MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD.

and

TOKYO KIKAI SEISAKUSHO, LTD.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

GOSS GRAPHICS, INC.,

Defendant-Intervenor.

Slip Op. 99-46 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: POGUE, JUDGE

Consol. Court No. 96-10-

02292

(Japan)

[Final results of Commerce’s redetermination sustained in part and

remanded in part.]

Decided: May 26, 1999

Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Anthony J. LaRocca, Richard O. Cunningham, Eric C. Emerson, Gregory S. McClure) for Plaintiff Mitsubishi Heavy

Industries, Ltd.; Perkins Coie LLP (Yoshihiro Saito, Mark T.

Wasden), for Plaintiff Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd.

David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,

U.S. Department of Justice; David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice;

Randi Rimerman Serota, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch,

Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Robert J. Heilferty, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, for Defendants.

Wiley, Rein & Fielding (Charles Owen Verrill, Jr., Alan H. Price, John R. Shane, Leslie Johnson Pujo) for Defendant-Intervenor.
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 2

1

In that proceeding, Plaintiffs Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,

Ltd. ("MHI") and Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. ("TKS"),

respondents in the underlying investigation, and Plaintiff Goss

Graphic Systems, Inc. ("Goss"), petitioner in the underlying

investigation, filed separate motions challenging various aspects

of Commerce’s determination. The motions were consolidated.

Moreover, the antidumping investigation of large newspaper

printing presses ("LNPPs") from Japan was conducted

simultaneously with Commerce’s investigation of sales of LNPPs

from Germany. Issues common to both investigations were

discussed in Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components

Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Germany, 61 Fed.

Reg. 38,166 (Dep’t Commerce, July 23, 1996)(final

determ.)("Germany Final").

OPINION

POGUE, Judge: On June 23, 1998, this Court remanded certain

aspects of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s ("Commerce")

determination in Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components

Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Japan, 61 Fed. Reg.

38,139 (Dep’t Commerce, July 23, 1996)(final determ.)("Japan

Final"), as amended by Large Newspaper Printing Presses and

Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Japan,

61 Fed. Reg. 46,621 (Dep’t Commerce, Sept. 4, 1996)(antidumping

duty order and amend. to final determ.). See Mitsubishi Heavy

Industries, Ltd. v. United States, 22 CIT , 15 F. Supp.2d 807

(1998)("Mitsubishi").1

Specifically, the Court directed Commerce: 1) to correct its

error in allocating Plaintiffs’ indirect selling costs incurred in

Japan; 2) to explain its decision to adjust normal value for

imputed credit expenses; 3) to reevaluate its decision to treat

certain suppliers of MHI’s as affiliated parties; 4) to reconsider

its decision not to treat a trading company and MHI as affiliated
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 3

2

Commerce calculates an antidumping duty by comparing an

imported product’s price in the United States to its normal value

("NV")(i.e., the price of comparable merchandise in the exporting

country). The dumping margin is the amount by which the normal

value exceeds the U.S. price. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673(1994).

The United States price is calculated as either the "export

price" ("EP") or the "constructed export price" ("CEP"). See 19

U.S.C. § 1677a. Typically, Commerce uses EP when the foreign

exporter sells directly to an unrelated U.S. purchaser. See 19

U.S.C. § 1677a(a). Commerce uses CEP when the foreign exporter

sells through a related party in the United States. See 19

U.S.C. § 1677a(b).

NV is the price of the merchandise in the producer’s home

market or its export price to countries other than the United

States. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1). Where Commerce cannot

compute the home-market price, Commerce may base NV on a

constructed value ("CV"), see 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(4), which is

parties; and 5) to reconsider its decision to treat LNPPs sold in

the home market as foreign like product. See id. at , 15 F.

Supp.2d at 834.

The Commission issued its final remand determination ("Remand

Determ.") on December 21, 1998.

Standard of Review

The Court will uphold a Commerce determination in an

antidumping investigation unless it is "unsupported by substantial

evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law[.]"

Section 516A(b)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19

U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i)(1994).

Discussion

I. Plaintiffs’ Indirect Selling Expenses Incurred in Japan

In the underlying proceeding, Commerce determined the U.S.

price based on constructed export price ("CEP").2 The CEP
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 4

calculated pursuant to § 1677b(e).

3

"Indirect selling expenses are selling expenses that the

seller would incur regardless of whether particular sales were

made but that reasonably may be attributed, in whole or in part,

to such sales (e.g., salesperson’s salaries)." Antidumping

Manual, Ch. 8 at 44.

4

The Statement of Administrative Action represents "an

authoritative expression by the Administration concerning its

views regarding the interpretation and application of the Uruguay

Round agreements . . . ." SAA at 656. "[I]t is the expectation

of the Congress that future Administrations will observe and

apply the interpretations and commitments set out in this

Statement." Id. (quoted in Delverde, SrL v. United States, 21

CIT , , 989 F. Supp. 218, 229-30, n.18 (1997)).

provision requires Commerce to reduce the price at which the

subject merchandise is first sold to an unaffiliated customer in

the United States by the amount of selling expenses "incurred by or

for the account of the producer or exporter, or the affiliated

seller in the United States, in selling the subject merchandise .

. . ." 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(1994). Indirect selling expenses

are a component of selling expenses.3

 See 19 U.S.C. §

1677a(d)(1)(D)(requiring Commerce to deduct from CEP any selling

expenses not deducted as commissions, direct selling expenses, or

selling expenses that the seller pays on behalf of the purchaser).

The statute limits CEP deductions to "expenses . . . associated

with economic activities occurring in the United States."

Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, 103rd

Cong., 2nd Sess. (1994), reprinted in URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT,

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, Vol. VI, at 823 ("SAA").4 This Court has held

that "[e]xpenses incurred outside of the United States could still

be ’associated with’ economic activities occurring in the United
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 5

States." Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at , 15 F. Supp.2d at 818.

