was a justifiable change of methodology as long as such change in position was reasonably supported by the record. 2. Agency’s Reconsideration of Its Determination After Issuance of Preliminary Results An agency’s reconsideration of its determination after issuance of prelimi nary results does not necessarily mean that the parties affected by the determination have been denied due process of law. A party subject to or affected by the review does not have a due process right to notice and comment on the agency’s change in position if, throughout the agency’s investigation, the party was reasonably on notice that the agency was considering the alternative ultimately used in the final determination. See Tehnoimportexport v. United States, 15 CIT 250, 255, 766 F.Supp. 1169, 1175 (1991) (<HOLDING>); accord Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp. v. United
holding that commerce has no obligation to notify the parties beforehand that commerce had chosen a surrogate country different from that designated in the initial determination holding that commerce clause authorizes congress to punish any particular criminal action even without proof of a relation to interstate commerce when the activity is part of a class of activities determined by congress to affect interstate commerce holding that nothing in the statute prohibits commerce from valuing the fop as it did because commerce does not have to duplicate the exact production experience of an nme manufacturer at the expense of choosing a surrogate that most accurately represents the fmv of the surrogate in the hypothetically created marketeconomy version of the nme holding the limitations to congresss commerce clause authority recognized in lopez have no effect on the establishment of the interstate commerce element of the hobbs act holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause