united states office i suppose you had a cell phone did i suggest to you that next time you get stuck in traffic and call the  for purposes of this regime among those things that will be considered related our employer and employees are not the agro dutch people who into account the fact that the importer and the ex hoarder are identical and therefore the antidumping duties may have been paid by the export here and therefore in reviewing whether or not the antidumping duty should be extended that that pack could be taken into account i would say that a statute was drafted you know that's not us but the fact you said record that you look at it if the things are smith that you think you shall look at it if these conditions are met it's up to the statutes is not determined the circumstances under which commerce can choose to analyze policy standpoint ought not to i would agree maybe you know i certainly understand your position there's a loophole that's basically what it comes down to fifteen family five as a loophole and you know maybe we need congress to act to fix it but from a policy and really what was going on well i don't understand is there be any factual content to what you've just said what facts would be found if this were returned to commerce that would be relevant to the convention made on appeal  appeal to concern is the assertion that the entire absorbtion investigation and hence its results were illicit were ultra vires were an authorized by law that sounds like a pure question about the mirror but her entire case is that everything is a commerce department did from day one in this absorbtion investigation was an authorized unlawful and therefore no voice that sounds like a sure legal question with no factual content at all  if i say this statute says the circumstances under which commerce shall consist consider anti dumping duty absorption issues it doesn't necessary surly preclude them from doing it in other circumstances and therefore when you think if this raises chevron to issue could be taught you're talking about that right is that what i'm understanding you to be talking about yet it is not the statute may be silent on commerce is authority to do it otherwise apart from the inquiry but he never say a specific statute that provides such authority he says it should be inferred by the general goals and structure of the overall statute i didn't find that a very convincing section that there has been absorption it should tell the i t c back but that doesn't give it a separate authority to go out and do an absorption inquiry and he time it was whether or not there's been a question about whether there was lawful authority to do anything and the position of the other side is no authority because the only section that grants authority doesn't apply to the facts of this case because none is the standard that i ought to be applying i mean this we haven't exhausted the term a nation from the c i t which is within their authority to make they said this falls in the pure question of law what's the standard review you're asking me to futility exception was what was that issue there well working in the time to raise it but you start off by saying the c i t decided the pure question of law with regard to exhaustion differently it was not even raised at the c i two level so how could they have decided  but you're attacking the ruling you're saying he made an error a reversible error when he didn't require exhaustion i don't understand why the government should be allowed to take that position in the absence of a cross appeal you want the court to hold that the trial court made a reversible error you should be in the shoes of the helen for cross appeal otherwise you shouldn't be heard to allege reversible