Therefore, in the present matter, Commerce properly decided to

deduct indirect selling expenses incurred by the Plaintiffs in

their home market of Japan associated with their exports of LNPPs

to the United States. See id.

Based on the information reported by the Plaintiffs at

verification, however, Commerce was "unable . . . to quantify the

portion of the [Plaintiffs’] total indirect selling expenses

[incurred in Japan that] were associated with the U.S. sales."

Germany Final at 38,174. Therefore, Commerce derived a methodology

to accomplish the deduction as non-adverse facts available. See

id. Commerce multiplied the total indirect expenses incurred in

Japan by the ratio of all other CEP deductions made under 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677a(d)(1) to the contract price net of the total indirect

selling expenses incurred in Japan. See id.

Commerce subsequently concluded, however, that in applying

this methodology, Commerce inadvertently overstated the amount of

indirect selling expenses to be deducted from CEP. Specifically,

Commerce explained that the pool of indirect selling expenses

incurred in the home market and allocated to MHI’s U.S. sales

included "various office and planning expenses . . . [that were]

not the type of expenses that ordinarily would be associated with

United States economic activity." Response Court’s Apr. 21, 1998

Ord. Regarding Treatment Indirect Selling Expenses at 2. Because

Commerce’s determination was based on a factual error, this Court

remanded the matter to Commerce to evaluate whether its allocation
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 6

methodology either understated or overstated MHI’s indirect selling

expenses and to correct the error. See Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at ,

15 F. Supp.2d at 819.

On remand, Commerce "concluded that the ratio should [have

been] applied to a smaller pool of indirect selling expenses

incurred in Japan than [had been] used in the Final Determination."

Remand Determ. at 3. Specifically, Commerce removed the following

types of expenses incurred in Japan from the indirect selling

expense pool: salaries and related expenses, office expenses,

planning expenses, consumable stationary expenses, book and

printing expenses, insurance, employee education, and department,

section, and other charges. See id. Commerce concluded, "In the

absence of record evidence to the contrary, it would be unduly

punitive to presume that such expenses were incurred on the sale to

the unaffiliated customer in the United States." Id.

The SAA states that "[CEP] is now calculated to be, as closely

as possible, a price corresponding to an export price between nonaffiliated exporters and importers." SAA at 823. MHI now argues

that Commerce’s methodology is "arbitrary" because it does not

ensure that "indirect selling expenses consistent with an EP

transaction [will] not be deducted." Cmts. of Pl. MHI on Remand

Determ. at 3-4. MHI maintains that, while Commerce’s methodology

may properly allocate a portion of the indirect selling expenses

incurred in Japan to the economic activities occurring in the

United States, "the objective of the allocation is to identify only

those expenses that are inconsistent with an EP transaction." Id.
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 7

at 4. Because Commerce did not explain how its methodology

fulfilled this objective, MHI argues, its methodology should be

rejected. See id.

Regarding this matter, however, the Court has already held

that "[19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)] does not require . . . Commerce

[to] examine every potential CEP deduction to determine whether the

activity generating the expense would be inconsistent with an EP

transaction." Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at , 15 F. Supp.2d at 818. 

Under the statute, Commerce has the authority to deduct indirect

selling expenses that are associated with the sales of exports in

the United States from CEP, whether incurred in the United States

or the home market. See id.

Here, as noted, Commerce was able to confirm that certain of

the home-market indirect selling expenses were associated with U.S.

activity, but was unable to quantify the exact portion of such

expenses attributable to U.S. sales based on the information

reported. See Germany Final at 38,174. Therefore, as non-adverse

facts available, Commerce multiplied the total indirect selling

expenses incurred in Japan by the ratio of all other CEP deductions

made under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1) to the contract price net of the

total indirect selling expenses incurred in Japan. See id.

Because it was reasonable, under the circumstances here, for

Commerce to assume that the percentage of the home-market indirect

selling expenses associated with U.S. economic activity would

correspond with the remaining 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1) CEP

deductions’ percent share of the contract price, Commerce’s
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 8

methodology was in accordance with law.

In addition, both MHI and Goss argue that Commerce’s

calculation of home-market indirect selling expenses was unreasoned

because the agency failed to articulate a standard for determining

which expenses should have been included in the pool of home-market

indirect selling expenses to which the ratio was applied. See

Cmts. of Pl. MHI on Remand Determ. at 4; Rebuttal of Goss to Cmts.

of MHI at 4. 

The Court disagrees. Commerce reasonably interpreted the

statute as requiring it to deduct from CEP indirect selling

expenses that were associated with economic activities occurring in

the United States. See Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at , 15 F. Supp.2d at

818; see also SAA at 823 ("[CEP] will be calculated by reducing the

price of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United

States by the amount of the [statutory] expenses . . . associated

with economic activities occurring in the United

States[.]")(emphasis added).

Therefore, the standard Commerce applied was self-evident:

Commerce excluded from the pool of indirect selling expenses

incurred in Japan those expenses that were not generally associated

with the sales of LNPP exports in the United States (i.e.,

salaries, office expenses, planning expenses, consumable stationary

expenses, book and printing expenses, insurance, employee

education, etc.). See Remand Determ. at 3. 

In this regard, Commerce had to "’reason its way to a decision

without pretending that that decision reflected some degree of
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 9

5

In our original decision, this Court also directed Commerce

to respond to TKS’s argument that Commerce overstated its

indirect selling expenses in the same way it overstated MHI’s. 

See Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at , 15 F. Supp.2d at 819. 

Accordingly, Commerce reviewed the matter and determined that CEP

should not be reduced by the amount of TKS’s indirect selling

expenses incurred in Japan because Commerce found no record

evidence of indirect expenses based on U.S. economic activity for

TKS. See Remand Determ. at 4 (citing TKS Home Market

Verification Report (Conf. Doc. 191)(May 14, 1996) at 16). 

