inappropriate, and it points to no supporting evidence in the record. The Court finds Commerce properly chose to proceed to an examination of the viability of Kanzen’s third country sales to the United Kingdom as the basis for NV because Commerce followed its consistent practice of strictly abiding by the five percent test as a threshold for viability. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Japan, 63 Fed. Reg. 40,434, 40,441-42 (July 29, 1998). Additionally, this Court has affirmed Commerce’s reliance on the five percent threshold absent a showing of some unusual situation that would render its application inappropriate. See, e.g., Chemetals, Incorporated v. United States, 138 F. Supp.2d 1338, 1349 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001) (<HOLDING>). 3. Commerce’s Determination to Use Kanzen’s
holding substantial relation test not even implicated in such a situation holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance due to the alleged conflict of interest because the defendant failed to demonstrate a conflict as nothing was presented to refute the attorneys testimony that his loyalty was to his clients holding plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an unusual situation invalidating use of five percent test holding that it was an abuse of discretion to refuse to award attorneys fees where each element of five part test has been satisfied holding that even if plaintiff could demonstrate that failed drug test proffered by defendant as ground for dismissal was in error that showing would not demonstrate that reliance on test was pretext for discrimination