exists when costs to the seller are in different in different markets; Mantex simply says that Commerce does not have to make such a finding. See 17 CIT at 1398, 841 F.Supp. at 1302 (“[A]lthough [the rebate at issue] may explain the company’s lower United States price relative to its home market, Commerce is not required to assume such a causal relationship exists.”) The reasoning of Smith-Corona supports Commerce’s COS adjustment in this case. See Smith-Corona, 1 Fed. Cir. (T) at 139, 713 F.2d at 1577 n. 26 (“[Ajbsent evidence that costs do not reflect [FMV], the Secretary may reasonably conclude that cost and value are directly related.”); see also Daewoo Elecs. Co. v. Int’l Union, 6 F.3d 1511, 1518-19 (Fed.Cir.1993), cert. denied 512 U.S. 1204, 114 S.Ct. 2672, 129 L.Ed.2d 808 (1994)(<HOLDING>). The difference in costs for sales to the
holding unemployment taxes accrued when employees were terminated not when the amount of compensation taxes are determinable holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law holding that taxes were a claim against the estate that had to be filed in probate court thus reversing an order requiring heirs to pay taxes on estate property because the district court did not have jurisdiction holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to require a defendant to pay all back taxes holding that commerce need not conduct an econometric study to measure the passthrough of indirect taxes to home market consumers