Moreover, TKS agrees with Commerce’s determination on remand not

to reduce CEP by the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred

rational perfection . . . .’" Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at , 15 F.

Supp.2d at 831 (quoting Fishermen’s Dock Co-op., Inc. v. Brown, 75

F.3d 164, 173 (4th Cir. 1996)). "’Where the agency’s line-drawing

does not appear irrational and the [plaintiff] has not shown that

the consequences of the line-drawing are in any respect dire . . .

[the court] will leave that line-drawing to the agency’s

discretion.’" Id. (quoting Leather Indus. of America, Inc. v.

E.P.A., 40 F.3d 392, 409 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). In its remand

determination, Commerce stated, "In the absence of record evidence

to the contrary, it would be unduly punitive to presume that

[certain expenses]" were associated with economic activities

occurring in the United States. Remand Determ. at 3. Therefore,

based on the evidence before it, Commerce’s decision on remand to

exclude certain expenses from the pool of home-market indirect

selling expenses was a permissible exercise of its discretion to

draw the lines in this case.

Because Commerce’s methodology was in accordance with law, the

Court sustains Commerce’s remand calculation of MHI’s indirect

selling expenses incurred in Japan.5
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 10

in Japan. See Cmts. of TKS on Remand Determ. at 14. Because,

based on the record, Commerce reasonably concluded that TKS

incurred no home-market indirect selling expenses associated with

U.S. economic activity, the Court sustains Commerce’s decision on

remand not to reduce CEP by the amount of such expenses.

6

According to the statute, a NV that is based on CV is

subject to the same adjustments as NV based on home-market or

third-country sales. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(8). Commerce

describes the imputed credit adjustment as a circumstance of sale

adjustment. See Germany Final at 38,187. The circumstance of

sale adjustment for imputed credit expenses adjusts for

differences in the payment terms extended to customers in the

U.S. and home markets. See Engineered Process Gas TurboCompressor Systems From Japan, 62 Fed. Reg. 24,394, 24,407 (Dep’t

Commerce, May 5, 1997)(final determ.). This Court has held that

Commerce’s decision to treat the imputed credit expense as a

circumstance of sale was reasonable. See Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at 

 , 15 F. Supp.2d at 821.

II. Home-Market Imputed Credit Expenses

The imputed credit expense represents the producer’s

opportunity cost of extending credit to its customers. By allowing

the purchaser to make payment after the shipment date, the producer

forgoes the opportunity to earn interest on an immediate payment.

Thus, the imputed credit expense reflects the loss attributable to

the time value of money. Commerce’s usual imputed credit

calculation is based only on the cost of financing receivables

between shipment date and payment date. See Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at

 , 15 F. Supp.2d at 820. In its final determination, Commerce

deducted the credit expenses imputed to U.S. sales from CEP and

deducted the credit expenses imputed to home-market sales from CV.

See Japan Final at 38,147. Commerce made the deduction from CV as

a circumstance of sale adjustment. See Remand Determ. at 5; see

also 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(6)(C)(iii)(1994).6
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 11

The statute requires Commerce to include in CV the actual

amounts of selling, general, and administrative ("SG&A") expenses

incurred by the producer in the home market. See 19 U.S.C. §

1677b(e)(2)(A)(1994). Imputed credit expenses are not actual

expenses, but rather opportunity costs. Therefore, prior to making

the circumstance of sale adjustment, Commerce did not include

imputed credit expenses in the CV calculation for the final

determination. See Japan Final at 38,148.

Because Commerce did not add imputed credit expenses to CV in

the first place, Goss argued that Commerce should not have deducted

an amount for home-market imputed credit expense from CV as a

circumstance of sale. See Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at , 15 F. Supp.2d

at 823. In rebuttal, Commerce explained that the current statute

also requires actual profit to be added to CV. See id. at , 15

F. Supp.2d at 824; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(A). When

actual profit is used, Commerce argued, imputed credit is reflected

in the profit amount included in CV. See Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at 

 ; 15 F. Supp.2d at 824. The Court, however, could not sustain

Commerce’s argument because it was a post hoc rationalization

advanced by agency counsel. See id. (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs.

Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29,

50 (1983)). Therefore, the Court remanded the matter for Commerce

to explain its decision on the record. See id.

On remand, Commerce explained that, "[b]y using the

respondent’s actual sales revenue and costs to compute CV profit,

the CV reflect[ed] a NV unadjusted for imputed credit." See Remand
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 12

Determ. at 6-7. Therefore, Commerce contended, using an actual

amount of profit did not preclude the imputed interest expense

adjustment even though NV was based on CV. See id. at 7 (citing

SAA at 831 ("New section [19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(8)] ensures

continuation of the ability to make appropriate adjustments to

constructed value when [constructed value] serves as the basis for

normal value.")).

Moreover, Commerce stated that this methodology was consistent

with its current practice. See id. (citing Engineered Process Gas

Turbo-Compressor Systems From Japan, 62 Fed. Reg. 24,394, 24,408

(Dep’t Commerce, May 5, 1997)(final determ.)(explaining that, while

Commerce "would not add an amount for imputed credit expenses in

the calculation of CV pursuant to [19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(A)],

such expenses are reflected in the calculation of CV profit and

interest expense"); Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered

Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, 62 Fed. Reg. 2,081,

2,119-20 (Dep’t Commerce, Jan. 15, 1997)(final results of admin.

review)).

Therefore, the issue before the Court is whether it was

permissible for Commerce to assume that the actual home-market

profit component of CV reflected the opportunity cost of extending

credit to customers. Neither the statute nor its legislative

history discusses whether imputed credit expenses are consistent

with the CV profit calculation. Therefore, the Court will defer to

Commerce’s interpretation so long as it was reasonable. See Koyo

Seiko Co., Ltd. v. United States, 36 F.3d 1565, 1573 (Fed. Cir.
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 13

1994)(stating that, where the statute and its legislative history

do not clearly indicate Congress’s intent, the court will defer to

Commerce’s reasonable interpretation).

