Case Br. 9 (citing Letter from Barbara E. Tillman to Beatrice A. Brickell (Dec. 29, 2003), A.R. Doc. No. 48). Parkdale’s claim that it would not get a satisfactory dumping margin upon review does not merit the court’s consideration because 19 U.S.C. § 1677e contemplates such results. See, e.g., Peer Bearing Co. v. United States, 16 CIT 799, 805-06, 800 F.Supp. 959, 965 (1992) (finding that when resellers choose uncooperative suppliers that are under dumping order, it is irrelevant that such resellers are cooperative in their questionnaire responses). Furthermore, Russel withdrew from the review before its completion and simply does not serve as an example of Parkdale’s “false choice” argument. Cf. Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 26 CIT 170, 176, 186 F.Supp.2d 1332, 1339 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, this Court recognizes that
holding that an alien must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief from detention holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim holding that foreign manufacturer was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before challenging commerces methodology for determining antidumping duty assessment rates because methodology had been previously unsuccessfully challenged at administrative level and additional challenge during review at issue would have been futile holding that bivens plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies where administrative remedy program provided only for injunctive relief holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to include issue in case brief