when you when you're ready let me say first because we have multiple counsel arguing on one side in order to make sure that we don't end up being one of the counsel on the with the court i'd like to begin with what should be several undisputed propositions first even though there were twelve countries subject anti dumping petitions in the case of the caribbean basin economic imports from trinidad on fact during the period of investigation the commission examined there were well over two dozen other countries in trinidad selling wairarapa in the market at the same time many of these countries selling the same might be great grains of it every morning result primarily on the basis of price some of those imports suppliers were part of the same investigation the so called other subject larger in absolute terms they increased and a greater rate over the period investigation gain ten times in march imports from trinidad and many of these other suppliers were lower priced alone were causing injury to look at the effects of these other imports simultaneously in the market and greater violence increasing at greater rates and at lower cognition and in order to conduct and now us there has to be an examination of other conditions in the market at the same time that are having an effect a q lesson on taiwan semiconductor in general metals independent causation that's where i start to see the subtleties in the argument and i want to make sure i understand exactly what you're saying on that the commission did after all say we think determination that you've been talking about now obviously you help something else in mind that you think joe metals requires my analysis beyond simply concluding that  those case case there was one other source of imports coming in at the same time and unfairly treated imports at the same or lower price and this port said you need to take into account what would happen if young fairly traded imports more there wouldn't be purchasers simply switch to the fairly traded imports simultaneously in the market it's a commodity product after all why on earth would they switch to the higher price domestic product when there is an available substitute at the same or lower price in this case there were dozens of other suppliers in the market at the same time selling the commodity product and sell basis of price according to a nurse and during why would the purchaser turn to the domestic product in that circumstance rather than turning to one of the other imports suppliers and you don't need to take my word for word because every one of our principal customers went to the commission they testified to that basic economic commonsense position that it triggered that out of this market we're just going to go buy from somebody else not because would have and therefore i'm not a call now if i were just a bigot perhaps somewhat silly example if i if i were to walk around in a very dangerous part of town flashing a wad of cash and i got rob the robber if you were caught could hardly depend on the theory that well i didn't really cause the robbery or your loss because well let me tell you if i hadn't taken your money  assume a bit let's assume they did let's assume that they were satisfied that on the backs as historical facts and they are that that there was evidence which is caribbean beef and economic recovery where congress had a specific goal it was to encourage investment in the caribbean region and to get them to a higher level of economic development recognizing that they said you need to look at them by themselves and in this case if imports from trinidad are higher priced than all the other or most of the other imports that the commission itself concluded were causing injury in the same investigation they have tributed injury to all of these other lower priced in ports increasing at a greater rate and much higher volumes they have an obligation at least to address whether the issue here is whether they by themselves taking into account these other imports were causing injury and they simply asserted that it was true there is not a shred of analysis in this determination that even mentions either the vastly larger volume of increasing volume of imports from trinidad because of injury while our market share increased less than one percentage point the other underlying trade imports combine with the subject on a subject imports increased ten times that so how do you demonstrate to cause a link between the point nine percent and the nine percent without conducting some of that they just asserted and the same with price our imports were consistently higher imports from trinidad along in the face of these other non subject in subject importunately flawed f b i evidence addressed it we're not saying that that's the only conclusion that you can reach but it's certainly the type of  absolutely and again it's not just a straight comparison it's an analysis looking at the effect of imports from trinidad by themselves versus these other factors and in the market if there had been a recession during the puri investigation i think your telling you that the commission would have had an obligation in some sense to tease apart the effects of the recession in taiwan semiconductor there were three factors overcapacity in the worldwide market the learning curve effect underselling by the korean imports of the same time in the summer imports were in the market in the commission initially said well we still think her time was good enough we're going to go a permanent c i t said wait a minute look at all these other that's our argument your other subject and i'm subject imports combined had a dominant effect in market that rendered him into real the effect of triggered when you look at the confidential information that is in the joint appendix on trends and pricing trends we don't think you can reach a country clear to make sure i understand your your basic theory of causation here and now we understand that you have a lot of facts