The Court finds that Commerce’s decision to deduct imputed

credit expenses from CV was reasonable, especially in light of the

statute’s objective of achieving a fair comparison. See 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677b(a).

In the face of no counter arguments from Goss, it seems

reasonable for Commerce to assume that the Plaintiffs would have

sought to recover the opportunity cost of extending credit to their

local customers in the home-market price. A forgone activity

should be counted as a cost where the firm would have actually

engaged in that activity. See STEVEN E. LANDSUBRG, PRICE THEORY AND

APPLICATIONS 38 (1995). Accordingly, it seems reasonable to assume

that the Plaintiffs would have elected to earn interest had they

demanded immediate payments, thereby maximizing revenue. Under

this line of reasoning, the producers increase their home-market

prices to recover for the opportunity cost of extending credit to

their customers. Total revenue is equal to the home-market price

multiplied by the total number of home-market sales. The actual

profit component of CV is equal to total revenue minus total actual

costs. Therefore, a component of the Plaintiffs’ actual profit on

home-market sales reflects the imputed credit expense.

Indeed, Commerce made the same assumption for U.S. sales in

deducting imputed credit expenses from CEP, the U.S. sales price.

See Remand Determ. at 5, 7. Thus, Commerce’s decision to adjust
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 14

both CV and CEP for imputed credit expenses was reasonable in order

to ensure a fair comparison. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)("a fair

comparison shall be made between the export price or constructed

export price and normal value"); see also Koyo Seiko, 36 F.3d at

1568 ("To ensure that the quantum of antidumping duties is

calculated in a fair manner, both foreign market value and United

States price are subject to certain adjustments in order to achieve

a common point at which to perform the price comparison.").

Because Commerce’s treatment of imputed credit expenses as

reflected in CV profit was permissible, the Court sustains

Commerce’s decision to deduct imputed credit expenses from CV.

III. The Affiliation of Certain Major Input Suppliers

The statute directs Commerce to examine transactions between

"affiliated" companies involving the production by one of such

companies of a "major input" to the merchandise produced by the

other. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3)(1994). Thus, for the purpose

of this provision, Commerce must determine whether the producer and

supplier are "affiliated." Under the statute, the following

persons, among others, are to be considered affiliated persons:

"[a]ny person who controls any other person and such other person."

19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)(G)(1994)(emphasis added). Moreover, "a person

shall be considered to control another person if the person is

legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or

direction over the other person." Id. (emphasis added). The SAA

explains that "[a] company may be in a position to exercise
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 15

7

The "Proposed Rules" refer to the regulations Commerce

proposed to conform its regulations to the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act ("URAA"). See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties, 61 Fed. Reg. 7,308 (Dep’t Commerce, Feb. 27, 1996)(notice

of proposed rulemaking)("Proposed Rules").

restraint or direction . . . through . . . close supplier

relationships in which the supplier or buyer becomes reliant upon

the other." SAA at 838.

Here, the Court found that Commerce failed to state the basis

upon which it determined that certain suppliers of major inputs

were affiliated with MHI pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)(G). See

Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at , 15 F. Supp.2d at 832. During its

investigation, Commerce had requested that MHI list inputs obtained

from suppliers that furnished more than fifty percent of their

total annual sales to MHI, yet Commerce stated in its final

determination that it "never indicated that this constitute[d]

affiliation." Japan Final at 38,163. Therefore, the Court

remanded this issue for Commerce to reevaluate its determination.

See Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at , 15 F. Supp.2d at 832.

On remand, Commerce explained that, "[b]ecause LNPP was one of

the first proceedings under the [Uruguay Round Agreements Act,]

[Commerce] could only look to the SAA and the Proposed Rules for

guidance."7 Remand Determ. at 10. As noted, the SAA indicates

that "close supplier relationships" may constitute sufficient

control to satisfy 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)(G), but does not define the

term. See SAA at 838. Moreover, the Proposed Rules indicate

Commerce’s intention to develop the URAA definition of "control" on
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 16

a case-by-case basis. See Proposed Rules at 7,310.

With this background, Commerce explained its methodology for

determining whether MHI’s suppliers of major inputs were affiliated

with MHI within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)(G):

In this case, [Commerce] determined that a reasonable

reporting parameter for this purpose would be to consider

any supplier that depended upon MHI for 50 percent or

more of its sales during each year during a five year

period to be potentially subject to the restraint or

direction of MHI.

Remand Determ. at 10.

Commerce is to be accorded substantial deference in

interpreting the antidumping laws. See Torrington Co. v. United

States, 68 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(citing Daewoo Elecs.

Co. v. Int’l Union, 6 F.3d 1511, 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1993), cert.

denied, 512 U.S. 1204 (1994)). Therefore, where as here, Congress

leaves a term undefined, it is within Commerce’s discretion to

develop the meaning of the term on a case-by-case basis so long as

its application in a given case is reasonable.

The Court finds that the greater-than-fifty-percent-salesdependence-for-five-years test was a reasonable reporting parameter

in this case. As noted, the SAA states that close supplier

relationships may be indicia of "control" under 19 U.S.C. §

1677(33)(G). See SAA at 838. Given the existence of a large

number of major input suppliers in this case, see Remand Determ. at

10, it was reasonable for Commerce to conclude that a close

supplier relationship existed where the supplier depended on MHI

for fifty percent or more of its sales during each year of a five
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 17

year period.

The proposed rules Commerce cited also state, however, that

"[m]ere identification of the presence of one or more of these or

other indicia of control does not end our task. We will examine

these indicia, in light of business and economic reality, to

determine whether they are, in fact, evidence of control."

Proposed Rules at 7,310. On remand, Commerce explained that,

[It] considered the standard of 50 percent or greater

reliance for each year over a five year period

appropriate in this case because: 1) the period of

investigation (and therefore the cost reporting period)

for MHI was a five-year period; 2) LNPP[s] generally take

multiple years to produce; and 3) this degree of reliance

over an extended period of time is high for custom-made

merchandise. Under the unique facts of this case, we

consider this level of reliance sufficient to presume

that such a supplier is affiliated with MHI on the basis

of control, within the meaning of [19 U.S.C. §

1677(33)(G)] through a close supplier relationship.

Remand Determ. at 10-11.

The Court finds that substantial evidence supports Commerce’s

conclusion that a supplier’s satisfaction of the greater-thanfifty-percent-sales-dependence-for-five-years test demonstrated

affiliation on the basis of control. The record indicates that the

subject LNPPs are highly customized products, requiring unique

technical specifications. See Normal Value Mem. (Conf. Doc.

73)(Nov. 9, 1995) at 3. Coupled with the fact that LNPPs generally

take multiple years to produce, it logically follows that a long

term supplier would adjust its manufacturing operations to satisfy

the specific demands of its purchaser. Therefore, it was

reasonable for Commerce to conclude that MHI was "legally or
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 18

operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction

over" suppliers dependent on MHI for fifty percent or more of their

sales over a five year period.

The Court sustains Commerce’s determination that certain major

input suppliers of MHI were affiliated with MHI within the meaning

of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)(G) because it was in accordance with law

and supported by substantial evidence.

IV. Commerce’s Decision Not to Treat Trading Company and MHI as

Affiliated Parties

The statute defines "affiliated persons" to include "[t]wo or

more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or

under common control with, any person." 19 U.S.C. §

1677(33)(F)(1994). MLP U.S.A., Inc. ("MLP") is a joint venture

between MHI and a trading company ("Trading Company"). In

Mitsubishi, Goss argued that, because MHI and Trading Company

control a third person (i.e., MLP), MHI and Trading Company must be

treated as affiliated persons. See Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at , 15

F. Supp.2d at 832. Commerce denied that the two parties were

affiliated, however, because neither MHI nor Trading Company

exercised control over each other. See id.

The Court held that, contrary to Commerce’s interpretation,

"[t]he statutory definition of affiliated parties at 19 U.S.C. §

1677(33)(F) does not require that MHI and Trading Company exercise

control over each other. The statute requires only that ’two or

more persons[]’ control a third person." See id. Therefore, the
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 19

Court remanded for Commerce to reevaluate its determination as to

whether MHI and Trading Company were affiliated.

On remand, Commerce reconsidered its previous decision,

stating, "Given the nature of MHI’s and the Trading Company’s

ownership in a third person, [MLP], we conclude that MHI and the

Trading Company are affiliated pursuant to [19 U.S.C. §

1677(33)(F)]." Remand Determ. at 12.

MHI now argues that Commerce erroneously concluded that MHI is

affiliated with Trading Company on the basis of 19 U.S.C. §

1677(33)(F). See Cmts. of Pl. MHI on Remand Determ. at 6.

According to MHI, "The evidence establishes that MHI controls MLP,

but there is no evidence in the record that Trading Company, as a

minority shareholder, also controls MLP." Id. Therefore, MHI

contends that Commerce’s conclusion was not supported by

substantial evidence.

The Court disagrees. Commerce did not find that MHI and

Trading Company were affiliated under § 1677(33)(F) based solely on

their common ownership of MLP. In its redetermination, Commerce

stated, "The record evidence on the degree to which the Trading

Company owned shares in MLP supports a conclusion that it also was

’legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or

direction’ over MLP, as set forth in section [1677(33)(F)]."

Remand Determ. at 21 (citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(stating that,

in defining "affiliated parties," Commerce "will not find that

control exists . . . unless the relationship has the potential to

impact decisions concerning the production, pricing, or cost of the
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 20

subject merchandise or foreign like product")).

Substantial evidence supports Commerce’s conclusion that

Trading Company is "legally or operationally in a position to

exercise restraint or direction over" MLP. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33).

Trading Company owned a significant interest in MLP and made

substantial loans to MLP. See MHI Oct. 17, 1995 Response (Conf.

Doc. 15) Sec. A, Exh. 17 at 5. Moreover, the fact that MHI and

Trading Company were the only shareholders of MLP and had a history

of common ownership in various companies suggests that they worked

together in managing MLP. See Ltr. from Wiley, Rein & Fielding

(Conf. Doc. 126)(Feb. 2, 1996) at 8, n.17.

Therefore, the Court sustains Commerce’s determination on

remand that MHI and Trading Company were affiliated within the

meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)(F).

In finding on remand that MHI and Trading Company were

affiliated, Commerce reviewed whether that new determination

affected its previous decision to deduct commissions paid by MHI to

Trading Company in connection with the Piedmont sale. See Remand

Determ. at 12-13. The statute provides for the deduction of

certain expenses from CEP, including commissions:

[T]he price used to establish constructed export price

shall also be reduced by%

(1) the amount of any of the following expenses generally

incurred by or for the account of the producer or

exporter, or the affiliated seller in the United States,

in selling the subject merchandise (or subject

merchandise to which value has been added)--

(A) commissions for selling the subject merchandise in

the United States;
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 21

(B) expenses that result from, and bear a direct

relationship to, the sale, such as credit expenses,

guarantees and warranties;

(C) any selling expenses that the seller pays on behalf

of the purchaser; and

(D) any selling expenses not deducted under subparagraph

(A), (B), or (C)[.]

19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(emphasis added).

