of exhaustion and also speaks to the facts of this case: “The case brief must present all arguments that continue in the submitter’s view to be relevant to the... final results, including any arguments presented before the date of publication of the ... preliminary results.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c)(2) (2004) (emphasis added). Although Plaintiff advocated against collapsing in its two submissions prior to the preliminary results, Commerce concluded otherwise. At that point, if Plaintiff believed that the collapsing issue was relevant to the Final Results, Plaintiff needed to include that issue in its case brief, as required by the regulation. Commerce would then have known that Plaintiff had not waived the issue. See Corus Staal BV v. United States, 30 CIT_,_, Slip. Op. 06-112, at p. 16 (<HOLDING>). In its briefs before this court, Plaintiff
holding that plaintiff could not look to the courts for relief because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the adea holding that bivens plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies where administrative remedy program provided only for injunctive relief holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies where plaintiff sent a letter to the attorney general grieving the initial agency determination instead of following the administrative appeal process specified by agency regulations holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to include issue in case brief