Full opinion text
OPINION POGUE, Judge. This matter is before the Court on the motion of Plaintiffs, Asocolflores , sixteen individual producers, exporters and importers of fresh cut flowers from Colombia, and Defendant-Intervenor, the Floral Trade Council (“FTC”), for judgment on the agency record, pursuant to U.S. CIT Rule 56.2. The parties filed separate actions challenging certain aspects of the Department of Commerce’s final results of the consolidated fifth, sixth, and seventh administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia. The actions were consolidated. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (1994) and 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii)(1994). The sixteen producers/exporters/importers consist of the following: (1) Flores del Rio Group, (2) HOSA Group, (3) Eden Floral Farms, (4) Equiflor, (5) Espirit Miami, (6) Floralex, Ltda., (7) Flores de Exportación S.A., (8) Agrícola Guacari, S.A., (9) Flores Altamira, S.A., (10) Four Farmers Inc., (11) Santa Helena, S.A., (12) Flores Del Salitre Ltda., (13) S.B. Talee De Colombia Ltda., (14) Agrodex Group, (15) Caicedo Group, and (16) Santana Group. The parties raise eleven issues: (1) inflation adjustments; (2) imputed U.S. credit expenses; (3) U.S. selling expenses; (4) allocation of cost of production; (5) application of best information available; (6) collapsing parties; (7) interest income offset; (8) commissions paid to related consignees; (9) calculation of foreign market value; (10) third country selling expenses; and (11) cash deposit instructions. BACKGROUND Following investigations by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or “Department”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission, an antidumping duty order was entered against Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia in 1987. That antidumping duty order covered standard carnations, miniature (spray) carnations, standard chrysanthemums, and pompon chrysanthemums. See Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia, 52’ Fed.Reg. 8,492 (Dep’t Commerce March 18, 1987)(amend. final det.). The order imposed an estimated antidumping duty rate on all entries of the subject merchandise for the period of investigation (“POI”). See Sections 735, 736 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673d(c), 1673e (1988). It also established the duty deposit rate for all merchandise entered after the issuance of the order and prior to the issuance of a revised rate pursuant to section 1675. Id. The antidumping statute provides for the Department of Commerce to conduct an ,administrative review of an antidumping duty order upon the request of an interested party. 19 U.S.C. § 1675. As a result of the administrative proceeding, Commerce determines the actual antidumping duty rate for the entries covered by that administrative review, which also establishes the duty deposit rate for future entries." 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2). In the present case, Commerce initiated the fifth administrative review of fresh cut flowers from Colombia, on May 21, 1992, covering over 400 Colombian firms for the period March 1, 1991, through February 29, 1992. See Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia, 57 Fed.Reg. 21,643 (Dep’t Commerce 1992)(init.admin.reviews). On May 28, 1993, Commerce initiated the sixth administrative review of- fresh cut flowers from Colombia for the period March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993. See Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia, 58 Fed.Reg. 31,010 (Dep’t Commerce 1993)(init.admin.reviews). On May 2, 1994, Commerce initiated the seventh review for the period March 1, 1993 through February 28, 1994. See Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia, 59 Fed. Reg. 22,579 (Dep’t Commerce 1994)(init.ad-min.reviews). On May 9, 1994, Commerce notified the interested parties of its decision to conduct the fifth, sixth and seventh administrative reviews concurrently and informed them that all subsequent responses should be submitted for the three review periods. On June 8, 1995, Commerce published the preliminary results "of these consolidated reviews. Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia, 60 Fed.Reg. 30,270 (Dep’t Commerce 1995)(prel. results admin, reviews) [hereinafter preliminary results]. The final determination followed on August 19, 1996. Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia, 61 Fed.Reg. 42,833 (Dep’t Commerce 1996)(final results admin, reviews)[hereinafter final determination]. STANDARD OF REVIEW The antidumping statute provides for the judicial review of the administrative review determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a. In reviewing the final results .of an administrative review, the Court of International Trade must decide whether Commerce’s determination is in accordance with law and whether Commerce’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence on the record. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(l)(B). In determining whether Commerce’s interpretation and application of the anti-dumping statute is in accordance with law, this court applies the two-step analysis articulated in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781-82, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), as applied and refined by the Federal Circuit. The first task is “to determine whether Congress has ‘directly spoken to the precise question at issue.’” Id. If the statute unambiguously deals with the subject matter in issue, the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the intent of Congress. Id.; see, e.g., Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, 13 F.3d 398, 402-403 (Fed.Cir.1994); Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States, 988 F.2d 1573, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1993). “The primary source for determining legislative intent is the statutory language itself, ‘which is presumed to be used in its normal sense, in the absence of proof of a special meaning in the trade.’” Holford USA Ltd. v. United States, 19 CIT 1486, 1493, 912 F.Supp. 555, 561 (1995) (quoting United States v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 42 C.C.P.A. 144, 151 (1955)); Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 228, 113 S.Ct. 2050, 2054, 124 L.Ed.2d 138 (1993); Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 1149, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992). “If the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. at 2782. Considerable weight is accorded Commerce’s construction of the antidumping laws, whether that construction manifests itself in the application of the statute, see, e.g., Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Int’l Union of Elec., Technical, Salaried and Mach. Workers, 6 F.3d 1511, 1516 (Fed.Cir.1993), cert denied, 512 U.S. 1204, 114 S.Ct. 2672, 129 L.Ed.2d 808 (1994); Fujitsu Gen. Ltd. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1034, 1039 (Fed.Cir.1996), or in the promulgation of a regulation, see, e.g., Smith-Corona Group 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). When examining Commerce’s factual determinations to decide whether they are supported by substantial evidence, the court must determine whether the record contains “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [Commerce’s] conclusion.” Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 217, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938); Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477, 71 S.Ct. 456, 459, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951)(quoted in Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 933 (Fed.Cir. 1984)). 