Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
below fair value. See Torrington’s Br. Resp. to SKF’s Mot. J. Agency R. at 11. Tor-rington argues that only if the transactions are truly without consideration can they fall within NSK’s exclusion. See id. at 12. Commerce concedes that the case should be remanded to it to exclude the sample transactions for which SKF received no consideration from SKF’s United States sales database. See Def.’s Partial Opp’n to Pis.’ Mots. J. Agency R. at 27. Commerce is required to impose anti-dumping duties upon merchandise that “is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than its fair value.” 19 U.S.C. § 1673(1) (1988). A zero-priced transaction does not qualify as a “sale” and, therefore, by definition cannot be included in Commerce’s FMV calculation. See NSK, 115 F.3d at 975 . Thus, the distribution of AFBs for no
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding an implied dedication gives rise to a servitude of public use and does not transfer ownership
B. holding that both tria  201 and fsia  1610g require plaintiffs to prove some terrorist state ownership in order to attach and execute on property and finding that ownership interest through federal interstitial rule making
C. holding that the term sold  requires both a transfer of ownership to an unrelated party and consideration
D. holding that term court encompasses trial by both judge and jury
E. holding that a contract without a minimum quantity term is unenforceable for lack of consideration and mutuality
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.