In its remand determination, Commerce explained, 

In deciding whether to continue to make an adjustment

based on the commission, we considered whether, in light

of the joint venture relationship, it was appropriate to

rely on a commission between these two parties. If the

nature of the relationships between the joint venture

partners is such that any commission . . . received by

the affiliated trading company agent may not be at arm’s

length, it should be disregarded, like an intra-company

transfer. In such cases, [Commerce] would deduct from

CEP the actual selling expenses incurred by the trading

company pursuant to [19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(C) and (D)].

In contrast, where the joint venture partners are

otherwise independent of each other, the deduction may

appropriately be based on the commission paid pursuant to

[19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(A)].

Remand Determ. at 13.

This Court has sustained Commerce’s practice of treating

commissions paid by the producer to an affiliated trading company

as an intracompany transfer, rather than as a true commission,

where the transfer merely serves as a reimbursement for the

affiliated party’s actual selling expenses. See Floral Trade

Council v. United States, 23 CIT , , slip op. 99-10 (January

27, 1999) at 10. A decision "not to deduct commissions paid to

affiliated [trading companies] is . . . reasonable to the extent

that it fulfills the statutory objective of preventing doublecounting." Id. at , slip op. 99-10 at 10-11 (citing U.S. Steel

Group v. United States, 22 CIT , , 15 F. Supp.2d 892, 905
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 22

(1998)(holding that, "if because of the relatedness of the producer

and U.S. selling agent expenses represented by the commissions are

already accounted for by means of a deduction for selling expenses

nominally made under another provision of 19 U.S.C.A. § 1677a(d) .

. . , no additional commission deduction need be made."), appeal

docketed, No. 99-1342 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 1999)). Therefore,

Commerce’s interpretation of the statute in its remand

determination was in accordance with law.

On remand, Commerce found that "there [was] no evidence on the

record demonstrating that MHI and the Trading Company [had] any

corporate relationships outside the joint venture and the agency

relationship with respect to the Piedmont sale that would suggest

that these parties [did] not operate at arm’s length." Remand

Determ. at 13-14. In other words, because Commerce determined that

the commission paid by MHI to Trading Company was at arm’s length,

and therefore, not an intracompany transfer, Commerce deducted the

commission from CEP despite finding the parties to be affiliated

under 19 U.S.C. 1677(33)(F) rather than deducting U.S. selling

agent expenses.

Commerce based its conclusion of an arm’s length transaction

on two findings: 1) the absence of a control relationship between

MHI and Trading Company, and 2) the nature and terms of the

commission itself. See id. at 14. As support for its finding of

a lack of a control relationship, Commerce referred to its final

determination. See id. There, Commerce concluded "that the degree

of cross-ownership and the level of joint-financing between MHI and
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 23

8

The statute states that "[a]ny person directly or

indirectly owning . . . 5 percent or more of the outstanding

voting stock or shares of any organization and such

organization[]" are to be considered affiliated. 19 U.S.C. §

1677(33)(E). Given that neither MHI nor Trading Company held at

least five percent of the other’s outstanding stock, it was

reasonable for Commerce to treat that evidence as support for the

conclusion that neither party was "legally or operationally in a

position to exercise restraint or direction over the other[.]" 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(33).

the trading company [were] not significant enough to be indicators

of [control.]" Japan Final at 38,157.

Substantial evidence supports Commerce’s findings. First,

concerning cross-ownership, the record indicates that both MHI and

Trading Company owned significantly less than five percent of each

other’s outstanding shares of stock during the period of

investigation.8 See MHI Supplemental Section A Response (Conf.

Doc. 115)(Jan. 18, 1996) at A-29. Second, the record indicates

that MHI and Trading Company did not have financing relationships

with each other. See id. at A-30. Third, based on the proportions

of sales made by MHI through Trading Company as compared to both

the total sales made by Trading Company and the total sales made by

MHI, Commerce reasonably determined that neither party was

dependent on the other. See Japan Final at 38,157; see also MHI

Supplemental Section A Response (Conf. Doc. 115)(Jan. 18, 1996) at

A-30.

Moreover, Commerce "reviewed the nature and terms of the

commission paid by MHI and the details of the Trading Company’s

contribution to the transaction, and [found] no evidence that the

commission was anything but a transaction negotiated by two parties
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 24

9

Goss argues that in deducting the commission from CEP,

Commerce improperly "departed from its well-established

practice[.]" Cmts. of Goss on Remand Determ. at 2. According to

Goss,

To determine whether the commission is made at arm’s

length, Commerce’s standard practice is to compare the

commissions paid to affiliated selling agents with

those paid by the respondent to any unaffiliated

selling agents in the same market. If there is no

unaffiliated sales agent, Commerce generally compares

the commission earned by the affiliated selling agent

on sales of merchandise produced by the respondent to

commissions earned by the affiliated selling agent on

sales of merchandise produced by other unaffiliated

sellers or manufacturers.

Id. at 3 (citing LMI-LA Metalli Industriale S.p.A. v. United

States, 912 F.2d 455, 459 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Coated Groundwood

Paper From Finland, 56 Fed. Reg. 56,363, 56,371-72 (Dep’t

Commerce, Nov. 4, 1991)(final determ.)).

The practice Goss refers to, however, is based on Commerce’s

pre-URAA treatment of commissions. "Treatment of commissions

under the newly amended statute is not identical to that required

by the [pre-URAA] statute[.]" U.S. Steel Group, 22 CIT at ,

15 F. Supp.2d at 905.

acting in their own interests." Remand Determ. at 14.

Commerce reasonably based its finding of an arm’s length

commission transaction between MHI and Trading Company on

substantial evidence indicating the absence of a control

relationship between the two parties, as well as on the nature and

terms of the commission itself.9

 Therefore, the Court sustains

Commerce’s decision to deduct the commission paid by MHI to Trading

Company under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(A) because it was in

accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence.

