Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER STANCEU, Judge: JTEKT Corporation, formerly Koyo Seiko Company, Ltd., and Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. (collectively, “JTEKT”) brought an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2006) to contest the final determination of the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the “Department”) in the sixteenth administrative reviews (“AFBs 16 reviews” or “AFBs 16”) of antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof (“subject merchandise”) from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Summons 1; Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, & the United Kingdom: Final Results of Anti-dumping Duty Admin. Reviews, 71 Fed. Reg. 40,064, 40,065 (July 14, 2006) (“Final Results”)-, Issues & Decision Mem. for the Antidumping Duty Admin. Reviews of Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, & the United Kingdom for the Period of Review May 1, 200U, through April 30, 2005, at 2 (July 14, 2006) (“Decision Mem.”). The reviews applied to imports of subject merchandise made during the period of May 1, 2004 through April 30, 2005 (“period of review” or “POR”). Final Results, 71 Fed.Reg. at 40,065. Upon defendant’s consent motion, the court consolidated JTEKT’s action with five other cases. Consent Mot. to Consolidate 1. The five other groups of plaintiffs in the consolidated cases (referred to in this Opinion and Order collectively with their affiliates) are FYH Bearing Units USA, Inc. and Nippon Pillow Block Company Ltd. (collectively, “NPB”); NSK Corporation, NSK Ltd., and NSK Precision America, Inc. (collectively, “NSK”); American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corp., NTN Bearing Corporation of America, NTN Bower Corporation, NTN Corporation, NTN Driveshaft, Inc., and NTN-BCA Corporation (collectively, “NTN”); Ñachi Technology, Inc., Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation, and Ñachi America, Inc. (collectively “Ñachi”); and The Timken Company (“Timken”). JTEKT, NPB, NSK, NTN, and Ñachi (collectively, “plaintiffs”), as well as Timken, which is both a plaintiff and the defendant-intervenor (“defendant-intervenor”) in the consolidated cases, bring claims contesting various decisions and determinations that Commerce made in the Final Results. These claims are discussed in the respective sections of Part II of this Opinion and Order, as follows: (A) claims of JTEKT, NPB, NTN, and Ñachi challenging the application of Commerce’s “zeroing” methodology to non-dumped sales; (B) claims challenging the Department’s revised model-match methodology, the adoption of which JTEKT, NPB, NSK, NTN, and Ñachi oppose generally and the specific application of which JTEKT, NPB, NSK, and NTN challenge in certain respects; (C) JTEKT’s claim objecting to Commerce’s treating JTEKT and an affiliate as a single entity, (D) NSK’s claim that Commerce unlawfully deducted certain benefits expenses when determining the constructed export price of NSK’s subject merchandise, (E) NTN’s claim opposing Commerce’s reallocation of NTN’s freight expense on the basis of weight, (F) NTN’s claim opposing Commerce’s recalculation of NTN’s home market packing expenses, (G) NTN’s claim challenging the Department’s disallowance of NTN’s downward price adjustments to reflect certain discounts to home market customers, (H) Na-chi’s claim challenging Commerce’s use of facts otherwise available and adverse inferences in response to errors Ñachi made in reporting physical characteristics of subject bearings, and (I) Timken’s claim challenging Commerce’s use of Japanese interest rates, rather than U.S. interest rates, for a portion of the adjustment for imputed interest carrying costs in the calculation of constructed export prices of subject merchandise of NTN and Ñachi. As discussed in this Opinion and Order, the court grants relief on certain of these claims through an order of remand and, with respect to other claims, affirms Commerce’s decisions and determinations in the Final Results. I. Background The court sets forth below the procedural history of the administrative and judicial proceedings in general terms common to all plaintiffs. Additional background information specific to the individual claims is presented in Part II of this Opinion and Order. A. Administrative Proceedings On May 15, 1989, Commerce issued anti-dumping duty orders on imports of ball bearings from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. On June 30, 2005, Commerce initiated the sixteenth set of administrative reviews of these orders. Initiation of Antidumping & Countervailing Duty Admin. Reviews, 70 Fed. Reg. 37,749, 37,756-57 (June 30, 2005); Decision Mem. 2. Commerce issued the preliminary results of the administrative reviews (“Preliminary Results”) in March 2006, setting forth its analysis for certain of its initial determinations. Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, & the United Kingdom: Prelim. Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Reviews, 71 Fed.Reg. 12,170 (Mar. 9, 2006) (“Prelim. Results ”). Later that year, Commerce issued the Final Results and incorporated by reference therein an internal Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memorandum”) containing the Department’s analysis of issues raised by interested parties subsequent to the Preliminary Results. Final Results, 71 Fed. Reg. at 40,065; see Decision Mem. B. Judicial Review in the Consolidated Actions On September 13, 2006, the court granted the consent motion of Timken to intervene on behalf of defendant. Upon defendant’s consent motion, the court ordered consolidation under Consolidated Court No. 06-00250 of JTEKT Corporation v. United States, No. 06-00250, Nippon Pillow Block Company Ltd. v. United States, No. 06-00258, Timken U.S. Corporation v. United States, No. 06-00271, NSK Ltd. v. United States, No. 06-00272, NTN Corporation v. United States, No. 06-00274, and Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation v. United States, No. 06-00275. Order 1, Nov. 15, 2006; Consent Mot. to Consolidate 1. Each plaintiff and Timken filed a motion for judgment upon the agency record on February 8, 2007, which motions defendant opposes in the entirety and Timken, as defendant-intervenor, opposes with respect to certain claims. Oral argument was held in camera on October 30, 2007. On June 18, 2008, the court requested additional briefing regarding certain matters, to which JTEKT, NPB, NSK, NTN, defendant, and Timken responded. See Letter from Timothy C. Stanceu, Judge, Ct. of Int’l Trade, to Counsel for Pis., Def., & Def.-Intervenor in Consol. Ct. No. 06-250 (June 18, 2008). In addition, defendant and Timken made five additional submissions, and defendant made one additional submission, to notify the court of supplemental authority. II. Discussion The court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), under which the Court of International Trade is granted exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a. 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). The court reviews the Final Results on the basis of the agency record. See 28 U.S.C. § 2640(b) (2006); 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(l)(B)(i) (2006). Upon such review, the court must “hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion found,” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(l), “to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. § 1516a(b)(l)(B)(i). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938). A The Claims of JTEKT, NPB, NTN, and Ñachi Challenging the Department’s Zeroing Procedure Are Inconsistent with Controlling Judicial Precedent Plaintiffs claim that the Department’s policy of zeroing in administrative reviews violates U.S. antidumping laws and is inconsistent with international obligations of the United States. Citing 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673, 1677(35), 1677b(a), and 1677Í-1, NTN and Ñachi argue that zeroing precludes a fair comparison of normal value and export price, distorts margins by failing to account for all transactions, and does not merit deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), because Commerce is inconsistently applying zeroing under the statute. Rule 56.2 Mot. & Mem. for J. on the Agency R. Submitted on behalf of Pls. NTN Corp., NTN Bearing Corp. of Am., Am. NTN Bearing Mfg. Corp., NTN-BCA Corp., NTN-Bower Corp., & NTN Driveshaft, Inc. 8-10 (“NTN Mem.”); Br. of Pls. Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp., Nachi Am., Inc. & Nachi Technology, Inc. in Support of Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. on the Agency R. 9-10, 13-15, 18 (“Nachi Mem.”). JTEKT, NPB, and Nachi also argue that it is unreasonable for Commerce to continue to apply the zeroing practice under the Charming Betsy doctrine, under which the laws of the United States should be interpreted so as not to conflict with U.S. international obligations. Mem. of P. & A. in Support of Mot. of Pis. JTEKT Corp. & Koyo Corp. of U.S.A. for J. on the Agency R. 44-47 (“JTEKT Mem.”); Mem. in Support of the Mot. for J. upon the Agency R. Submitted by Pls. Nippon Pillow Block Co. Ltd. & FYH Bearing Units USA, Inc. 29-30 (“NPB Mem.”); Nachi Mem. 15; see Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118, 2 L.Ed. 208 (1804). In support of this argument, these plaintiffs point to recent reports from panels and the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) concluding that the Department’s zeroing practice is inconsistent with the WTO obligations of the United States. JTEKT Mem. 45-47; NPB Mem. 29-30; NTN Mem. 5-8; Nachi Mem. 15-16. Finally, JTEKT, NPB, and NTN claim that the Court of International Trade should remand the determination to permit Commerce to implement, or consider implementing, adverse reports of the WTO on the application of zeroing in administrative reviews. See JTEKT Mem. 47; NPB Mem. 30-31; NTN Mem. 10-11. Defendant rejects plaintiffs’ various arguments, arguing that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Court of Appeals”) repeatedly has sustained the Department’s treatment of nondumped sales under the statute despite findings set forth in adverse reports from the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”). Def.’s Resp. in Opp’n to Pis.’ Mots, for J. upon the Agency R. 72 (“Def. Resp.”) (citing Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed.Cir.2004), cert. denied 543 U.S. 976, 125 S.Ct. 412, 160 L.Ed.2d 352 (2004), and Corns Staal BV v. Dep’t of Commerce, 395 F.3d 1343 (Fed.Cir.2005), cert. denied 546 U.S. 1089, 126 S.Ct. 1023, 163 L.Ed.2d 853 (2006) (“Corus I”)); see also Resp. of Timken U.S. Corp. to the Rule 56.2 Mots, of JTEKT Corp., et al. 28-30 (“Def.-Intervenor Resp.”). The court concludes that plaintiffs’ arguments challenging zeroing fail to raise new issues not already settled by binding precedent of the Court of Appeals. In Timken, the Court of Appeals held that Commerce “reasonably interpreted § 1677(35)(A) to allow for zeroing” in the context of administrative reviews and also explained that the “fair comparison” requirement, which applies to the calculation of normal value under § 1677b(a), which was incorporated by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), did not affect its holding. Timken, 354 F.3d at 1343. The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that Commerce must adhere to a single practice on zeroing for both investigations and administrative reviews. Id. at 1344-45. In NSK, the Court of Appeals emphasized that it repeatedly has upheld the practice of zeroing and again affirmed the Department’s determination to apply zeroing to administrative reviews despite the Department’s determination to cease doing so in investigations. NSK Ltd. v. United States, 510 F.3d 1375, 1379-80 (Fed.Cir.2007) (“NSK III”) (citing Timken, 354 F.3d 1334; Corus I, 395 F.3d 1343; and Corns Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (“Corus II”)). Regarding the application of the Charming Betsy doctrine, the Court of Appeals in Timken rejected the “fair comparison” argument that had been raised thereunder. Timken, 354 F.3d at 1343-44. The Court of Appeals rejected a plaintiffs argument that it was required “to interpret the ‘fair comparison’ language in the U.S. anti-dumping statute in a manner consistent with U.S. international obligations, thereby adopting the holding in EC — Bed Linen and finding Commerce’s zeroing practice an unreasonable statutory interpretation.” Id. at 1343. Observing that “[t]he crux of [respondent’s] argument hinges on the Charming Betsy canon of claim construction,” id., the Court of Appeals rejected the respondent’s position, explaining that “[w]hile [respondent] relies on EC — Bed Linen for its persuasive value in an effort to convince us of the unreasonableness of Commerce’s zeroing practice, we do not find it sufficiently persuasive to find Commerce’s practice unreasonable.” Id. at 1344. Finally, JTEKT and NPB argue that Commerce must comply with the findings set forth in adverse reports from the WTO DSB. JTEKT Mem. 45-47; NPB Mem. 29-30. JTEKT requests that the court remand the determination to Commerce so that Commerce may determine whether and how to comply with the decision of the Appellate Body of the WTO holding that zeroing in administrative reviews is impermissible. JTEKT Mem. 47 & n. 16. JTEKT asserts that its position is consistent with the holding of the Court of Appeals in Corns I, 395 F.3d at 1349, because JTEKT does not ask the court to act but rather to remand the matter to Commerce for reconsideration in light of recent legal developments in the WTO. Id. at 47, n. 16. NTN argues, similarly, that the principles articulated in recent DSB decisions on the .use of zeroing in administrative reviews should persuade the court to hold that the Department’s zeroing practice is unlawful and points to the U.S. decision, reached under Section 123 of the URAA, to comply with the DSB ruling that zeroing is impermissible in investigations (“Section 123 Determination”). NTN Mem. 5-8, 10-11. Defendant responds that the Section 123 Determination applies only to new and continuing investigations and therefore has no effect upon this administrative review. Def. Resp. 77; see Def.-Intervenor Resp. 33-34. Section 123 delineates specific procedures for determining whether and how the United States will comply with decisions of the WTO. See 19 U.S.C. § 3533(g) (2006). The Section 123 Determination states that it will apply to current and future investigations as of the effective date. Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weightedi-Average Dumping Margin During an Antidumping Investigation; Final Modification, 71 Fed.Reg. 77, 722, 77,725 (Dec. 27, 2006) (“Section 123 Determination ”). With respect to timing in this matter, the Final Results were issued on July 14, 2006 and the Section 123 Determination was issued on December 27, 2006, with an original effective date of January 16, 2007, and a final amended effective date of February 22, 2007. Final Results, 71 Fed.Reg. 40,064; Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margins in Antidumping Investigations; Change in Effective Date of Final Modification, 72 Fed.Reg. 3783 (Jan. 26, 2007) (“Section 123 Determination Am. Effective Date”); Section 123 Determination, 71 Fed.Reg. 77,-722. Because the effective date of the Section 123 determination occurred after the issuance of the Final Results, there is no basis for the court to consider whether the legal principles adopted therein should apply to this administrative review. The court, therefore, need not reach plaintiffs’ other arguments on this issue. Even if the court concluded that the timing of the Final Results did not preclude application of the Section 123 determination, the court could not hold in favor of plaintiffs on this issue. The Court of Appeals repeatedly and consistently has upheld as reasonable the Department’s statutory interpretation that zeroing is permissible in administrative reviews. The Court of Appeals in Corns II, 502 F.3d at 1375, upheld the use of zeroing in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order and in NSK III, 510 F.3d at 1380, expressly rejected the argument that use of zeroing should be held unlawful based on a decision of the DSB and on statements by the United States indicating that the United States would comply with that decision. With respect to a remand to allow Commerce time to consider implementation of a new practice, the Court of Appeals has stated explicitly that it is not for the courts to implement WTO decisions without explicit instructions from the Executive Branch: until Commerce abandons zeroing in administrative reviews such as this one, a remand in this case would be unavailing. Therefore, because Commerce’s zeroing practice is in accordance with our well-established precedent, until Commerce officially abandons the practice pursuant to the specified statutory scheme, we affirm its continued use in this case. NSK III, 510 F.3d at 1380 (emphasis added). Subsequently, the Court of Appeals reiterated its position: The determination whether, when, and how to comply with the WTO’s decision on “zeroing,” involves delicate and subtle political judgments that are within the authority of the Executive and not the Judicial Branch. Neither Commerce nor the Department of Justice has requested, or even suggested, such a remand. It would be most inappropriate for this court on its own to direct Commerce to reopen the Final Results of the 15th review to consider the impact on its decision of the subsequent WTO ruling, and we decline to do so. Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1286, 1291 (Fed.Cir.2008) (“Koyo II ”); see Corus I, 395 F.3d at 1349 (directing the application of current U.S. law until the law changes to prohibit zeroing in administrative reviews). In summary, Court of Appeals precedent entirely precludes the court from requiring Commerce to change its zeroing practice in administrative reviews based on the Section 123 determination, and it forecloses a remand under which Commerce would be directed or authorized to reconsider its practice in light of WTO decisions declaring unlawful the practice of zeroing in the context of administrative reviews. B. The Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Various Claims Related to the Model-Match Methodology Except for NPB’s Claim Relating to Sampling Months and NTN’s Claim Relating to Commerce’s Rejection of NTN’s Proposed Bearing Design-Type Categories In determining a dumping margin, Commerce compares the U.S. price of the subject merchandise with the price of comparable merchandise (the “foreign like product”) in the home market. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b (2006). To do so, Commerce first attempts to match sales of the subject merchandise with sales of identical merchandise in the home market. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16)(A) (2006). In the absence of identical merchandise, Commerce attempts to match a sale of subject merchandise in the United States with a sale of similar merchandise in the home market. See id. § 1677(16)(B)-(C). If Commerce finds there are no sales of similar merchandise in the home market, Commerce will calculate a constructed value. Id. § 1677b(a)(4). The model-match methodology is the means by which Commerce identifies similar merchandise. For the initial fourteen administrative reviews of the subject merchandise, Commerce applied a model-match methodology in which it compared bearings on the basis of eight characteristics (the “family model-match methodology”). Issues & Decision Mem. for the Antidumping Duty Admin. Reviews of Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, & the United Kingdom for the Period of Review May 1, 2003, through April 30, 2004, at 19-26 (Sept. 16, 2005) (“AFBs 15 Decision Mem.”). The bearings that matched according to those eight characteristics were grouped in the same “family” for purposes of determining a foreign like product. Id. In the fifteenth administrative reviews of the bearings orders (“AFBs 15”), Commerce adopted a different methodology (“new model-match methodology”) in which Commerce applies a multi-step process. Id.; see Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, & the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Reviews, 70 Fed.Reg. 54,711, 54,712 (Sept. 16, 2005) (“AFBs 15 Final Results ”). Commerce applied this new model-match methodology in the AFBs 16 reviews. Decision Mem. 12-27. In the new model-match methodology, Commerce first matches a ball bearing model sold in the United States to one sold in the home market according to the following four physical characteristics: load direction, bearing design, number of rows of rolling elements, and precision rating. AFBs 15 Decision Mem. 19. For bearing design, in AFBs 16 reviews, Commerce recognized the following eight design types: angular contact, self-aligning, deep groove, integral shaft, thrust ball, housed, insert, and hub units. Decision Mem. 77. A match requires consistency with respect to all four of these physical characteristics. AFBs 15 Decision Mem. 19. If there is such consistency, Commerce then identifies the most appropriate home market ball bearing model according to four additional, quantitative characteristics: load rating, outer diameter, inner diameter, and width. Id. Commerce excludes any potential matches in which the sum of the deviations in the four quantitative characteristics exceeds 40%. Id. Finally, Commerce excludes matches for which the Department’s difference-in-merehandise adjustment (“DIFMER”) exceeds 20%. See Decision Mem. 19 (“Because we applied our normal methodology of disregarding potential matches with a difference-in-merchandise adjustment of greater than 20 percent, we regard all the matches we actually made to be approximately equal in commercial value.”); Imp. Admin. Policy Bulletin 92.2 (July 29, 1992), http://ia.ita. doc.gov/policy/index.html (last visited Dec. 18, 2009). Plaintiffs challenge the new model-match methodology on various grounds. Certain of the plaintiffs challenge specifics of the application of the methodology in the AFBs 16 reviews, including the Department’s decision to consider only eight physical characteristics, the refusal by Commerce to increase the number of months in which it searched for matches, the Department’s rejection of all but one of the proposed additional bearing design types, and the alleged unlawfulness of certain matches. For the reasons discussed below, the court rejects these various claims except for two claims, as discussed below, and affirms, in other respects, the model-match methodology as applied in the AFBs 16 reviews. 