v. United States, 100 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1996) (“[A] decision of the Treasury to deny an award will be upheld unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law, procedurally defective, or unsupported by evidence in the record.”). When reviewing Customs’ moiety determinations, the court “must afford [them] considerable deference and disturb them only when they are based on fact findings not supported by the record or an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law, or are ‘so ridiculously low as to constitute an affront to congressional intent.’ ” Id.; see also Co-Steel Raritan, Inc. v. ITC, 357 F.3d 1294 (Fed.Cir.2004) (quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971)) (<HOLDING>). As a matter of law, the United States may pay
holding that the court is not to undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence make credibility determinations or substitute its judgment for that of the agency recognizing a subsequent agency action as a valid ratification and indicating that the court will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency holding that a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency holding that a court is not empowered to substitute its judgement for that of the agency holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board