of antidumping duties. The contention has some superficial logical basis, but as explained by Commerce in the Remand Results at 17, Hoogovens simply ignores that the reimbursement determination must be made as part of the administrative review process and calculation of the total dumping margin by making the appropriate adjustment required by the regulation prior to the assessment of antidumping duties in liquidation of the entries. As pointed out by Commerce, the reimbursement regulation requires an adjustment of U.S. price in the final margin calculation, which adjustment must obviously be made prior to liquidation of the entries and assessment of antidumping duties, citing PO Corp. v. United States, 652 F. Supp. 724, 737 (CIT 1987). See also Hoogovens, 4 F. Supp. 2d at 1218 (<HOLDING>). V Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the
holding that a calculation of the amount of loss is a factual finding recognizing that as part of the final margin calculation commerce adjusts the us price downward to reflect the amount of duty reimbursed to or paid on behalf of the importer holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach holding that where defendant objected in the district court only to the loss calculation and not specifically to the calculation of restitution the issue of restitution was not properly presented  to the district court holding that the redemption price was based on the amount bid at foreclosure  and not  what the subsequent purchaser paid  for the property