With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the Doctrine of Exhaustion SVC argues that, even if it had actual or constructive notice that Commerce was applying the 1996 regulations, any failure to exhaust its administrative remedies nevertheless should be excused under two established exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion — the “futility” exception, and the exception for “pure questions of law.” See generally Pl.’s Reply Brief at 12-14; Pl.’s Surreply Brief at 20-21. The Court of Appeals has recognized that “[a] party need not exhaust [its] administrative remedies where invoking such remedies would be futile.” Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 916 F.2d 1571, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1990) (citation omitted); see also McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 148, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Emphasizing that it first

A: holding that exhaustion is required even where the relief sought is not available in the administrative process
B: recognizing but finding inapplicable pure question of law exception to doctrine of exhaustion
C: recognizing futility exception to doctrine of exhaustion where agency was powerless to grant relief sought
D: recognizing the futility exception to the tribal exhaustion rule
C.