1. Contrary to the Claims of JTEKT, NPB, NSK, NTN, and Ñachi, the Court Concludes that Commerce Acted Lawfully in Deciding to Change its Model-Match Methodology Plaintiffs raise various arguments relating to the standard Commerce must meet to change its model-match methodology. JTEKT and NTN claim that Commerce failed to give compelling reasons to change the methodology and that Commerce must use the prior methodology as a matter of fairness due to respondents’ reliance, NPB contends that Commerce failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its departure from past practice, and NSK claims that the Department’s determination to change methodologies was not reasonable because Commerce failed to show that the new methodology would yield a more accurate dumping margin. JTEKT Mem. 26-28; NTN Mem. 20-26; NPB Mem. 9; Mem. of P. & A. in Support of NSK’s Mot. for J. on the Agency R. 11-12 (“NSK Mem.”). Defendant argues that Commerce need only have acted reasonably in changing the methodology and that Commerce has done so. Def. Resp. 15. JTEKT, NPB, and NTN argue, further, that substantial record evidence does not support the claim of greater accuracy, that the new methodology actually yields less accurate dumping margins than the predecessor, that it is not possible to select a single most similar model for a ball bearing, and that Commerce, in deciding that price-to-price comparisons are more accurate than constructed values, contradicted the position it took in earlier reviews. JTEKT Mem. 24-25, 29-38; NPB Mem. 13-18; NSK Mem. 11-15. JTEKT, NPB, and NTN also reject as unsupported by substantial record evidence the Department’s rationale that technology improvements enable Commerce to implement the new model-match methodology. JTEKT Mem. 39-40; NPB Mem. 11-13; NTN Mem. 22-23. Defendant and defendantintervenor urge the court to reject these arguments and uphold the new methodology as reasonable and, as applied in this case, supported by the record evidence. See Def. Resp. 15-21; see Def.-Intervenor Resp. 12-22. The court will review a change in methodology for reasonableness. SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 537 F.3d 1373, 1377-78 (Fed.Cir.2008) (“SKF I”). The more demanding standards that plaintiffs advocate, i.e., that Commerce must set forth compelling reasons for the change or that the change must be demonstrated to produce a more accurate dumping margin, are not correct statements of the law. Id. at 1378 (stating that a review for reasonableness does not conflict with the substantial evidence standard). Further, the Court of Appeals previously has rejected arguments identical or similar to those advanced by plaintiffs, noting that “this statute ‘is silent with respect to the methodology that Commerce must use to match a U.S. product with a suitable home-market product.’ ’” Id. at 1379 (quoting Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 66 F.3d 1204, 1209 (Fed.Cir.1995) (“Koyo I ”)). Concluding that “Congress has granted Commerce considerable discretion to fashion the methodology used to determine what constitutes ‘foreign like product’ under the statute,” the Court of Appeals deferred to the Department’s choice of methodology as a reasonable construction of the antidumping statute. Id. (citing Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372, 1384 (Fed.Cir.2001), which cites, in turn, Koyo I, 66 F.3d at 1209). The Court of Appeals explained that Commerce was reasonable in seeking to improve accuracy, to select a model that would yield more priee-to-price comparisons, and to capitalize on technological advances that enable implementation of a more accurate methodology. Id. at 1380. JTEKT, NPB, and NSK argue that the change in methodology impermissibly was applied retroactively despite plaintiffs’ reliance on the previous methodology. JTEKT Mem. 25, 41-43; NPB Mem. 18-22; NSK Mem. 17-22. NPB argues specifically that it relied upon the prior methodology for fourteen years and that principles of fairness preclude Commerce from changing the methodology. NPB Mem. 18-22. NSK contends that the longstanding agency practice carries the weight of law, explaining that the old methodology was well-established, confirmed as lawful by the courts, and unaffected by any intervening statute that would require modification of the methodology. NSK Mem. 19 (citing Nat’l Corn Growers Ass’n v. Baker, 840 F.2d 1547, 1555 (Fed.Cir.1988)). NSK further contends that it relied on this longstanding practice of applying the family model-match methodology and that it was not put on notice that the new methodology would apply in the review at issue. NSK Mem. 20-22. Defendant argues that the reliance arguments lack merit because Commerce had announced in earlier reviews that it was considering a revision of the methodology, provided respondents notice early in the proceedings of the determination to apply the revised methodology, and also provided an opportunity to comment on the determination. Def. Resp. 21-22; see Def.-Intervenor Resp. 23-27. The Court of Appeals previously has rejected an argument that retroactivity and respondents’ reliance on the old methodology preclude Commerce from modifying its methodology in a current administrative review. SKF I, 537 F.3d at 1381. The Court of Appeals reasoned that there is an inherent retroactivity to antidumping review determinations and that a change in methodology, like any application of a methodology in an antidumping review, permissibly involves a retroactive effect. Id. The Court of Appeals also rejected the assertion of plaintiff SKF of detrimental reliance, explaining that “SKF does not dispute that Commerce has consistently found that SKF continues to sell at dumped prices” and that “SKF cannot properly analogize its situation to that in Shikoku, where ‘[t]he record contained] evidence that plaintiffs adjusted their prices in accordance with methodology consistently applied by Commerce in an attempt to comply with United States anti-dumping law.’ ” Id. (quoting Shikoku Chemicals Corp. v. United States, 16 CIT 382, 386, 795 F.Supp. 417, 420 (1992)). As in SKF, plaintiffs do not dispute that Commerce consistently has found that JTEKT, NPB, NSK, and NTN continue to sell at dumped prices. In SKF, the Court of Appeals noted that Commerce had found that plaintiffs were selling at dumped prices for the periods of review prior to the one at issue, May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004. Id. at 1377, 1381 (addressing the period of review from May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004). Commerce had determined the following margins for SKF entities for the three periods of review preceding the one at issue in SKF: for the POR beginning May 1, 2002, SKF entities had margins of 1.38%, 2.49%, and 5.25%; for the POR beginning May 1, 2001, SKF entities had margins of 3.38%, 5.08%, and 6.70%; and for the POR beginning May 1, 2000, SKF entities had margins of 3.70% and 8.51%. Antifriction Bearings & Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, & the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Reviews, Rescission of Admin. Reviews in Part, & Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 69 Fed.Reg. 55,574, 55,578-80 (Sept. 15, 2004) (“Final Results POR 2002-03”); Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof From France & Japan; Am. Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Reviews, 68 Fed.Reg. 43,712, 43,712 (July 24, 2003) (“Am. Final Results POR 2001-02”); Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, & Singapore: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Reviews, Rescission of Admin. Review in Part, & Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 68 Fed.Reg. 35,623, 35,625 (June 16, 2003) (“Final Results POR 2001-02 ”); Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, & the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Reviews, 67 Fed.Reg. 55,780, 55,781 (Aug. 30, 2002) (“Final Results POR 2000-01 ”). The period of review for the AFBs 16 reviews is May 1, 2004 through April 30, 2005. The court notes that Commerce determined in prior reviews that plaintiffs JTEKT, NPB, NSK, and NTN sold at dumped prices. For example, Commerce determined the following margins for plaintiffs for the three periods of review preceding the one at issue in this action: for the POR beginning May 1, 2003, 12.78% for Koyo (JTEKT), 15.51% for NPB, 8.25% for NSK, and 5.93% for NTN; for the POR beginning May 1, 2002, 5.56% for Koyo (JTEKT), 3.37% for NPB, 2.46% for NSK, and 2.74% for NTN; and for the POR beginning May 1, 2001, 4.98% for Koyo (JTEKT), 4.82% for NPB, 2.68% for NSK, and 4.51% for NTN. Notice of Correction to Am. Final Results of Anti-dumping Duty Admin. Review: Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from Japan, 70 Fed.Reg. 69,316, 69,316 (Nov. 15, 2005) (“Corrected Am. Japan Final Results POR 2003-0P’); Notice of Am. Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Reviews: Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from Japan, 70 Fed.Reg. 61,252, 61,252 (Oct. 21, 2005) (“Am. Japan Final Results POR 2003-Op’); Ball Bearings & Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Jar pan, Singapore, & the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Reviews, 70 Fed.Reg. 54,711, 54,713 (Sept. 16, 2005) (“Final Results POR 2003-Op’); Final Results POR 2002-03, 69 Fed.Reg. at 55,580; Am. Final Results POR 2001-02, 68 Fed.Reg. at 43,712; Final Results POR 2001-02, 68 Fed.Reg. at 35,625. In the AFBs 16 reviews, none of the plaintiffs actually has demonstrated detrimental reliance on the old methodology- For the reasons stated above, the court will affirm the Final Results with respect to the Department’s decision to depart from the previous model-match methodology- 2. The Court Rejects NPB’s Claim that Commerce Must Include Additional Physical Characteristics in its Model-Match Methodology While contesting the adoption of the new model-match methodology, NPB argues in the alternative that Commerce should have included additional physical characteristics in the methodology to account for certain specialty bearings. NPB Mem. 22. NPB explains that its specialty bearings should not be considered to be foreign like products of standard bearings sold in the United States and identifies seven additional characteristics that it submits Commerce, at a minimum, should have applied when determining matches. Id. at 23-24. Specifically, NPB argues that Commerce should have incorporated the following additional physical characteristics into its methodology: “types of seals,” “greased v. ungreased,” “ceramic v. nonceramic,” “diameter of second inner dimension,” “diameter of second outer dimension,” “diameter of second width dimension,” and “diameter of third width dimension.” Id. at 24. NPB argues that Commerce impermissibly rejected NPB’s request to include these additional characteristics, challenging the Department’s finding that NPB submitted the request too late in the proceedings and the finding by Commerce that NPB did not explain how Commerce could implement the proposed additional physical characteristics in the methodology. Id. at 25-26. In their oppositions to NPB’s motion for judgment upon the agency record, neither defendant nor defendant-intervenor addressed the issue of NPB’s proposal for additional physical characteristics. See Def. Resp.; Def.-Intervenor Resp. NPB urges the court to enter judgment against defendant, relying on USCIT Rule 56(e)(2). Reply Br. in Supp. of the Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. upon the Agency R. Submitted by Pis. Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd. and FYH Bearing Units USA, Inc. 2-3 (“NPB Reply”) (citing, inter alia, Taylor v. City of N. Y., 269 F.Supp.2d 68, 75 (E.D.N.Y.2003), and Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 24 CIT 1016, 1016, 116 F.Supp.2d 1350, 1353 (2000)). However, USCIT Rule 56(e)(2) is inapposite in a case where the motion for judgment upon the agency record is made pursuant to USCIT Rule 56.2. Under USCIT Rule 56.2, defendant is deemed to have opposed the issue whether or not the opposition was specifically pled. Therefore, the court rejects NPB’s argument under US-CIT Rule 56(e)(2) that the court should enter judgment against defendant on this issue. Regarding the timing of NPB’s proposal to incorporate additional physical characteristics in the model-match methodology, Commerce stated in its Decision Memorandum that NPB was the only respondent to suggest additional physical characteristics and did not do so until its case brief, which NPB submitted on April 25, 2006, less than three months before the issuance of the Final Results. Decision Mem. 18; Final Results, 71 Fed.Reg. 40,064. Commerce explained that respondents must submit their arguments regarding physical characteristics earlier in the review, rather than after the Preliminary Results, in order for Commerce to have a reasonable opportunity to consider them and to allow interested parties to comment. Decision Mem. 23. NPB concedes that in the subject reviews, it first proposed the use of additional physical characteristics in its case brief. NPB Mem. 25. Instead, NPB relies on 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c)(2), which requires a party to submit all of its arguments in its case brief, including arguments presented before the publication of the preliminary results. NPB Mem. 26. NPB adds that it raised the same arguments in the prior review. Id. Finally, NPB rejects the Department’s argument that interested parties would not have an opportunity to comment and argues instead that parties wishing to comment could have done so in their rebuttal briefs. Id. NPB’s reliance on 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c)(2) is misplaced. In this regulatory provision, Commerce requires parties to submit all arguments in the case brief, including those already before the agency. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c)(2) (2009). The regulation ensures that Commerce has before it all of a party’s arguments for consideration prior to the Final Results. It does not guarantee that Commerce will adopt the positions suggested therein, nor does it preclude Commerce from deciding, according to specific circumstances, that a change in methodology advocated at that time would not be practicable. The Court of Appeals has held that “Commerce has considerable discretion in defining ‘identical in physical characteristics.’ ” Pesquera Mares, 266 F.3d at 1384 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16)(A)). Commerce exercised that discretion in requiring NPB and other respondents to submit questionnaire responses according to the physical characteristics Commerce had identified. Letter from Baker & McKenzie, LLP to Dep’t of Commerce 570-72 (Sept. 27, 2005) (Admin.R.Doc. No. 92) (“NPB Questionnaire Resp.”) (stating, at B-2 through B-4 of the submission, that NPB reported its bearings according to the eight product characteristics indicated by Commerce and also added several fields). NPB was aware of those physical characteristics at the time of submitting its questionnaire responses and could have advocated in a questionnaire response that Commerce adopt its detailed proposal. See id. It would have been preferable had Commerce notified parties that proposals for use of additional physical characteristics in the model-match methodology would not be considered if submitted after a specified date. Nevertheless, the Department’s apparent failure to do so in this case does not compel the court to conclude that Commerce acted contrary to law in rejecting NPB’s proposal for reasons of impracticability due to time constraints and the desirability of allowing meaningful comment by other parties. At or about the time NPB submitted its questionnaire response, NPB reasonably should have expected that Commerce, absent an objection lodged at this earlier stage of the reviews, would proceed with its analysis according to the physical characteristics that Commerce had identified. Commerce explained that there were practical issues with the additional characteristics proposed by NPB that Commerce could not resolve at a point so late in the review, i.e., after Commerce had issued the Preliminary Results. Decision Mem. 23. Commerce also explained that it had an insufficient time period in which to determine how to amend its methodology to incorporate the suggested additional physical characteristics and to allow interested parties the opportunity to comment. Id. at 23-24. NPB having failed to raise its proposal sooner, the court cannot conclude that Commerce erred in determining that it did not have enough time to review, and possibly implement, the proposal of NPB to use additional physical characteristics in the model matching process. Due to the statutory time constraints under which Commerce must conduct its administrative reviews, Commerce must be considered to have a measure of discretion in deciding whether a modification of its model-match methodology is practicable. That NPB had raised the same issue in a prior review does not alter the court’s conclusion. Commerce could not know whether NPB intended to submit its proposal in the subject reviews until NPB actually did so, which NPB first did in its case brief. For these reasons, the court concludes that the Department’s decision in the Final Results to decline to consider NPB’s proposal for additional physical characteristics was supported by substantial record evidence and adequate reasoning and was within the Department’s discretion over procedural questions relevant to the conduct of its administrative reviews. The court, therefore, affirms that decision. 3. The Department’s Decision Rejecting NPB’s Proposal to Expand the Choice of Sample Months Misconstrues the Department’s Regulation NPB claims that Commerce, when searching for a ball bearing model to match with a particular subject ball bearing that a respondent sold in the United States, should have expanded the time period surrounding the date of the U.S. sale during which Commerce searched that respondent’s home market sales data. NPB Mem. 27. NPB argues that Commerce, by confining its search for possible matches to the “sampled months” immediately preceding and following the month in which the target U.S. sale occurred, unnecessarily reduced the number of identical matches and increased the number of matches for which only similar, but not identical, merchandise was involved. Id. NPB argues that the Department’s regulations do not require such a limited time period for the choice of sampled months and that the regulations allow Commerce to use a longer time period, such as a five-month time period, as NPB advocated. Id. at 28. In the AFBs 16 reviews, the “sampled months” Commerce selected were February, June, August, September, and November of 2004, and February, March, and May of 2005. Prelim. Results, 71 Fed.Reg. at 12,174. According to the Department’s explanation of its method of sampling transactions in the Preliminary Results, see 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-l(a), Commerce resorted to sampling of transactions for respondents who made more than 10,-000 constructed export price (“CEP”) sales transactions in the United States, or more than 10,000 home market sales transactions, during the period of review. Prelim. Results, 71 Fed.Reg. at 12,172-74. Commerce explained that for a respondent who engaged in more than 10,000 CEP sales of merchandise subject to a particular order, Commerce selected “sample weeks” — one week from each two-month period during the period of review, for a total of six weeks — and then reviewed the individual U.S. CEP sales transactions that occurred during those sample weeks. Id. at 12,172. Commerce further explained that for home market sales, Commerce selected as sampled months the months corresponding to the sample weeks selected for CEP sales in addition to a sampled month prior to the period of review and a sampled month following the period of review. Id. at 12,173-74. For NPB, Commerce “analyzed CEP sales of ball bearings in sample weeks because NPB had more than 10,000 CEP transactions of BBs [ie., ball bearings] during the POR” and “analyzed HM [i.e., home market] sales using sample months because NPB made over 10,000 POR home-market transactions.” Mem. from Int’l Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations 5, to The File 2 (Mar. 2, 2006) (Admin.R.Doc. No. 220). Commerce stated that for model match purposes it first searches the home market sales during the sampled month corresponding to the sampled week in which the U.S. sale occurred. Decision Mem. 86. Next, Commerce searches the preceding home-market sampled month, which, because not all months are sampled months, could result in a total span of several months. Id. Finally, Commerce searches the home market sampled month subsequent to the target sampled month, which, in these administrative reviews, also could result in a span of several months. Id. (stating that Commerce “matched each bearing model sold in the United States in one of the sampled weeks to the corresponding home-market month, then to the immediately preceding sampled home-market month, and then to the immediately following sampled home-market month”); see Prelim. Results, 71 Fed.Reg. at 12,-172-74. In the Decision Memorandum, Commerce reported its decision not to include additional sampled months as proposed by NPB. Decision Mem. 86. Commerce based its decision on 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(e)(2), which addresses the selection of the “contemporaneous months,” ie., the months to which Commerce limits the weighted averaging of prices in home market sales for use in making a comparison with an individual U.S. sale. See Decision Mem. 86. Commerce stated in the Decision Memorandum its position that “[t]he contemporaneous months should not pass beyond the most recent of the three months prior or the two months subsequent to the month of the U.S. sale in which there was a sale of a foreign like product.” Id. (citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(e)(2)). “Given the fact that sample home-market months are separated by a month or more between each other in either direction, extending the window period by a month in each direction often results in extending the window period beyond the time period our regulation allows.” Id. If, for example, Commerce were to match a bearing sold in the United States with sales of a matching foreign like product that occurred in August 2004, Commerce first would search home market sales in the target sampled month, August 2004; second, in the preceding sampled month, June 2004; and third, in the following sampled month, September 2004. As a result, subject bearings sold during a sample week in August 2004 potentially could be matched to home market sales in a sampled month that could only have occurred during the four-month period of June through September 2004. Were Commerce also to search for matching sales in the additional preceding and following sampled months, in this case February and November of 2004, that time period would be ten months long. Neither defendant nor defendant-intervenor addressed NPB’s “sampled month” issue in their oppositions to plaintiffs’ motion for judgment upon the agency record. See Def. Resp.; Def.