concluded in June 2009, Commerce found the FAO study to be a more reliable data source for whole pangas pricing than the FY2000-01 Gachihata financial statement. Judicial review of anti-dumping duty administrative proceedings is normally limited to the record before the agency in the particular review proceeding at issue and does not extend to subsequent proceedings. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(2)(A) (defining scope of record for review in proceedings before the Court of International Trade); see S.Rep. No. 96-249, at 247-48, 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. 381, 633 (1979) (judicial review of antidumping proceedings is based on “information before the relevant decision-maker at the time the decision was rendered”); see also Co-Steel Raritan, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 357 F.3d 1294, 1316-17 (Fed.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). In any case, even if we were to consider the
holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant holding it improper for the court of international trade to consider commerces actions in subsequent antidumping proceeding holding that new claims for damages could arise from actions that occurred subsequent to the judgment in the original action holding that a class action tolls the statute of limitations only for subsequent individual actions not for subsequent class actions holding that  it is improper to judicially notice the content of testimony in another proceeding and noting that the method for introducing testimony from a past proceeding is set forth in rule 804b1 of the rules of evidence