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, 619-20, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 1026, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966). DISCUSSION Commerce calculates an antidumping duty by comparing an imported product’s price in the United States to the foreign market value (“FMV”) of comparable merchandise. The duty is the amount by which the merchandise’s FMV exceeds its United States price (“USP”). See 19 U.S.C. § 1673. Foreign market value is the price of the merchandise in the producer’s home market or its export price to countries other than the United States. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(l). Foreign market value is computed by one of three methods: (1) home market sales; (2) third country sales; or (3) constructed value. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a). When constructed value (“CV”) is used, the antidumping statute provides that CV shall be the sum of the “cost of materials ... and of fabrication ... employed in producing such or similar merchandise” plus “an amount for general expenses and profit” and the cost of packing the merchandise for shipment to the United States. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(l)(A), (B), (C). I. INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS Plaintiff Asocolfíores In the preliminary results, Commerce stated that due to a change in Colombian generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), the Department would ask respondents for additional data to make inflation adjustments to reported expenses and costs. Preliminary Results, 60 Fed.Reg. at 30,274. On June 21, 1995, Commerce issued a supplemental questionnaire asking respondents to revise their previously submitted figures to account for the effects of inflation on depreciation expenses and amortized pre-production costs. Pub. Doc. No. 1508, Fiche 424, Asocolfíores App., Ex. 3. In July 1995, Asocolfíores submitted revised calculations. In their response, Asocolfíores explained that, in accounting for inflation, they had adjusted fixed and deferred asset values, accumulated depreciation and amortization, depreciation and amortization expenses, and raw material inventories. See Asocolfíores App., Ex. 5 (Memorandum from Catherine Miller to Laurie Parkhill, dated October 24, 1995). In addition, Asocolfíores noted that they had claimed as an offset to production costs the net monetary correction income that results from the recording of inflation adjustments to depreciable assets. Id. In the final determination, Commerce calculated foreign market value based on constructed value. 61 Fed.Reg. . at 42,836. Commerce used respondents’ inflation adjusted depreciation and amortization expenses in calculating CV. Id. at 42,844. Commerce, however, excluded from its calculation .the monetary correction income claimed by the respondents. Id. Asocolfíores argues that Commerce’s decision to limit inflation adjustments to depreciation expenses and amortized pre-production costs was not in accordance with law. Aso-colflores’ Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. at 8 [hereinafter Asocolfíores Brief]. There is no statutory directive for measuring the effects of inflation in an antidumping analysis. Because the statute is silent, the Court must determine whether the agency has made a reasonable interpretation of the statutory provision. Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT -, -, 947 F.Supp. 525, 529 (1996) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S.Ct. at 2782). . Commerce ordinarily determines the costs of production by using actual historical-costs. However, in an economy marked by high inflation, historical costs that are not adjusted for inflation result in an understatement of costs. Consequently, in cases where the home market economies exhibit significant inflation, Commerce has adjusted respondents’ depreciation expenses in order to permit a more appropriate matching of costs and prices based on equivalent currency units. 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,845, .. Colombian law requires companies to make certain adjustments to both their reported income and expenses under a “system of integral adjustments for inflation.” See Aso-colflores App., Ex. 4, at 2 (Peat Marwick Analysis Memorandum on Colombian Inflation Adjustments)[hereinafter Peat Marwick Memo]. Specifically, Colombian inflation accounting requires the calculation of a “monetary correction” that adjusts costs for the effects of inflation on a company’s net monetary position — monetary liabilities (such as loans and accounts payable) less monetary assets (such as cash on hand and accounts receivable). Asocolflores argues that Commerce unlawfully disregarded the effects of inflation on financial expenses as required by Colombian GAAP. Asocolflores Brief at 7. Specifically, Asocolflores maintains that Commerce should have reduced production costs by the amount of the “difference between required inflation adjustments and accumulated depreciation.” Id. at 21. The suggested adjustment, however, “represents only part of the overall inflation adjustments 'required [by Colombian GAAP] to restate profits to year-end currency levels.” Pub. Doe. No. 1710, Fiche 465, Fr. 1 at 8, Asocolflores App., Ex. 5 (Office of Accounting Memorandum on Administrative Reviews of Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia, Oct. 24, 1995). Commerce appropriately rejected the adjustment because it represents only the first aspect of Colombian inflation accounting — a debit to non-monetary assets corresponding to a credit to the monetary correction account. Id Att. 1. Commerce’s practice is to adhere to an individual firm’s recording of costs in accordance with GAAP of its home country if the Department is satisfied that such principles reasonably reflect the costs of producing the subject merchandise. See e.g., FAG U.K. Ltd. v. United States, 20 CIT-,-, 945 F.Supp. 260, 271 (1996)(“Commeree’s reliance on an individual firm’s home country GAAP provides an objective standard by which to measure costs, and allows a respondent a predictable basis on which to compute costs.”). Commerce may, however, reject the use of home country GAAP as a basis for calculating production costs if the accounting methods at issue unreasonably distort or misstate costs for purposes of an antidump-ing analysis. Laclede Steel Co. v. United States, 18 CIT 965, 975 (1994); Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 13 CIT 526, 533 n. 12, 717 F.Supp. 834, 841 n. 12 (1989). Asoeolflores alleges that Commerce failed to comply with the Department’s own interpretation because it made no finding that the GAAP of Colombia does not reasonably reflect all costs of production. Asocolflores Brief at 15. Asocolflores is mistaken. Commerce found that the inflation accounting adjustment to fixed assets does not “create income.” 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,845. In the final determination, Commerce explained: The fact that' a company may own fixed assets does not in some way earn that company income simplyas a result of accounting for inflation. Rather ownership of fixed assets at best acts as a hedge against inflation, neither creating norgen-erating a loss in asset value.... The revaluation of flower plants and other fixed asset costs to account for inflation does not, in and of itself, create income. Further, it does not create income related to flower production. Id Because the antidumping statute instructs Commerce to determine the constructed value of a particular product, the Department only offsets production costs with income that is related' to the production of the subject merchandise or related to the general operations of the company. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller, Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, 57 Fed.Reg. 28,360 (Dep’t Commerce 1992)(final det.)(finding that income from the sale of land did not relate to production costs for manufacturing bearings); Silicon Metal From Brazil, 56 Fed.Reg. 26,977 (Dep’t Commerce 1991)(final det.)(finding the monetary correction required under Brazilian GAAP does not reasonably reflect the costs of producing silicon metal because the monetary correction does not specifically relate to the product, nor to the period of review, and thus, it would be distortive to apply this adjustment to the subject merchandise). This approach has been approved by this court. See Camargo Correa Metáis S.A v. United States, 17 CIT 897, 899, 1993 WL 366964 (1993)(noting that the monetary correction is an aggregate inflation adjustment restating owner’s equity and permanent assets and does not specifically relate to the product, nor to the period of review and thus, it would be distortive to apply this adjustment). Because the monetary correction does not relate to flower production, Commerce’s decision not to adjust for the monetary correction is a reasonable interpretation of the statute and is therefore in accordance with law. II. IMPUTED CREDIT Plaintiff Asocolflores In calculating constructed value, Commerce calculates selling expenses for all companies under review. As part of its calculation of selling expenses for U.S. sales, Commerce imputes a credit expense on sales to represent the cost (based upon the time value of money) to the seller of waiting for payment for its sales. Commerce calculates imputed credit expenses for sales in both the U.S. and home markets. In the final determination, for those companies that had actual U.S. loans during the period of review, Commerce calculated the U.S. credit expense using interest rates associated with those loans. 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,-848. For those companies that did not have actual U.S. loans during the POR, but financed working capital through a Colombian peso-borrowing, Commerce used a peso-based interest rate for the U.S. credit calculation. Id. Asocolflores argues Commerce’s methodology for the companies that did not have actual U.S. loans was not in accordance with law. Asocolflores Brief at 17. Specifically, Asocolflores contends, because these sales were made in U.S. dollars, Commerce should have used a U.S. dollar short-term interest rate in its calculation. Id. at 18.. Asocolf-lores also argues that Commerce’s methodology is contrary to the principles articulated in LMI-La Metalli Industriale, S.p.A. v. United States, 912 F.2d 455 (Fed.Cir.1990). Id. at 17. In LMI-La Metalli the court rejected Commerce’s presumption that an Italian manufacturer would get financing from an Italian financial institution regardless of how unfavorable the interest rate and regardless of whatever financing alternatives existed. LMI-La Metalli 912 F.2d at 460 (finding in light of commercial reality, it is not reasonable to presume that a commercial enterprise would boiTow at almost twice the available rate). After LMI-La Metalli, Commerce proposed' a new policy for selecting interest rates to be used in imputing credit calculations. Commerce shifted its focus from the cost of borrowing to the currency in which the sale is denominated. In situations where the respondent has no short-term borrowings in the currency of the transaction, Commerce suggested it can (1) accept “external” information about the cost of borrowing in the relevant currency; or (2) adjust for the application of a single, observed interest rate to both home market and U.S. sales, taking into account the exchange rate fluctuations between the two currencies. Asocolflores App., Ex. 7 (Memorandum from the Director of the Office of Investigations to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations, Sept. 6, 1994). Commerce’s proposed policy was implemented in Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Australia, 61 Fed.Reg. 14,049 (Dep’t Commerce 1996) (final det.). Commerce stated: When a respondent has no U.S. borrowings, it is no longer the Department’s practice to substitute home market interest rates when calculating U.S. credit expenses. ... Rather, the Department will now match the interest rate used for credi-texpenses to the currency in which the sales are denominated.... Where there is no borrowing in a particular currency, the Department may use external information about the cost of borrowing in that currency.... In the absence of U.S. dollar borrowings, we need to arrive at a reasonable surrogate for imputing U.S. credit expenses. Id. at 14,054 (emphasis in the original). Following Carbon Steel, in several cases where there were no borrowings in the currency of the sales made, Commerce used external information about the cost of borrowing in a particular currency. See e.g., Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden, 61 Fed. Reg. 15,772, 15,780 (Dep’t Commerce 1996)(final det.)(using the average short-term lending rate as calculated by the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank for imputing U.S. credit expenses); Certain Pasta From Turkey, 61 Fed.Reg. 30,309, 30,324 (Dep’t Commerce 1996)(final det.)(using a U.S. dollar short-term interest rate obtained from public information). In the present case, for the respondents that had no U.S. borrowings, Commerce took each company’s actual Colombian peso-borrowing rate and subtracted the rate of devaluation of the peso against the dollar over the applicable POR, reasoning that home market interest rates so adjusted are “reasonable surrogates” for U.S. interest rates. 61 Fed. Reg. at 42,848-49. Asocolflores argues that Commerce’s approach unlawfully deviates from its practice established under LMI-La Metalli. Asocolflores Brief at 19. Asocolf-lores maintains that the Department’s methodology results in a gross overstatement of U.S. credit expenses that significantly distorts the antidumping margins found by Commerce. Id. The Court does not agree. First, Commerce’s methodology is compatible with LMI-La Metalli. The LMI-La Metalli court based its holding, in part, on the fact that “LMI provided evidence that it had obtained dollar-denominated loans,” and could, be expected to use such financing with respect to its U.S. sales. LMI-La Metalli, 912 F.2d at 460. Asocolflores alleges that all companies at issue had access to dollar-denominated loans. Asocolflores Brief at 20. However, Asocolflores has presented no evidence on the record demonstrating that U.S. dollar-denominated loans were actually available or that Colombian companies could be expected to use such'lóans. More importantly, Commerce’s approach was consistent with its practice established after LMI-La Metalli of matching the interest rate used for credit expenses to the cur- ■ rehcy in which the sales are denominated. Commerce’s practice had not changed from one review to the next; all that changed, was Commerce’s determination of what a reasonable surrogate for imputing U.S. credit expenses was in the present case. In the final determination, Commerce explained: We note that Steel does not state that, in the absence of U.S. dollar-denominated loans, the Department will impute credit expenses based on ‘external information.’ Rather, Steel states that the Department will use a reasonable surrogate for imputing U.S. credit expenses. Respondénts’ actual peso-denominated short-term borrowing rates, adjusted for the rate of appreciation of the dollar against the peso, are reasonable surrogates for U.S. dollar short-term borrowing rates. Such rates are reasonable because the cost of extending credit to customers can be measured by a company’s actual short-term borrowing experience. 