-Intervenor Resp. The court will not rule in favor of NPB on that basis. As discussed previously, the United States is deemed to have opposed summary judgment on an issue raised in a Rule 56.2 motion for judgment upon the agency record. See USCIT Rule 56.2. In considering the sampling month issue on the merits, the court concludes that the premise underlying the Department’s analysis, as stated in the Decision Memorandum, was in error. Commerce erroneously concluded that its regulation required it to reject NPB’s proposal. Decision Mem. 86 (finding that “[gjiven the fact that sample home-market months are separated by a month or more between each other in either direction, extending thé window period by a month in each direction often results in extending the window period beyond the time period our regulation allows”). But that was not the case. The regulation in question, § 351.414(e)(2), provides that “[n formally, the Secretary will select as the contemporaneous month the first of the following which applies.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(e)(2) (emphasis added). Under the plain meaning of the regulation, Commerce is not precluded entirely from choosing as the “contemporaneous month” a sampled month outside of the total time span contemplated by § 351.414(e)(2). Instead, Commerce is free to exercise its discretion not to follow the normal procedure set forth in that provision. The regulation allows for an atypical circumstance under which it may be reasonable or appropriate to depart from the normal procedure. The court notes that § 351.414(e)(2) is a general provision that does not address specifically the special circumstances in which Commerce resorts to sampling under 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-l(a). In identifying the error in the Department’s analysis, the court does not hold or imply that Commerce, on the administrative record before it, was required to accept NPB’s proposal to expand the choice of sampling months. NPB may be correct that the proposal it advanced would have increased the accuracy of the model-match methodology; the review of a larger data base presumably would lead to more identical matches. Nevertheless, Commerce has considerable discretion in choosing the timing for conducting the comparison called for in the average-to-transaction method that normally applies during administrative reviews. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(c), (e). NPB’s proposal may or may not have been practicable in the context of the subject reviews and in this case may have caused Commerce to exceed the time period recommended by its regulation. But in this case, Commerce did not reject NPB’s proposal for considerations of practicability. Instead, it erroneously treated the method set forth in that regulatory provision as an ironclad requirement. The court, therefore, must remand for reconsideration the Department’s decision to reject NPB’s proposal to expand the choice of sampled months. The court must review the Department’s decision on the basis of the reasoning that Commerce put forth. See Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285-86, 95 S.Ct. 438, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974) (stating that the court “may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given”). In this circumstance, the reasoning Commerce set forth in the Decision Memorandum cannot be reconciled with the plain meaning of 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(e) and the discretion Commerce is granted thereunder. I. Commerce Failed to Provide an Adequate Explanation for its Rejection of NTN’s Proposal for Additional Ball Bearing Design Types NTN claims that Commerce erred in refusing to recognize and apply the additional ball bearing design types that NTN proposed for use in the model matching process. See NTN Mem. 26-30. NTN proposed designation of additional design types, all but one of which Commerce rejected. Decision Mem. 76-80. NTN argues that the ball bearing design types that Commerce identified, i.e., angular contact, self-aligning, deep groove, integral shaft, thrust ball, housed, and insert, are overly broad and fail to account for significant physical characteristics. NTN Mem. 27. In the AFBs 16 reviews, Commerce adopted, in response to NTN’s objection, only one additional design type, “hub units incorporating angular contact bearings.” Decision Mem. 77 (“We do find, however, that NTN provided evidence ... that demonstrates that NTN’s hub units incorporating angular contact bearings are significantly different from standard angular contact bearings as well as housed bearings to warrant a bearing-design designation distinct and separate from the seven bearing-design types we identified in our questionnaire.”). Commerce took the position that to include an additional design type in its model matching process, it had “to be satisfied that the classification is substantially different from each of the design types” already included. Id. Commerce concluded that NTN had not demonstrated the need for separate classifications for the other design types NTN proposed. Id. (stating that “NTN did not provide compelling evidence that each of its reported bearing-design types was so significantly different that it merited its own classification, distinct and separate from the seven bearing-design types we identified in our questionnaire”). Commerce also “found that, on many occasions, NTN’s numerous bearing-design designations were distinguishable due to a single element of difference or an element of difference that is not pertinent, such as a different width of inner race or the type of bore, ... etc.,” id., and that many of the differences correlate directly with load ratings, physical dimensions, and occasionally, the precision rating of bearings, which are characteristics that Commerce already uses to distinguish dissimilar products in its methodology. Id. at 77-78. In response to NTN’s arguments in the reviews that the function or application of different bearings warrant a separate design designation, Commerce stated that it is the rolling element that is dispositive as to whether a bearing can be considered similar with respect to the purposes for which bearings are used (e.g., a ball bearing cannot be considered similar to a cylindrical roller bearing under any circumstance), not whether a specific application for one bearing differs from the specific application of another. Id. at 78 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Commerce explained that “[bjecause all bearing models designated by NTN as different design types have a ball as a rolling element and fall within one of our seven bearing-design designations,” Commerce “consider[s] them