during the period of investigation.”). See generally supra n. 42. 46 . Because Bratsk does not apply in sunset reviews, this Court need not decide whether the triggering factors are present in this case. Moreover, any determination regarding the existence of the triggering factors in a given case lies squarely within the purview of the Commission. See Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d. at 875 ("The Commission, and not this court, is the finder of facts in antidumping investigations, and it is up to the Commission to make findings of fact on issues such as fungibility")- 47 . This is not the first time that this court has addressed the issue of whether or not to extend the Bratsk analysis to sunset reviews. NSK Corp. v. United States, 32 CIT -, -,577 F.Supp.2d 1322, 1333 (2008) (Barzilay, J.) (<HOLDING>); cf. Nevinnomysskiy, 31 CIT at -, 2007 WL
holding that when trial court has considered all relevant factors in its forum non conveniens analysis the courts ruling deserves substantial deference and appellate court should not conduct de novo review by reweighing each of the factors quotation marks omitted recognizing same factors recognizing that among other factors the location and level of the precedent as well as its age are important factors in a qualified immunity analysis holding that when the triggering factors are present the itc should conduct a bratsk analysis during sunset reviews holding that the board is not required to articulate irrelevant factors when applying the douglas analysis