companies. Finally, Plaintiff concludes that if Commerce had applied adverse facts available against the Affiliated Companies, it would have issued an affirmative collapsing determination. Though this argument is appealing, its conclusion is dependent upon the validity of each of its parts. If one of the parts is faulty, the underlying conclusion cannot stand. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds the record is sufficient to support Commerce’s collapsing determination, thus rendering the first part of Plaintiffs argument faulty. Accordingly, this court finds that Plaintiffs conclusion cannot stand. Commerce has a long history of collapsing affiliated parties — a practice that has been affirmed by this Court. See AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 34 F.Supp.2d 756, 765 (CIT 1998) (<HOLDING>). This Court, though, has restricted the
holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category holding that although there is no explicit reference to collapsing in the uraas legislative history  this history reflects congressional awareness of collapsing holding that neither the language nor the legislative history of the fcpa indicates the congressional intent to create a private right of action holding that legislative history cannot supply a clear statement holding that even where there are  contrary indications in the statutes legislative history we do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear