to suspect that the agency would refuse to adhere to clearly applicable precedent. See Philipp Bros., Inc. v. United States, 10 CIT 76, 80, 630 F. Supp. 1317, 1321 (1986). 12 Accordingly, this Court finds Timken’s arguments regarding the application of adverse facts available to Premier are without merit. Premier fully participated in the review, and has no control over it’s suppliers cooperation. Section 1677e(b) of Title 19 states that when Commerce finds “that an interested party failed to cooperate .. . [the agency] may use an” adverse inference. Premier’s suppliers are not interested parties. Therefore, the Court will not apply adverse facts to Premier as a result of its suppliers’ deficiencies. See generally Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 682-83 (2000)
holding that tax courts miller opinion will no longer be followed holding that once a respondent refuses to supply information commerce no longer focuses on the true margin but rather on determining an adverse margin that will induce future cooperation holding that once the scene was secure exigent circumstances no longer existed and the police were required to obtain a search warrant holding that aggravation was warranted where respondent admitted and the referee found that the respondent had lied in correspondence to the pcc holding that since the basis for the respondents order of removal and the denial of relief no longer exists the respondent has presented exceptional circumstances justifying reopening