§ 1677b(f)(3) (1994). Commerce, however, may rely on the data available only if: (1) a transaction between affiliated parties involves the production by one of such parties of a “major input” to the merchandise produced by the other and, in addition, (2) Commerce has “reasonable grounds to believe or suspect” that the amount reported as the value of such input is below the COP. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(3). For purposes of § 1677b(f)(3), regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.407(b) (1998) provides that Commerce will value a major input supplied by an affiliated party based on the highest of (1) the actual transfer price for the input; (2) the market valueof the input; or (3) the COP of the input. See also Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v. United States, 23 CIT 826, 837, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1312 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, paragraphs (2) and (3) of 19
recognizing that the existence of a copy of a decision in a bill file along with numerous references to a decision of the court of appeals in the legislative history indicated that an amendment was made in response to that decision holding that a district court decision rendered without opinion or citation constitutes a decision from the highest state court empowered to hear the cause holding that when applying state law this court follows the decision of the highest state court or in the absence of such a decision and any indication that the highest court would rule differently the decisions of the states intermediate courts holding that 19 usc  1677bf2 and 3 as well as the legislative history of the major input rule support commerces decision to use the highest of transfer price cop or market value to value the major inputs that the producer purchased from the affiliated supplier holding that when there is no ruling by the states highest court it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide