United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-1502 

SKF USA, INC., SKF FRANCE S.A., SKF AEROSPACE FRANCE, 

SKF GMBH, and SKF INDUSTRIE S.P.A., 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

TIMKEN U.S. CORPORATION, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Herbert C. Shelley, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for 

plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were Alice A. Kipel and Susan R. Gihring. 

Claudia Burke, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United 

States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United 

States. With her on the brief were Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney 

General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director. 

Of counsel on the brief were Mykhaylo A. Gryzlov and Deborah R. King, AttorneyAdvisors, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States 

Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC. 

Geert De Prest, Stewart and Stewart, of Washington, DC, argued for defendantappellee Timken U.S. Corporation. With him on the brief were Terence P. Stewart and 

Lane S. Hurewitz. Of counsel was William A. Fennell. 

Appealed from: United States Court of International Trade 

Judge Evan J. Wallach 
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-1502 

SKF USA, INC., SKF FRANCE S.A., SKF AEROSPACE FRANCE, 

SKF GMBH, and SKF INDUSTRIE S.P.A., 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

TIMKEN U.S. CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in case no. 05-00569, Judge 

Evan J. Wallach. 

 __________________________ 

DECIDED: August 25, 2008 

 __________________________ 

Before MAYER, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges. 

LINN, Circuit Judge. 

 SKF USA, Inc., SKF France S.A., SKF Aerospace France S.A.S., SKF GmbH, 

and SKF Industrie S.p.A. (collectively “SKF”) appeal from the final judgment of the Court 

of International Trade affirming the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce’s”) 

revision of its model-match methodology and its ongoing zeroing methodology in 

calculating antidumping margins for ball bearings and related parts. SKF USA Inc., v. 

United States, 491 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007). Because the Court of 

International Trade correctly determined that Commerce’s zeroing practice and the 
revision of its model-match methodology were supported by substantial evidence and 

were in accordance with law, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND 

SKF imports ball bearings and related parts into the United States, which have 

been the subject of an antidumping investigation and subsequent annual reviews by 

Commerce. In performing these reviews, Commerce compares the imported products 

with “foreign like product” as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B). “Foreign like 

product” is defined as either identical merchandise, § 1677(16)(A), or similar 

merchandise, § 1677(16)(B) and (C). Determinations of similar (i.e., non-identical) 

merchandise are made using a model-match methodology developed by Commerce. 

Beginning with the first administrative review, Commerce utilized a “family modelmatch methodology,” whereby it grouped ball bearings into “families” based on exact 

matches of eight characteristics: 1) bearing design, 2) load direction, 3) number of rows 

of rolling elements, 4) precision rating, 5) dynamic load rating, 6) outside diameter, 7) 

inside diameter, and 8) width/height. Bearing models within a family were treated as 

equally similar to all other models sharing these eight characteristics, regardless of 

other product variations. When Commerce formulated the family model-match 

methodology in 1990, it grouped specific models of bearings into families “[t]o minimize 

the necessity for comparisons among an exceptionally large number of bearing 

models,” and “to limit the need for adjustments for physical differences in merchandise 

and the need for model matching.” J.A. at 129. 

During the fourteenth administrative review, however, in a memorandum dated 

December 3, 2003, Commerce indicated that it was considering modifications to the 

2007-1502 2 
model-match methodology. It explained that “[t]he family-based approach . . . deviates 

from [Commerce’s] normal practice in that [Commerce] ha[d] considered all models 

within a family to be equally similar,” and that this methodology “was developed at a 

time . . . when it was impossible for [Commerce] to identify the single most similar 

foreign like product” because “the technological resources available . . . were far less 

powerful than they are now.” Id. at 359. Thus, “a more complex model-match 

methodology . . . would have been prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.” Id. 

Commerce suggested changing the model-match methodology “in order to determine 

the single most similar comparison-market model, taking advantage of intervening 

technological developments,” id. at 361, but explained that it would not attempt to 

implement any changes to the methodology in the ongoing 2002-2003 reviews, 

choosing instead to “solicit comments and invite rebuttal comments” before 

implementing the new methodology in the 2003-2004 reviews. Id. at 364. 

On July 7, 2004, Commerce issued a memorandum outlining the revised modelmatch methodology and indicating that although it intended to use the new 

methodology, it reserved the right to make further modifications based on comments 

received or data collected during the course of the 2003-2004 reviews. Commerce 

summarized its proposed methodology as follows: 

We recommend that we select the single most similar comparison-market 

model among only those models that are in the same family, as redefined 

above (i.e., bearing design, load direction, number of rows, and, if we 

determine it appropriate, precision grade), on the basis of that model that 

is closest in terms of inner diameter, outer diameter, width, load rating, 

and, if appropriate, precision grade. We recommend further that we 

resolve ties by selecting the single home-market model whose variable 

cost of manufacturing is closest to that of the U.S. model. 

2007-1502 3 
Id. at 439. Thus, under the new methodology, Commerce would identify models in the 

comparison market and the U.S. market that share four of the physical characteristics of 

the old methodology. After finding an identical match of these characteristics, 

Commerce would then identify a “most similar” model based upon a comparison of the 

remaining characteristics. 

On May 13, 2005, Commerce issued its preliminary results for the fifteenth 

administrative review using the new methodology. Antifriction Bearings and Parts 

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: 

Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 

70 Fed. Reg. 25,538 (Dep’t of Commerce May 13, 2005). Commerce also released a 

memorandum providing the revised model-match methodology and addressing 

comments received. In this memorandum, Commerce explained that “[b]ecause there 

is a statutory preference for using price-to-price comparisons and the technological 

constraints that led us to adopt the simplified family methodology are no longer 

operative, we find compelling reasons to change the model-matching methodology 

. . . .” J.A. at 482. Under the revised methodology, Commerce “identif[ies] the single 

most similar model within the [redefined] family of bearings using a sum-of-thedeviations model-matching methodology with a 40-percent cap on the sum of the 

deviations, resolving ties among bearings with the same sum of the deviations using the 

smallest [difference-in-merchandise] adjustment.” Id. at 492. Commerce indicated that 

it would “consider all arguments presented in case and rebuttal briefs and, if 

appropriate, revise this methodology for the final results of reviews.” Id. at 478. 

2007-1502 4 
On September 16, 2005, Commerce published the final results of its fifteenth 

antidumping administrative review of ball bearings and parts thereof from various 

countries imported from May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004. Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 

From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore and the United Kingdom: Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 Fed. Reg. 54,711 (Dep’t of Commerce 

Sep. 16, 2005) (“Final Results”). In a related memorandum, Commerce indicated that 

“[t]his new model-matching methodology is much closer to [its] normal matching 

practice than is the family-matching methodology in that it allows [Commerce] to select 

the single most-similar model and allows [Commerce] to avoid rejecting reasonable 

price-to-price comparisons between models with slightly different physical 

characteristics.” Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Sec’y 

for Import Admin., U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant 

Sec’y for Import Admin., U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Issues and Decision Memorandum 

for the Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews of Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 

from France, Germany etc. for the Period of Review May 1, 2003, through April 30, 

2004, at 19 (Sept. 12, 2005) (‘‘Issues & Decision Memo’’). Commerce explained that it 

had “solicted extensive comments” and “incorporated numerous suggestions” before 

adopting the new methodology. Id. It concluded that “compelling reasons exist to 

change the model-match methodology,” that it now possessed “the technological 

capacity to use a more accurate methodology,” and that “[t]he new methodology is 

substantially more accurate than the family-matching methodology.” Id. at 20. 

In calculating SKF’s weighted-average dumping margins, Commerce also 

employed its usual methodology in which dumped sales are not offset by non-dumped 

2007-1502 5 
sales—a practice known as zeroing. SKF challenged these results before the Court of 

International Trade, which sustained Commerce’s Final Results. SKF timely appealed. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 We review the Court of International Trade’s decisions regarding Commerce’s 

antidumping determinations de novo, applying the same standard of review to 

Commerce’s determinations as did that court. Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. United States, 

510 F.3d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Thus, Commerce’s 

antidumping determinations must be sustained unless they are “unsupported by 

substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. at 

1373 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i)). 

SKF argues that the Court of International Trade erred in reviewing Commerce’s 

decision to change its model-match methodology for “reasonableness” rather than 

determining whether the change was supported by substantial evidence and otherwise 

in accordance with law. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). SKF further argues that 

because Commerce’s own policy permits changes to model-match methodologies only 

when supported by “compelling reasons,” e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Duty Order, 58 Fed. 

Reg. 39,729, 39,765 (Dep’t of Commerce July 26, 1993), we must use a similar 

standard to review Commerce’s actions. We disagree. The standard articulated by the 

Court of International Trade, “whether Commerce reasonably determined that there 

were compelling reasons to revise the model match methodology,” SKF USA, 491 F. 

2007-1502 6 
Supp. 2d at 1361 (citing Hangzhou Spring Washer Co. v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 

2d 1236, 1246 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005)), does not conflict with our “substantial evidence” 

standard of review, which requires only “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. v. Nat’l Labor 

Relations Bd., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). 

B. Analysis 

1. Commerce’s Revised Model-Match Methodology 

 SKF disputes the legitimacy of Commerce’s new model-match methodology, the 

appropriateness of Commerce’s decision to disturb the prior family-match methodology, 

and the retroactive application of the new methodology to products covered by the 

fifteenth review. We address each of these arguments in turn. 

With respect to the new methodology, the parties disagree about the purpose of 

a model-match methodology itself. SKF fundamentally argues that the model-match 

methodology should be designed solely to compare “the most physically and 

commercially similar products,” regardless of whether such matching consists of priceto-price comparisons or constructed values. Domestic Producer Timken U.S. 

Corporation (“Timken”) and the government maintain that the new methodology more 

accurately reflects the intent of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16)(B) to identify a single most similar 

model, see Timken Co. v. United States, 630 F. Supp. 1327, 1337 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1986) 

(holding that “[t]he spirit if not the letter of [the statute] obligates the agency to also 

ascertain what constitutes the most similar merchandise,” and that “if values can be 

found only for items of ‘similar’ merchandise, the value of the item most similar to that 

under appraisement should be adopted”), and that the family-match methodology runs 

2007-1502 7 
counter to Commerce’s normal practice. SKF responds that the statute does not 

require the selection of a single most similar model and that the statute does not 

preclude the appropriate use of constructive value. 

The statute provides: 

The term “foreign like product” means merchandise in the first of the 

following categories in respect of which a determination for the purposes 

of part II of this subtitle can be satisfactorily made: 

(A) The subject merchandise and other merchandise which is identical in 

physical characteristics with, and was produced in the same 

country by the same person as, that merchandise. 

(B) Merchandise-- 

(i) produced in the same country and by the same person as the 

subject merchandise, 

(ii) like that merchandise in component material or materials and in 

the purposes for which used, and 

(iii) approximately equal in commercial value to that merchandise. 

(C) Merchandise-- 

(i) produced in the same country and by the same person and of 

the same general class or kind as the subject merchandise, 

(ii) like that merchandise in the purposes for which used, and 

(iii) which the administering authority determines may reasonably 

be compared with that merchandise. 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(16). SKF maintains that the hierarchy set forth in the statute does not 

require Commerce to select a single most similar model and points to prior affirmance of 

the family-match methodology as evidence of the correctness of its statutory 

interpretation. See SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 876 F. Supp. 275, 279 (Ct. Int’l 

Trade 1995) (noting that “the statute does not require Commerce to use a methodology 

that identifies the greatest number of matches of similar merchandise,” and that the 

family-match methodology “was within the broad discretion [Commerce] is granted to 

determine ‘similar merchandise’”). The relevant question, however, is not whether the 

2007-1502 8 
statute requires such an approach, but rather whether Commerce’s interpretation is 

permissible. 

We have previously observed that this statute “is silent with respect to the 

methodology that Commerce must use to match a U.S. product with a suitable homemarket product.” Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 66 F.3d 1204, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 

Under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 

(1984), if a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific issue, we “must defer 

to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of a statute even if [we] might have preferred 

another.” Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 36 F.3d 1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Furthermore, “[d]eference to an agency's statutory interpretation is at its peak in the 

case of a court's review of Commerce's interpretation of the antidumping laws.” Id. 

Accordingly, we have previously held that Congress has granted Commerce 

considerable discretion to fashion the methodology used to determine what constitutes 

“foreign like product” under the statute. Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United 

States, 266 F.3d 1372, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Koyo Seiko, 66 F.3d 1209). 

Commerce’s interpretation of the statute merits deference in this case. SKF 

alleges that the increased number of price comparisons achieved under the new 

methodology corresponds with a decrease in the accuracy of the matches themselves. 

But as noted by the government, SKF fails to identify a single instance of an 

unreasonable match resulting from the new methodology. Cf. Koyo Seiko Co. v. United 

States, 516 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1335 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (noting that “[p]laintiffs . . . 

each argue through specific examples that the Department’s new methodology led to 

the comparison of dissimilar bearing products”). And as Timken argues, it is reasonable 

2007-1502 9 
that although the new methodology allows up to a 40 percent total deviation in 

dimensions and load rating, the methodology yields more accurate results because it 

matches the most similar product rather than merely pooling several models that 

matched as to eight characteristics but could vary significantly in price or cost, due to 

differences in materials for certain components or added features. 