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,849. Commerce’s determination that the Colombian producers’ borrowing experience was a surrogate for the cost of extending credit to their U.S. customers was reasonable. However, Commerce’s determination also must be supported by substantial evidence. The problem, here is that Commerce failed to cite evidence to support the conclusion that its methodology — adjusting for the devaluation of the peso against the dollar-' — is well-founded. Commerce merely noted that its adjustment’s purpose was not to get dollar terms of the peso-borrowing rate but to get real terms of the peso-borrowing rate. 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,850. ■ Beyond this statement, Commerce provided no explanation as to why it simply subtracted the devaluation rate from the peso-borrowing rate. Therefore, the Court is remanding this issue to Commerce for reconsideration. See Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 143, 93 S.Ct. 1241, 1244, 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973)(stating that if the contemporaneous explanation of the agency is based on a finding that is not sustainable on the administrative record, the matter must be remanded for further consideration). m. U.S. SELLING EXPENSES Plaintiff Asocolflores In calculating constructed value in the preliminary results, Commerce used U.S. selling expenses incurred in Colombia (on export sales) for purposes of calculating a surrogate value for selling expenses. 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,843. In the final determination, in addition to the U.S. selling expenses incurred in Colombia, Commerce added to constructed value U.S. selling expenses incurred in the United States. Id. Asocolflores argues that Commerce should have used only those U.S. selling expenses incurred in Colombia in its CV calculation. Asocolflores Brief at 24. The statute requires Commerce to include in its calculation of constructed value an “amount for general expenses and profit equal to that usually reflected in sales of merchandise of the same general class or kind as the merchandise under consideration which are made by producers in the country of exportation....” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(l)(B). Similarly, Commerce’s regulations provide in relevant part that constructed value shall include “[gjeneral expenses and profit usually reflected in sales of merchandise of the same class or kind as the merchandise by producers in the home market country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.... ” 19 C.F.R. § 353.50(a)(2). The statute, however, does not define “general expenses” or explain how they are to be calculated. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(l)(B). Because the statute is silent, the Court must defer to Commerce’s reasonable interpretation. Dae-woo Elec., 6 F.3d at 1516. Commerce includes selling expenses as a component of general expenses in its calculation of constructed value. Timken Co. v. United States, 11 CIT 786, 798, 673 F.Supp. 495, 508 (1987). Commerce’s practice has been to use U.S. selling expenses as a surrogate for home market selling expenses when home market sales information is inadequate. Asocolflores maintains the statute directs that the only expenses to be added to constructed value are those actually incurred in the home market. Asocolflores Brief at 26. But the relevant provisions only require that general expenses be those “usually reflected” in “sales of merchandise” that are “of the same general class or kind as the merchandise under consideration which are made by producers in the country of exportation.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(l)(B). Commerce explained that the use of all selling expenses, “regardless of whether these expenses were incurred by the flower grower, its offshore invoicer, or its related U.S. importer ... allows [Commerce] to utilize the entire universe of U.S. selling expenses as the surrogate, regardless of any internal corporate decision as to whether certain selling expenses should be incurred in Colombia or transferred to an offshore invoicer or an affiliated U.S. importer.” 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,843. • Commerce’s approach was reasonable because by including selling expenses associated with U.S. sales, Commerce ensured that its calculation of general expenses would remain unaffected by the shifting of expenses between the exporter and any related U.S. importer. Asocolflores also argues that Commerce’s departure from its practice in the preliminary results without providing notice to the parties or an opportunity to comment was not in accordance with law. Asocolf-lores Brief at 25. But Commerce has the flexibility to change its position providing that it explain the basis for its change and providing that the explanation is in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence. In the final determination, Commerce recognized that it was departing from prior practice. Commerce stated: For the preliminary results and in prior reviews of this order, we used only those U.S. selling expenses incurred in Colombia for purposes of calculating a surrogate value for selling expenses. However, we have revised this figure in these final results to include all U.S. selling expenses, regardless of whether these expenses were incurred by the flower grower, its offshore invoicer, or its related U.S. importer. 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,843. Further, Commerce clearly articulated the basis for its change. As noted, Commerce’s revised methodology allowed the Department “to utilize the entire universe of U.S. selling expenses as the surrogate, regardless of any internal corporate decision as to whether certain selling expenses should be incurred in Colombia or transferred to- an offshore invoicer or an affiliated U.S. importer.” Id. Commerce’s decision to include U.S. selling expenses associated with U.S. sales in general expenses reflects a reasonable statutory interpretation and is in accordance with law. However, Commerce’s determination must also be supported by substantial evidence. Commerce failed to Cite evidence to support the conclusion that expenses incurred on sales in the United States would be a reasonable surrogate for selling expenses incurred for home-market sales. “[T]he orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained.” SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94, 63 S.Ct. 454, 462, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943). Therefore, this issue is remanded to Commerce for reconsideration. IV. ALLOCATION OF COST OF PRODUCTION Plaintiff HOSA As noted above, in the preliminary results Commerce based the foreign market value for all respondents upon the constructed value of the subject merchandise. Preliminary Results, 60 Fed.Reg. at 30,270. “The constructed value represents the average per-flower cost for each type of flower, based on the costs incurred to produce that type of flower over each review period.” Id. at 30,-274. In this calculation, Commerce used the materials, fabrication, and general expenses reported by respondents. Id. Commerce explained its methodology as follows: The per-unit average constructed value was based on the quantity of export quality flowers sold by the grower/exporter to the United States. We consider non-export quality flowers (culls) which are produced in conjunction with export quality flowers to be by-products. Therefore, revenue from the sales of culls was used as an offset against the cost of producing the export quality flowers. Id. In the final determination, Commerce once again distinguished between export quality flowers and culls which it considered to be “reject” products. 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,851. Commerce again treated culls as by-products for cost accounting purposes and offset the total cost of production of export-quality flowers with revenues from the sales of culls. Id. HOSA argues that Commerce erred by not allocating production costs to culls in the calculation of constructed value. HOSA Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. at 5 [hereinafter HOSA Brief]. Specifically, HOSA maintains that Commerce did not allocate costs to culls because they are of a lower value and that Commerce does not have the legal authority to make this distinction. Id. Because costs were not allocated across all production, HOSA claims that the foreign market value of the subject merchandise is inappropriately high. Id. at 14. HOSA relies upon IPSCO, Inc. v. United States, 965 F.2d 1056 (Fed.Cir.1992) and Thai Pineapple Public Co. v. United States, 20 CIT -, 946 F.Supp. 11 (1996), for the proposition that when two different grades of a single product are jointly produced each grade must be allocated separate costs of production notwithstanding value. HOSA Brief at 7, 11. HOSA’s reliance on IPSCO and Thai Pineapple is misguided. First, both IPSCO and Thai Pineapple involved the appropriate accounting treatment of co-products of the merchandise at issue. See IPSCO, 965 F.2d at 1060 (noting that Commerce treated limited service pipe “as a co-product, not as a byproduct”); Thai Pineapple, 20 CIT at —7-, 946 F.Supp. at 18, n. 5 (“No. party argued that juice is a by-product, such as pineapple waste. Thus, all parties agree that a co-product methodology for allocation of joint costs is necessary.”). Neither IPSCO nor Thai Pineapple addresses the issue presented in this case, the allocation of costs of unavoidable “reject” agricultural by-products for cost accounting purposes. In IPSCO, the Federal Circuit found that a value-based allocation of costs to co-products violated the antidumping statute. IPSCO, 965 F.2d at 1061 (“Essentially, the trial court ordered an unreasonable circular methodology. The selling price of pipe became a basis for measuring the fairness of the selling price of pipe. This circular reasoning contravened the express requirements of the statute which set forth the cost of production as an independent standard for fair value.”). IPSCO does not, however, as HOSA maintains, limit Commerce’s discretion to use value to distinguish between by-products and co-products. Moreover, Commerce’s approach here was not contrary to HOSA’s reading of IPSCO. Commerce’s treatment of culls as by-products was not based solely upon value. Commerce’s determination was based primarily on the fact that there was no genuine (U.S. or home) market for culls. 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,851. The broad terms of section 1677b(e) require inclusion within constructed value of all actual production costs of merchandise. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e). The statute does not provide an explanation for treating production costs for products of a lower grade. The question presented, therefore, is whether Commerce’s methodology for calculating constructed value is reasonable. U.H.F.C. Co. v. United States, 916 F.2d 689, 698 (Fed.Cir. 1990). The Court finds that Commerce’s approach represents a permissible construction of the statute and a longstanding agency practice. Commerce uses the word “cull” as a surrogate for the term by product, an accounting concept for distinguishing which individual products may reasonably carry costs. 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,851. Commerce explains that “Mulls are not simply a low grade of flowers, but are unintentionally and unavoidably produced by-products that have minimal value.” Id. Based upon GAAP, Commerce’s approach compares the value of the “specific product relative to the value of all products produced during, or as a result of the process of manufacturing the main product or products.” Id. at 42,850. Commerce explains that its “general practice in cases involving agricultural goods has been to treat ‘reject’ products as by-products and to offset the total cost of production with revenues earned from the sale of any such ‘reject’ products.” Id. This approach has been approved by this court. Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 13 CIT 13, 26, 704 F.Supp. 1114, 1125 (1989), aff'd, 901 F.2d 1089 (Fed.Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 848, 111 S.Ct. 136, 112 L.Ed.2d 103 (1990)(“[c]ull value ... should be deducted from cost of production and production costs should not be allocated to culls.”). HOSA alternatively claims if only co-products are properly allocated costs, its “second-quality” flowers are co-products. HOSA Brief at 16. HOSA’s assertion, however, is belied by its own submissions. In the company’s initial section D response, HOSA stated that it divides flowers into two distinct groups: (1) “top quality”; and (2) “culls.” Pub. Doc. No. 834 at 21. HOSA stated that culls are “all flowers that do not meet with some of the characteristics mentioned above [qualifications for top quality status].” Id. At verification HOSA presented Commerce with the same list of characteristics, claiming that flowers which failed to meet one of these standards are designated “second quality.” Pub. Doc. No. 1401 at 10. HOSA points to no evidence on the record demonstrating that HOSA’s “second quality” flowers are distinguishable from culls. Accordingly, Commerce properly determined that there was no reason to “treat what HOSA claims to be ‘second quality’ flowers sold in the home market any differently than we have treated culls.” 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,851. Finally, HOSA argues -that Commerce erred in treating “second quality” flowers as culls because there is a genuine home market and U.S. market for “second quality” flowers. HOSA Brief at 14. But HOSA points to no record evidence demonstrating that it purposely produces “second quality” flowers for sale in Colombia. The sales revenue from HOSA’s “second quality” flowers is negligible when compared to sales revenue from “first quality” flowers. See Def.’s HOSA App., Conf. Ex. 1. Commerce stated, “this market exists to the extent that HOSA, like many other Colombian flower producers, sells flowers it cannot export as surplus at the farm gate for whatever price it can get for the flowers.” 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,851. Commerce also found that HOSA’s sales of “second quality” flowers in the' United States were made only during peak periods of demand when importers accept products of a lower quality. Id. This finding supports Commerce’s conclusion that “the vast majority of ‘second quality’ flowers did not meet the minimum standards for sale in the United States, and that the majority of ‘second quality’ flowers were therefore culls.” Id. Thus, the Court finds that Commerce’s treatment of HOSA’s “second quality” flowers as culls was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, Commerce’s allocation of production costs was in accordance with law and was supported by substantial evidence. V. APPLICATION OF BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE A. Plaintiff Flores del Rio In April 1994, Commerce transmitted questionnaires for the seventh review period. -To assist in reporting the requested cost data, Commerce provided respondents with spreadsheets and instructions for reporting detailed costs on a line-by-line basis. Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Flores del Rio’s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., Ex. 1, at 70-75. In line 181, respondents were instructed to report depreciation of fixed overhead expenses. Id. at 72-73. In line 183, respondents were instructed to .report “other expenses,” and provide a detailed explanation to describe the nature of the expense. Id. at 73. In line 214, they were asked to report any other general expenses not specifically identified. Id., at 74. As noted, in June 1995, Commerce issued a supplemental questionnaire that requested respondents to revise amortized pre-production costs to reflect the effects of inflation. Pub. Doc. No. 1508. The Flores del Rio Group (“Flores del Rio”) filed two responses to the supplemental questionnaire. The first response contained inflation-adjusted depreciation expenses as well as “corrections to some errors” — also adjusted for inflation' — that the company had found in its previously submitted depreciation data. Púb. Doc. No. 993, at 4, Flores del Rio App., Ex. 3. The second submission included non-inflation-adjusted data upon which the alleged errors had been corrected. Pub. Doc. No. 1016, Flores del Rio App., Ex. 4. Flores del Rio explained, “in the event the Department decides that constructed value should be calculated without inflation adjustments, the enclosed tables should be used as the basis for del Rio’s CV.” Id. Commerce rejected Flores del Rio’s corrections. The Department applied its own inflation adjustment based upon the Colombian government’s percent annual inflation rate (“PAAG”), to Flores del Rio’s original submissions as the best information available (“BIA”). 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,837. Commerce calculated two separate rates — a rate for depreciation of fixed assets and a rate for pre-production costs. See Pub. Doc. No. 1721, at 1, Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Flores del Rio’s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., Ex. 3. Commerce applied a BIA inflation rate of 46.41 percent to Flores del Rio for fixed asset depreciation and a BIA inflation rate of 21.24 percent to Flores del Rio for pre-production amortization. Id. at 4. Flores del Rio challenges Commerce’s application of BIA, arguing that the Department’s resort to BIA was not in accordance with law. Flores del Rio Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. at 6 [hereinafter Flores del Rio Brief]. Commerce’s authority to use BIA. in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order resides in 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. According to the statute, “[i]n making their determinations ... the administering authority ... shall, whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable to produce information requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise significantly impedes-an investigation, use the best information otherwise available.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c). Commerce’s regulations implement this mandate by authorizing the use of BIA whenever the agency “[d]oes not receive a complete, accurate and timely response to the Secretary’s request for information” or “[i]s unable to verify, within the time specified, the accuracy and completeness of the factual information submitted.” 19 C.F.R. § 353.37(a). Commerce must “fairly request” the data prior to resorting to any secondary information. See Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 92 F.3d 1162, 1165 (Fed.Cir.1996). Once Commerce has done so, it possesses the “discretion to determine whether a respondent has complied with an information request.” Daido Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 853, 861, 893 F.Supp. 43, 49-50 (1995)(citing S.Rep. No. 249 at 98 (1979); H.R.Rep. No. 317, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 77 (1979)). Here, the supplemental questionnaire clearly requested inflation adjustments to previously reported depreciation expenses. See Pub. Doc. No. 1508, Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Flores del Rio’s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., Ex. 2 (“revise these expenses so that they are based on asset values, which, in accordance with Colombian GAAP, have been adjusted to reflect the effects of inflation_”). Thus, Commerce “fairly” requested the inflation adjustments. The remaining question is whether Flores del Rio properly responded to the request. Flores del Rio contends that it fully complied with Commerce’s request for information, therefore, the Department erred in resorting to BIA. Flores del Rio Brief at 7. Flores del Rio cites Olympic Adhesives, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1565 (Fed.Cir. 1990), Floral Trade Council v. United States, 15 CIT 497, 775 F.Supp. 1492, (1991), aff'd 67 F.3d 318 (Fed.Cir.1995), and Queen’s Flowers de Colombia v. United States, 20 CIT -, 947 F.Supp. 503 (1996), to support this argument. Flores del Rio’s reliance here is misguided because the cases cited do not diminish Commerce’s authority to resort to BIA when a proper request for information is made and the appropriate information is not provided. In Olympic Adhesives, the court found that use of BIA was not justified because the respondent gave full and complete answers to Commerce’s questionnaire even though the answers did not “definitely resolve the overall issue presented.” Olympic Adhesives, 899 F.2d at 1574. In Floral Trade Council, the court held that Commerce’s resort to BIA, based on- respondent’s failure to provide cost data, was improper because the Department had not in fact requested cost data in addition to price data. Floral Trade Council, 15 CIT at 502, 775 F.Supp. at 1498. Similarly, in Queen’s Flowers, this Court rejected Commerce’s resort to BIA where the information sought was never requested. Queen’s Flowers, 20 CIT at -, 947 F.Supp. at 507. Flores del Rio also argues that Commerce erred in resorting to BIA because the Department was required to accept the company’s correction of clerical errors. Flores del Rio Brief at 8. Specifically, Flores del Rio maintains “there is no requirement in [Commerce’s] regulations or questionnaires that corrections to data previously submitted be explained or accompanied by any further ‘ev-idenee,’ ” therefore, Commerce was required to accept Flores del Rio’s corrections. Id. at 10. The antidumping statute provides that “[t]he administering authority shall establish procedures for the correction of ministerial errors in final determinations.... ” See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(f). As used in section 1675(f) “the term ‘ministerial error’ includes ... clerical errors.... ” Id. Flores del Rio maintains that under NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995), Commerce was required to accept Flores del Rio’s request to correct clerical errors and to recalculate the anti-dumping margin on the basis of its corrected data. Flores del Rio brief at 8. But the NTN Bearing court only required Commerce to accept a party’s request to correct clerical errors when the party submitted supporting documentation to establish the clerical nature of the errors. NTN Bearing, 14 F.3d at 1208. Here, except for one sentence in Flores del Rio’s response which merely stated that the company was “also correcting some errors [that we] found in [our] previously submitted depreciations,” Flores del Rio provided neither an explanation nor any documentation which might have established the “clerical” nature of the changes. Flores del Rio App., Ex. 3, at 4. Further, without accompanying documentation Commerce could not determine whether the corrected data was accurate. Non-Pub. Doc. No. 1124, at 2-3 (Commerce Analysis Memorandum for Flores del