ORDER
Upon receipt and consideration of the defendant’s motion for clarification dated July 18, 2002, and the plaintiffs comments to the aforesaid motion dated July 22, 2002, this Court recognizes that there was an error committed in handling of the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s (“Commerce”) Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand: Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People’s Republic of China (“Remand Results II”) (April 17, 2002), issued pursuant to the Court’s order in Consolidated Bearing Co. v. United States, 26 CIT 25, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (2002).
Commenting on the Remand Results II, the plaintiff raises the following points: (a) in its pursuit of the course of action designated in the Remand Results II, “Commerce hopes to avoid [Commerce’s] inevitable day of reckoning [of dumping margins specifically for the merchandise entered by the plaintiff during the period of review (“POR”) at issue] as well as [Commerce’s] responsibility as an agency to issue appropriate instructions”; (b) in the Remand Results II, Commerce “chose a result that ha[s] no relevance to [the plaintiffs] imports of [the merchandise at issue during [the POR]”; and (c) the course of actions chosen by Commerce in the Remand Results II would “divulge proprietary data [of another entity] to [the plaintiff, and this wrongful act by Commerce is feasible since that proprietary data] is not subject to [a] judicial protective order in this proceedings.” Pl.’s Comments Concerning Def.’s Mot. Clarification (“Pl.’s Comments”) at 2-3 (emphasis supplied).
The Court is not convinced by these arguments. There could be no “inevitable day of reckoning” for Commerce, same as there is no Commerce’s “responsibility * * * to issue appropriate instructions” under the holdings of Consolidated Bearing Co. v. United States (“Consolidated I”), 25 CIT 546, 166 F. Supp. 2d 580 (2001), and Consolidated Bearing Co. v. United States (“Consolidated II”), 26 CIT 25, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (2002), since both cases required Commerce to liquidate all plaintiffs imports of the subject merchandise imported during the POR “in áccordance with the September 9, 1997, liquidation instructions.” Consolidated II, 26 CIT at 28, 182 F. Supp. 2d at 1384. Thus, the only “appropriate instructions” are the September 9, 1997, liquidation instructions, and the only “reckoning” that Commerce was obligated to execute was the reckoning included in the text of the September 9,1997, liquidation instructions.
Furthermore, since, under the September 9, 1997, liquidation instructions, “the merchandise [which was] produced by [a particular *805manufacturer] and imported by certain designated importers, the list of which did not include [the plaintiff, had to be liquidated] at certain rates,” Consolidated I, 25 CIT at 548, 166 F. Supp. 2d at 582, these very rates, the ones determined under the September 9,1997, liquidation instructions, are the only rates applicable to the plaintiffs merchandise. Therefore, Commerce’s decision to “instruct [the United States Customs Service (“Customs”)] to use ad valorem rates [for] each class or kind of [the plaintiffs merchandise that would be equal to the rates Commerce] calculated” under the September 9, 1997, liquidation instructions for corresponding classes or kinds of merchandise imported by another entity, would not create “a result that ha[s] no relevance to [the plaintiffs] imports of [the merchandise at issue during” the POR. Compare (“Pl.’s Comments”) at 2.
Therefore, having re-reviewed the Remand Results II, it is hereby
Ordered that the Remand Results II are affirmed in their entirety,1 the Court’s order of July 9, 2002, is vacated; and it is further
Ordered that since all other issues have been decided, this case is dismissed.