGC’s rate based on facts available in the calculation because Commerce does “not consider that a weighted-average which includes that company’s adverse facts available rate is reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for cooperative non-investigated exporters or producers who submitted full questionnaire responses.” Id. at 9173-74. Commerce’s methodology for calculating margins for these non-selected Respondents was based on the statutory provisions outlining the all-others rate calculation found in 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5) (1994). Id. at 9173. Plaintiff argues that Commerce should have assigned the non-investigated Respondents the China-wide rate of 86.02% for drums and 43.32% for rotors. Plaintiffs Brief at 24. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that since the non-selected Respondents were never verified by Commerce, they should have received the China-wide rate. Id. at 25 (“This procedure of not verifying information from a non-selected Respondent is not in accordance with law.”). In addition, Plaintiff argues that the analogous use of 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5) is not appropriate since the statute deals with the calculation of an “all others” rate in market economy cases only. Plaintiffs Reply Brief at 12. Moreover, it claims, the “assignment of non-adverse, average rates to the non selected respondent is not a reasonable interpretation of 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5), especially for the ITA’s assignment of the simple average rate for drum non selected Respondents.” Id. Commerce’s assignment of an averaged non-adverse margin to the non-selected Respondents is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. As a threshold matter, Commerce’s decision to resort to averaging due to the administrative burden is in accordance with law. “The purpose of 19 U.S.C. § 1677Í-1 is to permit Commerce to use sampling methodologies when necessary due to the volume of sales involved. The legislative history shows that the purpose of § 1677Í-1 is to ‘to reduce the costs and administrative burden on the Department of Commerce of determining dumping margins.....’” Federal-Mogul Corp., 918 F.Supp. at 404 (quoting H.R.Rep. 98-725 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A .N. 4910, 5173). Commerce did not err by not verifying the non-selected Respondents. The second issue raised by Plaintiff is whether Commerce’s assignment of an “all others” average rate to NME exporters, who were not required to prove their entitlement to separate rates, comports with substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. Plaintiff concedes that the. “ITA has discretion to establish the estimated ‘all others’ rate for exports and producers not individually investigated,” but argues “that discretion is limited by the concept of reasonableness.... ” Plaintiffs Reply Brief at 11. Indeed, Chevron teaches that “if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to [a] specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Where the agency’s interpretation of a statute represents a reasonable accommodation of manifestly competing interests, 'it is entitled to deference. Id. at 865, 104 S.Ct. 2778. “Since Commerce administers the trade laws and its implementing regulations, it is entitled -to deference in its reasonable interpretations of those laws and regulations.” Melex USA, Inc. v. United States, 19 CIT 1130, 1133, 899 F.Supp. 632, 635 (1995) (citing PPG Industries v. United States, 13 CIT 297, 299, 712 F.Supp. 195, 198 (1989)), aff'd, 978 F.2d 1232 (Fed.Cir.1992); compare with Haggar Apparel Co. v. United States, 938 F.Supp. 868 (CIT 1996) aff'd, 127 F.3d 1460 (Fed.Cir.1997) (no Chevron deference in customs cases), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 30, 141 L.Ed.2d 790 (1998). The statute’s silence mandates a reasonableness analysis of statutory interpretation of assignment óf an “all-others” averaged rate to non-selected NME Respondents. As an initial matter the Court finds without support Plaintiffs argument that 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5) (1994) only applies to market economies. “[T]he amended provisions [of 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(d)(l)(B)(i) and 1671d(c)(l) ] nonetheless indicate Congressional support for the ‘all others’ rate without distinction for NME or non-NME contexts.” UCF America Inc. v. United States, 919 F.Supp. 435, 441 (CIT 1996). Indeed, the legislative history makes no such mention of any distinction. Although there are no cases from this Court directly on point, Commerce in Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey from the People’s Republic of China, 60 Fed.Reg. 14725, 14729-30 (March 20, 1995) (“Honey”) squarely addressed this issue. See also Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China, 63 FedReg. 41794, 41797-98 (Aug. 5, 1998). Commerce, in Honey, first confronted the situation where administrative constraints prevented it from fully investigating NME Respondents who complied fully with questionnaire requests. Prior to that determination, Commerce, generally, had been able to individually investigate all producers/exporters because of the small number of Respondents involved. See ITA Pub. Doc. 170 at 3. Given this unique situation, Commerce reasoned: Because it would not be appropriate for the Department to refuse to consider an affirmative documented request for an examination of whether these companies were independent of any non-respondent firms and then assign to the cooperative firms the rate for the noncooperative firms, which in this case is an adverse margin based on best information available, the Department has assigned a special single rate for these firms. 60 FedReg. at 14729-30. The ITA’s reasoning in Honey has the weight of fairness and common sense. It would be inequitable if Commerce were to assign an adverse facts available rate to these Respondents. Cf., Nat’l. Knitwear & Sportswear Assoc. v. United States, 15 CIT 548, 558, 779 F.Supp. 1364, 1372-73 (1991) (holding that the application of a punitive, or even quasi-punitive, rate to innocent parties would be contrary to the intent that the antidumping law be remedial). Commerce’s approach also comports with purpose of the new statutory scheme under the URAA which is “designed to prevent the unrestrained use of facts available as to a firm which makes its best effort to cooperate with the Department.” Borden, 4 F.Supp.2d at 1245. Commerce, faced with an inability to investigate all cooperating Respondents, reasonably devised a methodology for calculating a fair rate. Moreover, the calculation of the “all others rate” applied by Commerce to the non-selected Respondents is statutorily defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5) (1994). Commerce’s calculation of the rate for non-selected brake rotors is reasonably based on Section 1673d(c)(5)(A)’s mandate to use the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins and any margins determined by facts available. Similarly, Commerce’s calculation of the non-selected brake drums rate is reasonably based on Section 1673d(c)(5)(B) which gives Commerce the authority to use any reasonable method where the estimated weighted average dumping margins for all exporters individually investigated are zero or de minimis or based entirely on facts available. While the statute also suggests the use of “averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined for the exporters individually investigated” in these situations, the SAA specifies that if this approach “results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or producers, Commerce may use other reasonable methods.” SAA at 873, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4201. Accordingly, the Court finds Commerce’s assignment to the non-investigated brake drums Respondents of a rate which is the simple average of the dumping margins determined for the exporters individually investigated is supported by substantial evidence. Since the rates in this case for all the selected brake drums Respondents were either zero or based entirely on facts available, Commerce had a reasonable basis to assign the non-selected Respondent rates. In accordance with the SAA’s mandate not to use reasonably un-reflective data, Commerce did not include selected brake drum Respondent CNIGC’s rate, based on facts available in the calculation. See Nat’l. Knitwear & Sportswear Assoc., 15 CIT at 558-59, 779 F.Supp. at 1372-73 (affirming Commerce’s exclusion of BIA rates from “all others” rate where rátes are not representative of pricing practices). Thus the Court finds reasonable Commerce’s determination to assign the non-investigated Respondents a non-adverse “all others” rate. G. The ITA’s Critical Circumstances Determination Is Supported By Substantial Evidence and In Accordance With Law. Generally, antidumping duties are imposed on entries of merchandise made on or after the date on which the Secretary first impos