V. Foreign Like Product

"In calculating profit margins for CV, Commerce relied on 19
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 25

U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(A), which states that CV profit is to be based

upon ’the actual amounts incurred and realized by the specific

exporter or producer . . . in connection with the production and

sale of a foreign like product . . . .’" See Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at

, 15 F. Supp.2d at 828 (quoting 19 U.S.C. §

1677b(e)(2)(A)(emphasis added)). The statute defines "foreign like

product" as,

[M]erchandise in the first of the following categories in

respect of which a determination . . . 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 merchandise

which is the subject of the investigation,

(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)(1994).

In Mitsubishi, TKS argued that Commerce should not have relied

on § 1677b(e)(2)(A) because the findings that led Commerce to rely

on CV rather than home-market prices in calculating NV constituted

evidence that no foreign like product existed in the home market.
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 26

10TKS now argues that Commerce’s foreign like product

determination was not in accordance with law because "[Commerce]

confused ’foreign like product’ with ’the same class or kind’ as

the merchandise subject to the investigation[, yet] . . . the two

are distinct categories of merchandise." Cmts. of TKS on Remand

Determ. at 8. TKS’s argument is without merit. The statute’s

See Mitsubishi, 22 CIT at , 15 F. Supp.2d at 828-29. Because

Commerce did not explain which of the three statutory foreign like

product definitions it relied upon in classifying LNPPs sold in the

home market as foreign like product, the Court remanded this issue

for Commerce’s reconsideration. See id. at , 15 F. Supp.2d at

829.

On remand, Commerce explained that it had relied upon the

definition of foreign like product at § 1677(16)(C) in making its

determination. See Remand Determ. at 17. Commerce explained its

basis for foreign like product under that section as follows:

First, the LNPP[s] produced and sold in Japan by TKS

were: 1) produced in the same country as the merchandise

subject to the investigation (Japan); 2) produced by the

same person (TKS); and 3) are of the same general class

or kind as the merchandise subject to the investigation

(LNPP). Second, the LNPP[s] sold in the home market were

like the subject merchandise (LNPP) sold in the United

States in the purposes for which they were used; i.e.,

both LNPP[s] were used to produce newspapers. Finally,

. . . home market LNPP[s] may reasonably be compared to

the subject merchandise (LNPP). The fact that it was not

practicable to compare specific models of LNPP[s] is not

the same as saying that home market LNPP[s] may not

reasonably be compared with the subject merchandise

(LNPP).

Id.

Commerce properly explained the statutory basis for its

foreign like product determination in accordance with 19 U.S.C. §

1677(16)(C).10 Commerce’s application of what "may reasonably be
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 27

foreign like product provision is comprised of a hierarchy of

three alternative definitions. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16). 

Commerce relied on the third and broadest definition, which

covers merchandise "of the same general class or kind as the

merchandise which is the subject of the investigation[.]" 19

U.S.C. § 1677(16)(C)(emphasis added). Therefore, Commerce’s

interpretation of the foreign like product definition was

consistent with the plain language of the statute.

compared" under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16)(C)(iii) in this case, however,

appears inconsistent with its previous interpretation of this

requirement. In its remand determination, Commerce explained, 

So as not to unreasonably distort comparisons involving

non-identical merchandise, [Commerce] does not compare

subject merchandise sold in the United States to

merchandise sold in the foreign market where the variable

cost of manufacturing of the latter merchandise differs

from the variable cost of manufacturing of subject

merchandise sold to the United States by more than 20

percent of the total cost of manufacturing of the subject

merchandise sold to the United States.

Remand Determ. at 15 (citing Import Administration Policy Bulletin

92.2 (July 29, 1992)).

In the above excerpt, Commerce referred to the difference in

merchandise ("difmer") adjustment. Where the foreign like product

is not identical to the subject merchandise, Commerce will adjust

normal value for the "difference in cost attributable to the

difference in physical characteristics" pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §

1677b(a)(6)(C)(ii). Import Administration Policy Bulletin 92.2

(July 29, 1992). Here, then, had Commerce based the home-market

price on normal value, the difmer adjustment would have applied

because Commerce compared non-identical home-market and U.S. LNPPs.

To determine whether there is a reasonable basis for comparing

non-identical merchandise, Commerce applies the twenty percent
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 28

11Although the policy bulletin is dated 1992, Commerce

continues to make the difmer adjustment to NV and employ the

twenty percent difmer guideline under the URAA. See 19 U.S.C. §

1677b(a)(6)(C)(ii); 19 C.F.R. § 351.411(1998); see also

Antidumping Manual, Ch. 8 at 49-52 (explaining that Commerce uses

the twenty percent difmer guideline to determine whether there is

a reasonable basis for comparing merchandise).

difmer guideline. The policy bulletin Commerce cited in its remand

determination explains as follows:

To limit the potential differences in commercial value

caused by physical differences, we employ the 20%

guideline. If the commercial value of two products is

greatly different, then a comparison is not reasonable;

the difmer adjustment, being limited to variable

manufacturing costs probably cannot fully compensate. .

. . When the variable cost difference exceeds 20%, we

consider that the probable differences in values of the

items to be compared is so large that they cannot

reasonably be compared. Since the merchandise is not

identical, does not have approximately equal commercial

value, and has such large differences in commercial value

that it cannot reasonably be compared, the merchandise

cannot be considered similar under [§ 1677(16)(A), (B),

or (C)]. . . . 

There may be instances in which comparisons may be

reasonable even if the diffmer [sic] is in excess of 20%

of the cost of manufacture of the U.S. model. . . . The

20% guideline is, however[,] a point of departure in the

analysis, and cannot be ignored. Any use of comparisons

with greater than 20% diffmers [sic] must be explained.

. . . Unless we can explain how the comparison remains

reasonable, or distortion is minimized, we should not

make comparisons when diffmers [sic] exceed 20%.

Instead, when there is no other similar merchandise, we

should revert to constructed value[.]