 The new model-match methodology not only reflects a reasonable interpretation 

of the statute but also comports with our precedent. In Cemex, S.A. v. United States, 

we observed that: 

Section 1677(16) sets up a hierarchy for identifying “such or similar 

merchandise.” Commerce examines each category in order, and once 

merchandise is presented that meets the criteria stated by a category, the 

price of this merchandise in the home country becomes the foreign market 

value. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677(16), 1677b(a)(1). The first class of 

merchandise is identical merchandise, the next class is nonidentical 

merchandise that is made by the same producer in the same country and 

is similar in value to the merchandise under investigation, and the third 

class is merchandise made by the same producer in the same country and 

used for the same purposes as the merchandise under investigation. See

19 U.S.C. § 1677(16). 

133 F.3d 897, 902-03 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (internal footnote omitted). In light of this 

statutory structure, we concluded that “[t]he plain language of the statute requires 

Commerce to base foreign market value on nonidentical but similar merchandise . . . 

rather than constructed value when sales of identical merchandise have been found to 

be outside the ordinary course of trade.” Id. at 904. Thus, Commerce’s decision to 

seek out product matches based on the most similar products rather than constructed 

values does not contravene the statute. 

 With respect to Commerce’s decision to revise the model-match methodology 

after 14 annual reviews utilizing the family-match methodology, we have specifically 

2007-1502 10 
affirmed changes to model-match methodologies by Commerce where reasonable. See

Koyo, 66 F.3d at 1211. In Koyo, Commerce had changed from a “greatest-singledeviation methodology . . . to a ‘sum-of-the-deviations’ methodology for matching U.S. 

[tapered roller bearings (“TRBs”)] with home market TRBs . . . without using any 

limitation or ‘cap’ on the deviation of any one criteria.” Id. at 1207. The Court of 

International Trade affirmed Commerce’s switch in methodologies, but imposed a ten 

percent cap to limit the permissible deviation. Id. at 1208. We stated that “our inquiry 

[was] limited to determining whether Commerce’s model-matching methodology, without 

the ten percent cap later required by the court, is reasonable,” and we concluded that it 

was. Id. at 1210. 

In this case, Commerce provided adequate explanation of the reasonable 

“compelling reasons” motivating its determination, as detailed supra. Although SKF 

argues that in implementing the previous model-match methodology, Commerce did not 

specifically suggest that it was constrained by technological limitations, 

contemporaneous documentation from Commerce indicates that motivating factors in 

adopting the family-match methodology included “minimiz[ing] the necessity for 

comparisons among an exceptionally large number of bearing models,” and “limit[ing] 

the need for adjustments for physical differences in merchandise and the need for 

model matching.” J.A. at 129. These concerns were obviated by the availability of “all 

new margin-calculation programs on personal computers that are several orders of 

magnitude faster, vastly more sophisticated, yet far easier to use than the offsite 

mainframe computer [Commerce] used in the 1988-90 administrative reviews.” Id. at 

360. Based on Commerce’s increased technological capacity, combined with its desire 

2007-1502 11 
to fashion a model match methodology more in keeping with its ordinary practice of 

selecting a single most similar model rather than pooling values of product families, we 

affirm its decision to revise the model-match methodology. 

Even assuming that Commerce was justified in modifying the model-match 

methodology, however, SKF analogizes to Shikoku Chemicals Corp. v. United States, 

795 F. Supp. 417 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), to argue that we should not permit Commerce 

to apply the modified model-match methodology retroactively. In Shikoku, the Court of 

International Trade found that reliance interests precluded a “late stage” change in 

model-match methodology. Id. at 422. Appellees counter that in Shikoku, “[t]here [was] 

no serious challenge to plaintiffs’ contention that they actually relied on the old pricing 

method,” id. at 420, and that SKF ignores the inherently retrospective nature of the 

antidumping duty statutory scheme. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(a) (“Unlike the systems 

of some other countries, the United States uses a ‘retrospective’ assessment system 

under which final liability for antidumping and countervailing duties is determined after 

merchandise is imported.”); Abitibi-Consol. Inc. v. United States, 437 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 

1361 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (“The absence of certainty regarding the dumping margins 

and final assessment of antidumping duties is a characteristic of the retrospective 

system of administrative reviews designed by Congress.”). We agree. While 

Commerce must comply with the notice provisions of the statute, “[c]hanges in 

methodology, like all other antidumping review determinations, permissibly involve 

retroactive effect.” Koyo Seiko, 516 F. Supp. 2d at 1334 (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2)). 

