circumstance, thus requiring the agency to bring to bear its unique expertise and policy-making prerogatives.” Southern Cal. Edison Co., 226 F.3d at 1357. Commerce’s practice of reliance on BIA in calculating the applicable rate is uncontested in cases where Commerce does not receive a complete, accurate and timely response to its request for factual information. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b), 19 C.F.R. § 355.37(a); Def.’s Mem. at 52-55; Pl.’s Br. at 28. There is nothing in the language of the statute or the regulation inherently limiting the use of BIA to cases concerning merchandise produced in an NME country or purchased from an NME exporter. See generally, 19 U.S.C. § 1677e, 19 C.F.R. § 355.37; see, e.g., Neuweg Fertigung GmbH v. United States, 16 CIT 724, 797 F.Supp. 1020 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Conversely, Commerce enjoys very broad,
holding that commerce may disregard transfer price for inputs purchased from related suppliers pursuant to 19 usc  1677be2 1988 the predecessor to 19 usc  1677bf2 if the transfer price or any element of value does not reflect its normal value holding that the fact that defendants sales in forum were less than 5 percent of its total sales volume was irrelevant so long as its sales were part of a regular course of dealing and were not isolated or exceptional events holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis  holding that commerce was justified in resorting to the use of bia in calculating the margin for exporters sales of bearings from germany under 19 usc  1677eb where exporters questionnaire responses were inadequate and untimely holding that 28 usc  2636c did not modify the filing requirement in 19 usc  1516aa2a