1327 (2004)(affirming International Trade Commission’s determinations on remand where the determinations were in accordance with law, supported by substantial evidence, and otherwise satisfied the remand order); see also Olympia Indus., Inc. v. United States, 23 CIT 80, 82, 36 F.Supp.2d 414, 416 (1999)(affirming after “review[ing] Commerce’s compliance with these instructions in its Remand Results” and finding the determination to be supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law). In addition, any factual findings on remand must be supported by substantial evidence and the agency’s legal determinations must be in accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(l)(B); see, e.g., AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, 28 CIT 94, 95, 310 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1349 (2004)(<HOLDING>). DISCUSSION 1. Labor wage rate In Dorbest, the
holding that a remand need not be ordered despite legal errors if remand would be futile holding that 28 usc  2636c did not modify the filing requirement in 19 usc  1516aa2a holding that 19 usc  167735 is ambiguous and that zeroing is a reasonable interpretation holding remand determination to legal and factual standards set out in 19 usc  1516ablb holding that 19 usc  167735a is ambiguous and that offsetting is also a reasonable interpretation