equally similar in component material or materials for model-match purposes, as instructed by section 771(16)(B)(ii) of the Act [i.e., 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16)(B)(ii) ].” Id. at 77. NTN maintains that its proposed additional design types, as presented and discussed in NTN’s questionnaire response and case brief, were required to avoid unreasonable comparisons of dissimilar products. NTN Mem. 28. NTN further argues that it set forth detailed information in its questionnaire response demonstrating the need for these design types. Id. at 28-29. Finally, NTN argues that it relied on the Department’s longstanding practice of using NTN’s design types in the previous methodology and that it was improper for Commerce to change its methodology. Id. at 29-30. Defendant responds that NTN, in response to the design-type portion of the questionnaire, provided general descriptions of its design types, technical drawings, and brochures but did not explain the submissions or explain why each of the design types merited designation separate from the general design types that Commerce included in the questionnaire. Def. Resp. 25. Defendant argues that Commerce has broad discretion to develop a methodology for determining “like” or “similar” merchandise under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16)(B). Id. at 26. According to defendant, NTN also failed to show that the claimed differences in design type were so substantial that the DIFMER adjustment would not account for the differences. Id. at 27-29; see Def.-Intervenor Resp. 52-53. Pointing to its questionnaire responses, NTN disputes defendant’s statement that NTN failed to provide the information, explanation, and analysis necessary to substantiate its request. Reply Br. of Pis. NTN Corp., NTN Bearing Corp. of Am., Am. NTN Bearing Mfg. Corp., NTN-BCA Corp., NTN-Bower Corp., & NTN Driveshaft, Inc. 3-4 (“NTN Reply”). The Court of Appeals in Koyo II, 551 F.3d 1286, confronted an issue similar to that posed by NTN’s proposal for additional design types. In Koyo II, the plaintiff — which was NTN in that case as well-argued that its design types were significantly different from each other and that it had relied reasonably on the Department’s acceptance of additional design types because Commerce had accepted its design types in prior reviews. Id. at 1292. The Court of Appeals held that “NTN has not demonstrated that Commerce’s choice of design types, including its adjustments, was unreasonable” and that “even if Commerce had accepted NTN’s proposals in the past, it was not required to do so in future reviews.” Id. The Court of Appeals explained that “NTN’s claim that its design types are superior does not show that Commerce’s use of its own types was unreasonable.” Id. The court observes that some of the additional design-type categories proposed by NTN appear to describe ball bearings that fall within one, and only one, of Commerce’s accepted design-type categories. However, the court also observes that some of the bearings described in NTN’s proposal for additional design types appear to fall within more than one of the Depart-merit's design-type categories. NTN raises this specific objection in support of its claim that Commerce should not have rejected its proposal. See NTN Mem. 28 (“Commerce’s design codes do not take into account bearings, which fall into more than one category, such as bearings that are both ‘angular contact’ and ‘deep groove’.... ”). Defendant does not respond to this issue in its briefs, nor is this issue addressed in the Decision Memorandum. Without a suitable explanation, the court is not able to discern how Commerce applied its model matching methodology to those of NTN’s bearings that appear to fall within more than one accepted design type. The answer to this question is relevant to the court’s consideration, in the entirety, of Commerce’s decision to reject all of NTN’s proposed design types other than the design-type category for hub units incorporating angular contact bearings. The court, therefore, will remand for reconsideration Commerce’s decision in the Final Results to reject NTN’s additional design types. 5. JTEKT, NPB, and NSK Failed to Demonstrate that Certain Identified Ball Bearing Matches Were Unlawful At the invitation of the court, several plaintiffs filed supplemental briefs that set out, inter alia, certain matches they considered to be unreasonable. Supplemental Br. of Pis. JTEKT Corp. & Koyo Corp. of U.S.A. 2-3, Exs. I-K (“JTEKT Supplemental”); Pis. Nippon Pillow Block Co. Ltd. & FYH Bearing Units USA, Inc. Supplemental Br. 5-8 (“NPB Supplemental”); NSK’s Supplemental Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for J. on the Agency R. 4-5 (“NSK Supplemental”); NTN Corp., NTN Bearing Corp. of Am., Am. NTN Bearing Mfg. Corp., NTN-BCA Corp., NTN-Bower Corp., & NTN Driveshaft, Inc.’s Supplemental Br. Pursuant to the Ct.’s Letter of June 18, 2008, at 3-7 (“NTN Supplemental”). JTEKT, NPB, NSK, and NTN assert that the methodology implemented by Commerce in the AFBs 16 reviews resulted in unlawful matches. JTEKT identified three matches that it views are unreasonable. JTEKT Supplemental 2-3. The exhibits attached to its brief set forth a chart comparing physical or commercial characteristics of the U.S. model to one or two home market models. Id. at Exs. I-K. With respect to the first match, JTEKT states that “[b]ecause the purpose and applications of these models are quite different, there are remarkable differences between the U.S. model and the two home market models in terms of appearance and specifications.” Id. at Ex. I, at 2. JTEKT asserts that “the home market models require higher specifications to ensure their performance than the U.S. model.” Id. JTEKT further asserts that “[djespite these differences, the Department matched the U.S. model with these home market models based on their coincidentally similar costs of production.” Id. The second and third matches identified by JTEKT as unreasonable rely on substantively similar allegations. See id. at Exs. J-K. JTEKT’s arguments essentially identify physical characteristics that were not separately recognized within the Department’s new model-match methodology. JTEKT, however, has not demonstrated generally that the Department’s matches were unreasonable according to the physical characteristics applied by the Department’s methodology, or why that methodology, through the application of the DIFMER, failed to address the asserted “remarkable differences between the U.S. model and the two home market models in terms of appearance and specifications.” See id. at Ex. I, at 2. NPB also failed to demonstrate that Commerce applied an unreasonable methodology or exceeded its discretion in matching certain bearings. NPB states that “any number of unlawful comparisons with inappropriate foreign like products” occurred, NPB Mem. 26, and explains that Commerce “compared high temperature bearings NPB sold in the Japanese market to standard bearings that it sold in the U.S. market.” Id. NPB explained that its “high temperature bearings contain heatproof grease, special heat-proof seals, and may contain ceramic bearings” while its standard bearings “have standard grease, standard seals and stainless steel bearings.” NPB Supplemental 5. NPB provides two examples of matches it considers unreasonable. First, NPB contends that Commerce “incorrectly compared the sales of NPB’s U.S. model UC 211-32 G5 made in November 2004, to sales of Japanese model NA 211-32, also made in November 2004,”