Appellees also argue that Commerce provided even greater notice and opportunity to 

2007-1502 12 
comment than provided by statute, see 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(g), thus undermining any 

reasonable reliance on the family-match methodology by SKF. 

SKF alleges that it relied upon the old methodology, but provides no evidence to 

support that assertion and argues only that it “could have adjusted its practices” had it 

known sufficient details about the new methodology. However, SKF does not dispute 

that Commerce has consistently found that SKF continues to sell at dumped prices. 

Thus, SKF cannot properly analogize its situation to that in Shikoku, where “[t]he record 

contain[ed] evidence that plaintiffs adjusted their prices in accordance with methodology 

consistently applied by Commerce in an attempt to comply with United States 

antidumping law.” Shikoku, 795 F. Supp. at 420. Having failed to establish detrimental 

reliance on the old methodology, and given the inherently retroactive nature of the 

antidumping statutory scheme, see 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2), we reject SKF’s argument 

that it was entitled to greater notice than that provided by Commerce in accordance 

with—and exceeding the requirements of—19 U.S.C. § 1677m(g). See NSK Ltd. v. 

United States, 510 F.3d 1375, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting that “Commerce . . . 

publicly stated that it w[ould] change its methodology only after parties have had a 

meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed change”). 

Finally, SKF challenges Commerce’s decision to consider lubricant types in 

assessing identical products. Yet SKF fails to explain why we should disregard the 

Court of International Trade’s observation that SKF “failed to raise this issue during the 

open comment period prior to publication of the final determination.” SKF USA, 491 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1363. Nor does SKF’s brief argument on this point undermine Commerce’s 

justifications for its inclusion of lubrication type in making this determination. See Issues 

2007-1502 13 
and Decision Memo at 37 (explaining the decision not to ignore differences in lubrication 

and cautioning that, for example, “a comparison of a U.S. model with a highperformance grease to a home-market model with a standard grease could mask 

dumping”); see also Pesquera Mares, 266 F.3d at 1384 (holding that “Commerce has 

considerable discretion in defining ‘identical in physical characteristics’”). Thus, we 

reject SKF’s arguments related to lubricant type. 

2. Commerce’s “Zeroing” Methodology 

SKF also challenges Commerce’s ongoing “zeroing” practice as a distortive 

misapplication of the anti-dumping laws. We have addressed the practice of “zeroing” 

numerous times, however, and have unequivocally upheld this practice. For example, 

in one recent opinion we explained: 

Occasionally, the price charged for the subject merchandise in the United 

States is greater than the price charged for the same merchandise in the 

home market. This results in a negative dumping margin for that 

merchandise. In these situations, Commerce sets the negative dumping 

margins to zero when calculating the weighted average dumping margin. 

By doing so, the sum of the dumping margins calculated on the individual 

transactions is not reduced by the negative amount of the dumping 

margins. This practice is referred to as “zeroing” and has been repeatedly 

upheld by this court. 

NSK, 510 F.3d at 1379 (emphasis added). 

 We have reviewed SKF’s arguments regarding zeroing and find them 

unpersuasive. SKF fails to raise any argument not fully resolved by our established 

precedent. See Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 

(holding that Commerce’s “policy has not changed with respect to the retrospective 

application of the zeroing methodology and that a remand to Commerce . . . would 

therefore serve no useful purpose”); Corus Staal BV v. Dep’t of Commerce, 395 F.3d 

2007-1502 14 
2007-1502 15 

1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“We will not attempt to perform duties that fall within the 

exclusive province of the political branches, and we therefore refuse to overturn 

Commerce's zeroing practice based on any ruling by the WTO or other international 

body unless and until such ruling has been adopted pursuant to the specified statutory 

scheme.”); Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding 

that “the statute does not directly speak to the issue of negative-value dumping 

margins,” and holding that “Commerce based its zeroing practice on a reasonable 

interpretation of the statute”). Accordingly, we need not revisit this issue today. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Court of International Trade 

correctly determined that Commerce’s modification of the model-match methodology 

and its application of the zeroing policy in this case are supported by substantial 

evidence on the record and are otherwise in accordance with law. Accordingly, the 

decision of the Court of International Trade is 

AFFIRMED.