In applying this standard methodology, Commerce treats the full amount of an equity infusion as a subsidy and allocates a portion of the subsidy to the period under investigation or review. Pursuant to the Court of International Trade s instructions, Commerce issued its second set of remand results, which were affirmed by the Court of International Trade on 31 December 1996, see Aimcor v. United States, No. We review de novo a decision of the Court of International Trade reviewing the final results of an administrative review by Commerce. In so doing, we apply anew the Court of International Trade s statutorily-mandated standard of review. We uphold Commerce s final results unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla.
It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support such a conclusion. We decide de novo the proper interpretation of governing statutory provisions. The provision of capital, loans, or loan guarantees on terms inconsistent with commercial considerations. The final judgment rule requires that a party raise all claims of error after an order ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute judgment. Where, as here, the trial court remands to the administrative agency for additional findings, determination, and redetermination, the remand order is not appealable even though the order resolves an important legal issue such as the applicable standard for countervailability.