Import Administration Policy Bulletin 92.2 (July 29, 1992)(emphasis

added).11

Thus, where the difmer adjustment would exceed twenty percent,

Commerce cannot make a finding that merchandise is reasonably

comparable, unless it can explain how the comparison nevertheless
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 29

remains reasonable.

Here, it appears Commerce found that the difmer adjustment

would exceed the twenty percent guideline. First, as quoted above,

Commerce mentioned the twenty percent difmer guideline in its

remand determination. See Remand Determ. at 15. Moreover, in its

final determination, Commerce stated, "[T]he degree of unique

customization for customers made the difference-in-merchandise

adjustment for product price matching potentially so complex that

the use of CV provided a more reliable and administrable

methodology for establishing NV." Japan Final at 38,146. Finally,

in its normal value memorandum, Commerce stated,

[T]he petitioner’s arguments fail to resolve the

fundamental product comparability problems stemming from

differences between the U.S. and Japanese LNPP markets[.]

. . . The sheer extent of the physical differences

demonstrate that the [petitioner’s] proposed matches are

between products separated by complex physical

differences so numerous that the Department’s normal

reliance on [difmer] adjustments would become an

analytical exercise equivalent to the use of constructive

value.

Normal Value Mem. (Conf. Doc. 73)(Nov. 9, 1995) at 16-17.

Because Commerce appears to find that the difmer adjustment

would exceed the twenty percent guideline, Commerce cannot conclude

that the home-market and U.S. LNPPs "may reasonably be compared"

under 19 U.S.C. 1677(16)(C)(iii) without explaining how the

merchandise nevertheless remains comparable. See Import

Administration Policy Bulletin 92.2 (July 29, 1992). As it stands,

Commerce has not explained how the merchandise is still reasonably

comparable. Moreover, TKS argues that Commerce’s reasonable
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 30

comparison finding under subparagraph (iii) of § 1677(16)(C) is not

supported by substantial evidence. See Cmts. of TKS on Remand

Determ. at 10. The Court agrees.

In its remand determination, Commerce stated, "In making fair

value comparisons, [Commerce] identifies the ’foreign like product’

by comparing the physical characteristics of subject merchandise

with the physical characteristics of merchandise sold in the

foreign market." Remand Determ. at 15 (citing Stainless Steel Wire

Rod From Spain, 63 Fed. Reg. 40,391, 40,399 (Dep’t Commerce, July

29, 1998)(final determ.)). Here, however, none of the record

documents Commerce cited as support for its foreign like product

determination indicates that the home-market and U.S. LNPPs were

reasonably comparable in terms of their physical characteristics.

See Remand Determ. at 24 (citing Normal Value Mem. (Conf. Doc.

73)(Nov. 9, 1995); Prelim. Concurrence Mem. (Conf. Doc. 152)(Feb.

23, 1996) at 10; Japan Final at 38,146-47).

Instead, each document that Commerce cited merely refers to a

putative foreign like product, without discussing the factual

support for the decision. For example, in the preliminary

concurrence memorandum, Commerce merely stated, "[W]e have

determined that the foreign like product consists of all LNPPs,

additions, and components sold by the Plaintiffs in their

respective home markets[.]" Prelim. Concurrence Mem. (Conf. Doc.

152)(Feb. 23, 1996) at 10. Moreover, rather than mention a single

physical similarity, the bulk of the normal value memorandum

discusses all the physical dissimilarities between home-market and
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 31

12Commerce also cited certain questionnaire responses as

admissions by TKS that it considered its home-market LNPPs to be

a foreign like product. See Remand Determ. at 16 (citing TKS

Sept. 27, 1995 Response (Conf. Doc. 15) Sec. A at A-7, A-8). In

its brief, Commerce states that it "reasonably treated TKS’s own

admissions as relevant to . . . whether LNPPs from Japan could

reasonably be compared with LNPPs from the United States." 

Def.’s Br. at 17. The Court disagrees with Commerce’s

characterization of TKS’s questionnaire responses as 

"admissions." Upon reviewing TKS’s statements, one could not

reasonably conclude that TKS was conceding that its home-market

LNPPs constituted a foreign like product. See TKS Sept. 27, 1995

Response (Conf. Doc. 15) Sec. A at A-5 to A-12. To the contrary,

TKS’s statements unambiguously express TKS’s position that "there

is no reasonable basis for comparison of the sales of LNPP

additions by TKS in the United States and Japan." Id. at A-7. 

Therefore, TKS’s section A questionnaire responses do not

constitute substantial evidence for Commerce’s foreign like

product determination.

U.S. LNPPs. See Normal Value Mem. (Conf. Doc. 73)(Nov. 9, 1995) at

6-17. The Court cannot review Commerce’s foreign like product

finding without an explanation of the decision’s factual basis.

See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94 (1943).12

The Court cannot sustain Commerce’s foreign like product

determination. The Court remands this issue for Commerce’s

reconsideration consistent with this Court’s opinion. On remand,

Commerce may either explain how the Japanese and U.S. LNPPs are

reasonably comparable notwithstanding the twenty percent difmer

guideline or find that no foreign like product exists. In

addition, Commerce must establish that substantial record evidence

demonstrates physical similarities Commerce for determining that a

fair value comparison between Japanese and U.S. LNPPs can be made.
Consol. Court No. 96-10-02292 Page 32

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, Commerce’s remand determination

in Large Newspaper Printing Presses from Japan is remanded for

Commerce to reconsider and explain its foreign like product

determination in accordance with this Court’s opinion. Commerce’s

remand determination is sustained in all other respects. Commerce

shall complete its remand determination by Monday, July 26, 1999;

any comments or responses are due by Wednesday, August 25, 1999;

and any rebuttal comments are due by Thursday, September 9, 1999.

So Ordered.

 

 Donald C. Pogue

 Judge

Dated: May 26, 1999

New York, New York