that they're on the analysis but i want to get to right rick to make sure i understand what your theory of causation is that you start with where you get into any other tax against take another example if  we have a claim made by the american automobile industry that they are being materially endured by the japanese automobile industry which is dumping that during it would be open in your view finder stand to argue that it's true that the american automobile industry is being under sold by many many japanese cars but if the japanese were to withdraw from the market to morrow or historically had with gone at the beginning of the period that's the case the koreans would have ramped up enough to build a market and the american industry would have been just as bad shape now that is not that it industry is feeling is clearly attributed to the unfair imports from shipping and if korea had been in the market at much greater violence at lower prices at the same time then yes  and require the commission to say well they're claiming it's japan but isn't really japan we're in the caribbean it might be japan but they would at least have to analyze they have to look at the conditions of competition in the market and determine whether those imports from japan by themselves are responsible for material in general but again to make sure i understand exactly what your theory is here would you say assume korea has fifteen percent of the market and have the capacity to increase to fifty percent and would it be under those circumstances and assume for the japan has thirty five percent of the market and it's clear that the japanese imports are what is principally responsible for the adverse impact on the american economy could you say in that situation take the japanese out and the koreans would expand and they would that would be the end of in the market simultaneously selling the same good at the same or lower price at it has to be simultaneous it can't be involved in the future all these imports might come in and so we're not going to put an i'm not i'm counting exactly on the goods that were in the market that were being sold in the same channels of distribution in the same areas at the same or lower prices with greater margins of  a finding that notwithstanding all of the injured caused by these other folks and other conditions and economic conditions so forth there was a material marginal injury caused by printed to make a let's buy that's enough we're not saying that there's some sort of her state asked because trying to get in the market with all these other countries we get a free pass but there has to be an analysis of your factories other imports and there has to be a reason determination supported by substantial evidence and there's no dispute year that the commission in its determination did not mention once the effect of these other imports and everything in their priests post hoc rationalization but just to continue with that point there was there was substantial evidence in the record that page showed that in fact the non subject important words you were displacing the domestic these are the others the subject imports over the course of the proceeding there's no evidence so you're saying that causation here can be established even though turned it into they go may not be the cause of any injury because there are so many other dumped products but all or are they are you holding that into their conclusion i made my day predicated their conclusion on that legal stamp understand we are position that the commission determination stands on day a conclusion as to whether there was some significant independent individual contribution to the injury by community one way to do it is say well what's the injury contributed by these other blokes what then you determine what the assessment of the marginal injury if you will lead that is contributed by going to that unless you're asking what the injury contributor by the others among other both the two two point first is that in this case commission caused harm to other sources it did not do that here they also require those those cases that the i t c examined other factors in the market did the i can see examine the other subject imports you bet there's a huge detail analysis of what was going on with respect to the cumulated imports in total and then the i t c and frankly i think if you'd written one clause at the beginning of the trinidad analysis we might not be here which said notwithstanding our conclusion that all the subject imports collectively caused injury we also find that imports from trinidad alone caused injury and here's why and then continued that is the analysis that's caused that's called for by the statute where it says are the imports or because the injury by reason of those particular imports low and then it went through a very detailed analysis of the volume and the price with mr english legal position that the two want to be looked at looked at differently for purposes of causation no i do agree that they are looked at differently and i think that's why the statement of administrative action cited by the lower court says what it does well and the difference between the way the two are treated in your view is and what could be the difference between the two is that the commission is statutorily obligated to look at subject of courts and determine whether they are causing injury there's a very detailed a list would have to look at what you did you hear with respect to not subject imports or any other part of the fall within the statutory language that says you can also consider other factors and you should consider them and that's where you own mettle and how the commission is to analyze and and determine that so yes they are addressed in separate parts of statute and i think does that make a difference in terms of how they ought to be addressed when you're when you're in in the process of trying to determine whether you order imports from country have an impact and