Rio, Aug. 1, 1996). Commerce’s use of the best information available in this case was appropriate. Commerce’s choice of BIA also must be supported by substantial evidence. The BIA inflation adjustments for Flores del Rio were made using rates calculated by Commerce’s Office of Accounting. Id. As noted previously, two separate rates were used — a rate for depreciation of fixed assets and a rate for pre-production costs — and the rates were based upon the PAAG rates. See Pub. Doc. No. 1721, at 1, Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Flores del Rio’s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., Ex. 3. Commerce’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. The data chosen was contemporaneous with the periods of review. The data was based upon published Colombian inflation rates, clearly appropriate in the context of making inflation adjustments to the reported expenses of the Colombian company. D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed.Cir.1997) (finding Commerce’s discretion in choosing BIA is limited only by the requirement that a rational relationship exist between the data chosen and the matter to which it is to apply). By definition Colombian inflation rates bear a rational relationship to a Colombian company. Thus, Commerce’s choice of BIA based on the Colombian PAAG was appropriate. Flores del Rio also argues that Commerce “takes issue only with the depreciation base upon which the company calculated its inflation adjustments,” therefore, Commerce’s use of BIA should be limited to the change in the base, not to the company’s entire reported cost. Flores del Rio Brief at 12. Flores del Rio maintains that this approach would be more accurate and avoid grossly overstating costs. Id. But the adjustment suggested by Flores del Rio is based upon the unsolicited information which Commerce rejected. Because Commerce appropriately rejected this information as being unexplained and not supported by evidence, the Department was also reasonable in not relying upon this information for purposes of its BIA inflation adjustments. Finally, Flores del Rio argues that Commerce resorted to BIA without providing any notice to the company or any opportunity to comment, and that therefore, Commerce’s resort to BIA was procedurally unfair. Flores del Rio Brief at 7. The statute, however, does not require Commerce to notify or provide a respondent with opportunity to comment before Commerce applies BIA. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c). As the statute is silent regarding this issue, the Court must decide only whether Commerce’s construction is permissible. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. at 2781-82. This court has recognized that “Commerce is not required to afford interested parties an unlimited opportunity to comment on each modification of the agency’s practice or procedure. To provide otherwise would be to unnecessarily burden the agency with an unending cycle of notices, comments, and responses.” British Steel pic v. United States, 19 CIT 176, 265, 879 F.Supp. 1254, 1317 (1995), aff'd in part, rev’d on other grounds, 127 F.3d 1471 (Fed.Cir.1997). The BIA provisions were among the “administrative reforms” enacted by Congress in the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, Pub.L. No. 967-39, in an effort to reduce the length of antidump-ing investigations, which was often attributable to delays in the assessment and collection of data. See H.R.Rep. No. 317, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at 24 (1979). In the present case, Commerce requested inflation adjusted data and Commerce warned that any deficient response would result in Commerce’s resort to BIA. The Court finds that Commerce’s approach was permissible. Flores del Rio argues that under British Steel, 19 CIT 176, 879 F.Supp. 1254, Sigma Corp. v. United States, 17 CIT 1288, 841 F.Supp. 1255 (1993), and Lois Jeans & Jackets, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 5 CIT 238, 566 F.Supp. 1523 (1983), Commerce’s failure to provide the company an opportunity to comment constitutes reversible error. Flores del Rio Brief at 7. The Court does not agree. In British Steel, the court remanded Commerce’s decision because Commerce’s determination represented a change in policy that interested parties had" not been notified about or given an opportunity to comment upon. British Steel, 19 CIT at 255-56, 879 F.Supp. at 1317 (holding Commerce erred in shifting from applying a company-specific margin in its preliminary results to a country-wide margin in the final determination without informing interested parties). In contrast, in the present case Commerce asked respondents to submit inflation adjustments. Moreover, Commerce warned respondents “[u]pon receipt of a response that is incomplete or deficient to the extent the Department determines it to be nonrespon-sive, the Department will not issue additional supplemental questionnaires but will use the best information available.” Pub. -Doc. No. 1508, Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Flores del Rio’s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., Ex. 2, at 2. The Sigma Corp. court found that Commerce had erred by not providing notice and an opportunity to comment when the preliminary results failed to mention that Commerce was contemplating a country-wide rate for all exporters. Sigma Corp., 17 CIT at 1303, 841 F.Supp. at 1267. In contrast, Commerce requested inflation adjustments from Flores del Rio and warned the company that failure to respond would result in the application of BIA. In Lois Jeans & Jackets the court held that the determination had been made without compliance by the Customs Service with its regulations concerning notice and an opportunity for comment. Lois Jeans & Jackets, 5 CIT at 242, 566 F.Supp. at 1527. In contrast, in the present case Commerce proceeded, as the regulations require, by allowing the parties an opportunity to file case briefs commenting on the preliminary results. See 19 C.F.R. § 353.38(C). Accordingly, the Court finds that Commerce’s application of BIA to Flores del Rio was in accordance with law and was supported by substantial evidence. B. Plaintiff Eden Floral Farms On November 9, 1993, Commerce sent section A of its antidumping questionnaire to Groex, S.A. (“Groex”). Pub. Doe. No. 120, Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Eden Floral Farms’ Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., Ex. 1, at 2. Groex submitted its section A responses to Commerce on November 25, 1993 stating in each submission that, “[w]e do not have internal financial statements, for the subject merchandise. We use an auxiliary journal book to determine constructed value. This book will be included when we send information for section C.” Pub. Doc. No. 142, Def.’s Mem. Opp’n to Eden Floral Farms’ Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., Ex. 3. Groex submitted no further data for the fifth and sixth reviews. In response to section A of Commerce’s questionnaire for the seventh review period, Groex submitted certification, dated May 8, 1994, stating that the company did not produce or export any subject flowers to the United States or any third countries. Pub. Doe. No. 554, Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Eden Floral Farms’ Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., Ex. 4. In the preliminary results, Commerce included Groex on the list of respondents found to have “refused to cooperate with the Department or otherwise significantly impeded the proceeding,” and assigned Groex the first-tier BIA rate, 75.92 percent, for the fifth review, and the first-tier BIA rate, 83.61 percent, for the sixth review. Preliminary Results, 60 Fed.Reg. at 30,272. Because Groex had no exports to the United States during the seventh review, Commerce terminated its investigation of the company during that period. Pub. Doc. No. 1337, Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Eden Floral Farms’ Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., Ex. 7, at 2. In August, 1995, Eden Floral Farms (“Eden”) submitted a case brief contesting Commerce’s assignment of a “punitive, non-cooperative” BIA margin to Groex. Pub. Doe. No. 1693, Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Eden Floral Farms’ Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., Ex. 10, at 1. Eden stated that the shareholders of Groex had resolved to liquidate Groex on May 2, 1994, two months before Groex’s responses to sections C and D of Commerce’s questionnaire were due, and argued therefore that Groex was unable to comply with Commerce’s information requests. Eden’s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. at 3-4 [hereinafter Eden Brief]. Commerce rejected Eden’s argument and in the final determination again assigned the first-tier BIA rate, 76.60 percent, to Groex. 