6. By notice published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1997 . . . Commerce retroactively revoked its countervailing duty order on leather including lizard skins from Argentina. 7. According to the terms of the revocation notice, the Commerce Department found that the case of Ceramica Regiomontana v. United States, 64 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1995) applied to its countervailing duty orders against Argentina. 8. . . . Commerce ". . . determine[d] that based upon . . . Ceramica, it does not have the authority to assess countervailing duties on entries of merchandise covered by these orders occurring on or after September 20, 1991."

Commerce correctly determined that under Ipsco and Ceramica Regiomontana it was required to include all companies receiving a significantly different benefit, whether higher or lower, in its calculation of the country-wide rate. See Ipsco Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 18 CIT 376, 853 F. Supp. 431 (1994), rev'd on other grounds, 64 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). For the reasons stated in Crescent Foundry, Commerce's methodology is sustained here as well.

See id. at 365-66. In Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 431 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 64 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995), the court rejected Commerce's methodology of calculating the country-wide rate "by weight averaging the benefits received by non-de minimis companies by their proportion of United States exports." 853 F. Supp. at 439 (footnote omitted).

This case asks whether the Court of International Trade erred in permitting Aviall to correct its failure to renew its blanket certification under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c)(1). The answer turns on the meaning of "inadvertence" within section 1520(c)(1), a legal determination, which this court reviews de novo. Regiomontana v. United States, 64 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Section 1520 of title 19 allows Customs to correct errors that occur during liquidation of an entry.

' Br. at 13-15.) The argument is similar to that raised in Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 18 CIT 376, 386, 853 F. Supp. 431, 439 (1994), rev'd on other grounds, 64 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995), in which Commerce argued that including firms with de minimis subsidies in the country-wide average would dilute the average rate. That argument was rejected as "meritorious, but nonetheless conflict[ing] with binding precedent" set forth in Ipsco Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1990).