effectively the the imports from countries that happen to be  i wouldn't it depends what you're asking your honor would you view them differently in terms of whether they both might cause an injury to the industry and how you would look at that and a fairly but you would view them differently in terms of analytically under the law how the commission have to analyze them because the one with that i would say is that when you're looking at maybe this goes to the little anecdotal example you gave earlier of the harm caused by robbers when you're looking at unfairly traded imports and you're saying does this collective presence of these imports and here's a little guy comes along and he's unfairly training too does the presence of the other guy ameliorate or excuse his behavior and his injury and the answer is no actually what happens from the vantage of the domestic industry that i represent is we are made moral or will because we have the presence of the big guys that are all beating up and taking our sales and now we have another unfair trader that's come along to do the same that and so that's why frankly it's worse if you're looking at all of these imports that are injured by these good words and we're not attempting to just excuse them from any application of any ducking to news we're intending to do to supply it commissioned you find that these imports alone cause injury and that's what i'm saying the volume was large they were the second or third largest they surged into the market contrary to what mr moran said they were not slower surging they were quickly surging from two thousand to two thousand and one which was precisely the time that the industry was bound to be u s producers were selling so when you're looking at where there was by reason there was a tangential more than a tangential were minimal contribution of injury by reason of those imports those are the precise factors that you would look at to say are these imports by compare to yes and i think that's a very good question and the answer to the question frankly is how do you define the comparison i did my comparison by saying and i think what your old metals and taiwan semiconductor stand for is that what the commission has to do is say is it by reason of these imports from trinidad that's we're talking about and not by something else it's because of them why and go through a period specific factual analysis as to why it's by reason of that which the commission did here notwithstanding its separate finding of injury so yes i think the commission does have to do that didn't do that and his is a minute they don't have to compare goes really to mr moran's request that the commission start isolating and winning closets and saying ah don't let's see us compared to these were bigger than these would would would be somehow you know divine which i have no idea how the commission would do how much of the injury to the industry is by these branch trying to pursue the court the commission is and did it is required and did isolate the effects of imports injury caused by imports from trinidad make sure didn't attribute that their facts the ball human rights the facts and the subject important which the commission did and the polling effects of the non subject imports which were frankly just kind of tossed out as being stable so those went off off the radar screen and then said ok having looked at all this now let's look at trinidad and that's the way it's set up here almost and there's no specific methodology communication has to do so if you are not getting those statutory prerequisite then in the end and you have substantial evidence which on this issue of comparison interesting and you didn't hear anything this morning about the nine genial ation decision in the magnesium case involving israel and china which has accumulation not mandatory not cumulation provision which for all practical purposes is identical to the one here because it requires the commission to examine imports from israel while they determine whether those imports first so income paris into both subject imports in the same case and non subject in polyvinyl alcohol a case where the commission first looked at unfairly traded imports from three kinds china korea and japan when affirmative and then the next year or two shooters brought a new case against time this is a page twenty nine of the solution we also have an obligation to ensure that there is a reasonable indication of comparison because of the differences in terms of the volume price affects and impact of subject imports from taiwan and the volume price effects and impact of the imports that were cumulated in the prior investigation namely the unfairly traded imports from china korea and japan and we are amenable to conclude there was a reasonable indication of material injury by reason of subject reports from time all we are asking the commission to do in this case is precisely what it is really case precisely what it did in polyvinyl alcohol and that is to conduct a consideration if you will or a comparison to use the commission's terms what's going on in the market looking at other various staff recommendations that are exerted in this document i say that with some trepidation i don't want you all to have to provide a ten thousand page document but perhaps mr moran perhaps you and your anger could approach the lectern for just a moment we can discuss logistics here are we talking about something that would be burdensome to reproduce are we talking about something that right i'm just looking for the specific documents and i think there were about four there was a commission i'm i just we can be specific i'll just go down the list of the ones that struck me as being with henschel interest to have ultimately we could get the record report by the staff that was the beginning on eighteen eleven the report released by the staff starting on twenty one eighteen the views of the commission twenty three twenty five and the dissenting views of