61' Fed.Reg. at 42,863. In the final determination, Commerce applied the two-tier BIA scheme approved by the Federal Circuit in Alliedr-Signal to select a first-tier or “uncooperative” total BIA-rate. 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,835. Commerce assigned the first-tier BIA rate to Groex stating that the company failed to submit responses to sections C and D of the Department’s questionnaire or “explain why it was unable to do so in a timely fashion.” Id. at 42,863. Eden maintains that the company informed Commerce why Groex had been unable to submit a response and points to documentation submitted to the Department regarding the liquidation of Groex. See Eden Non-Pub. App., Ex. 3. However, Commerce was advised of Groex’s sale' only after the publication of the preliminary results, in August 1995, when Eden filed its case brief. See Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Eden Floral Farms’ Mot. J. Agency R., Ex. 10. This was after the deadline for the submission of new factual information. 19 C.F.R. § 353.31(a)(l)(n). Accordingly, Commerce appropriately rejected Groex’s submission as untimely and used BIA. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(c). However, in order for Commerce to apply the first-tier BIA rate to the respondent, the Department must produce substantial evidence that the party refused to cooperate or significantly impeded its review. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(l)(B). In the final determination here, Commerce assigned Groex a non-cooperative BIA rate, stating that the company had failed to submit a response to sections C and D of the Department’s questionnaire or explain why it was unable to do so in a timely manner. 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,-863. Eden argues that the “special circumstances” surrounding Groex’s failure to submit its responses precluded Commerce from concluding that the company refused to cooperate. Eden Brief at 8. Eden attempts to support its argument by references to other producers in the present proceeding to whom Commerce declined to apply a non-cooperative BIA rate. I’d. at 8-10. . First, Eden points to Commerce’s decision to apply a second tier BIA rate to another respondent Flores Estrella when it failed to respond to Commerce’s questionnaire in the fourth administrative review. . Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia, 59 Fed.Reg. 15,159, 15,174 (Dep’t Commerce 1994)(final det.). Commerce concluded that Flores Es-trella was subject to financial and personnel restraints at the time it received the Department’s questionnaire, and therefore was justified in failing to respond. Id. The facts surrounding Commerce’s finding with regard to Flores Estrella clearly are distinguishable from those presented here. When Flores Estrella received Commerce’s questionnaire, the company advised the Department of its financial difficulties and offered to provide as much ■ information as possible. Id. In contrast, Groex did not notify Commerce of any difficulties when it received the Department’s information request. Second, Eden cites Commerce’s decision in the case of the Colombian flower grower My Flowers. Eden Brief at 9. Commerce treated My Flowers as “unlocatable” because the company demonstrated that it did not receive Commerce’s information requests. 61 Fed. Reg. at 42,862. Commerce instructed Customs to liquidate its entries at the “all others rate” of 3.10 percent. Id. Eden argues that the same reasoning applies to Groex because Groex was liquidated prior to the time that the section C and D responses were due. Eden Brief at 10. Groex, however, unlike My Flowers was fully aware of its reporting requirements. Groex attended Commerce’s seminar in Bogota, received the questionnaires, .hired an accounting firm to help it prepare questionnaire responses, and submitted to Commerce both its section A responses for the fifth and sixth review periods and a no-shipment certification for the seventh review. See Pub. Docs. No. 554, 1693, Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Eden Floral Farms’ Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., Ex. 4, Ex. 10 at 3. Finally, Eden points to Commerce’s application of the second-tier BIA rate to flower growers that were no longer in business, 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,836, arguing that this treatment is inconsistent with Commerce’s treatment of Groex. But Commerce found that the other producers were never in a position to process Commerce’s information requests. Id. Groex, however, was still in business when it received Commerce’s questionnaires. The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence on the record demonstrating Groex’s refusal to cooperate. Accordingly, Commerce’s application of first-tier BIA to Groex was in accordance with law and was supported by substantial evidence. C. Plaintiff Equiñor Commerce sent a questionnaire covering the fifth and sixth reviews to Sunset Farms (“Sunset”) on April 13, 1994 and a questionnaire covering the seventh review to Flores el Majui (“Majui”) on May 5, 1994. Pub. Doc. No. 1821, Def.’s, Mem. Opp’n Equiflor’s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., Ex. 12., In the preliminary results, Commerce assigned first-tier BIA to both Majui and Sunset stating that they “failed to respond to our requests for information.” Preliminary Results, 60 Fed.Reg. at 30,272, On August 11, 1995, Equiflor and Espirit Miami (collectively “Equiflor”) filed a ease brief in the administrative review of the present proceeding. Pub. Doe. No. 1692, Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Equiflor’s Mem Supp. Mot.- J. Agency R., Ex. 9. Equiflor maintained that Majui could not have received Commerce’s questionnaire since it had gone out of business. Id. at 2. Equiflor also argued that Sunset was experiencing financial and personnel difficulties, therefore, Commerce should have declined to apply first-tier BIA to the company. Id. at 5. In the final determination, Commerce did not alter its decision and once again applied first-tier BIA to both Majui and.Sunset. 61 Fed.Reg. at 42,862-63. Equiflor argues that Commerce should not have assigned a non-cooperative BIA rate to Majui because the company no longer existed on May 5, 1994, when Commerce’s questionnaire in the seventh review (the only review involving Majui) was sent out; therefore, Majui never .received the questionnaire. Equiflor’s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. at 3 [hereinafter Equiflor Brief]. The record shows, however, that Majui did receive