hundred taking if you put it metaphysical inquiries into the nature of services provided by a break are you point to any record evidence outside your freight forwarder contract that in case it isn't also for and it will be liable for any damages while the merchandise be transferred does not dispute about that the question then is given that that's what we bought in vietnam what would it cost us to buy that  you look at what we bought in vietnam trucking where the trucking company was liable for damaging free use of what would you have to buy in india to get that and us steel said well you'd have to buy for a contract and an insurance contract and we said no as a matter of law in fact a freight contract in india makes the trucking company liable for any damage to a transport they cannot avoid that liability therefore if you want to know what would it cost us to get in india trucking we're the trucking company was liable for damages to inflate all we need to do is get a trucking contract if you add insurance on top of that you double counting because the trucking company was already in india is providing that insurance an assurance against lost whether you want to call it insurance or not doesn't matter this isn't a question of how you interpret the vietnamese contract nobody's disputed how you interpret to be in this contract and then commerce when given the chance never said that their initial decision was wrong their initial decision agreed with us they ever said that was wrong they just said ok it's an interim contract and then from there but never asked what did we buy in generally ministry of expenses interest expenses and profit and here again i think the court below got the issue along and you know of course that i shouldn't blame the court it's ultimately my fault everybody puts in their surrogate value information then given an opportunity to rebut that information at that time we said we don't have in live insurance why because we have we don't write they put in an illegible i'm the richest the court seemed to think the question was could commerce reasonably say the getting the profit figure correct was more important than getting the other figures  wrong when it held you failed to exhaust your your arguments concerning other and then you correct this the i p c c characterization of your but you don't establish that you raise those arguments happened here was we get into this case commerce says we're going to use a company called welspun as a source of profit and then in the korean cases have actually well spent doesn't produce of c t g so we say there's something wrong here that goes back to commerce commerce in your calculations you only use boucher and come said oh gosh it was a mistake we sent the wrong determination to court now and and so they sent a new determination the court i made then we'll we're in this process was i supposed to not that they were going to use bush on over a part of apollo you know it's great to say i should have been a mind reader on this but in fact we addressed congress decision they said the we said apollo was better you know and but we did it just as believe as between apollo and bush on it's neither of us a perfect fit here right and so isn't isn't there some degree of discretion allowed to commerce to make the call and say well this isn't perfect this isn't perfect but all things considered we think this is the best way to go absolutes apart right after all the rush to overturn as it was for the if you go through the categories of those are you know the larger pipe is listed as point seventy two percent of sales small diameter papers presumably costs because it's not even listed so this is tiny and they have other types of pipes so what we have here is  ah but if you know four percent of the company sales if you're going to see their overall profit is a reasonable c t g profit and that justifies distorting overhead in g n a t i mean i think that's irrational i have not and the judge never a go you know it's reasonable to have a preference what the facts in this case the substantial evidence on the record when you look at the full record the incident shows that the two shots were shifted you production was insignificant that's the basis for at this point i'm a little lost we have the mushroom insurance which is what we call the insurance issue i think we started out at about twenty three percent topping margin in the original determination of congress then changed it from hit us with the mushroom and we're now at seventy two percent on from my point of view however and this we went into the determination saying we're not dumping that was our honest belief we're not dump it and to me what this case is isn't a lesson in how commerce says we can make dumping here we have through this non market kind of methodology or things we can do to make dumping and when we have killed it i think frankly the mushroom insurance cover said we'll make sure defer to your experience no i mean i have a pretty good idea to hear your views well that's why we're not asking you to make a finding of bad faith i'm asking you to say congress's determination that the that's where we started out being rather consumers you're not bothered anymore well actually we are growing out of time but the st thing we did when we appealed this case is such a judge commerce didn't apply record as to how indian brokerage companies actually charge for these services and that's priceless we submitted for the company called zero c l something so overseas container line missing and those show that actually these services are one hundred percent and beyond that the record evidence there's does congress itself admitted there was no evidence that anyone in india or vietnam charge for doctoring preparation customs clearance on a part time basis the only evidence was the price recently which showed it was an approach transaction so if you want to decide this is a matter of logic or as a matter of substantial evidence i don't see how you can come out of that i would reserve whatever time i have for you but i'm not sure i  own commercial experience of paying the n h costs by weight commerce looked at the freight forwarding contract at appendix seven o five that c s submitted on the record so there were some evidence going both ways commerce tipped the scales in weighing that evidence in accordance with c is own commercial experience and that was a rational judgment use you say on page twenty of the red book congress recently term in th the the valuation or the fact that they i don't understand your honest question i'm sorry what i'm asking about the phrase are of could be allocated by one right so form of brokerage and handling costs so what we're talking about here is an inference that comment that commerce drew from the the the  which is a category of expenses that includes the particular type of clearance and documentation expenses that are headed when you hire a private company and you say i want to ship ten tons of something and they charge him by that time and that includes some people it is that different and when you hire customs clearance company and you i mean that that strikes me as unrealistic well your honor it may be imperfect but there were a lot of a perfectly imperfect issues in this case and it is up t interested parties to make the record there was no contemporaneous evidence on this record but there was evidence there was non contemporaneous evidence that the only evidence no your honor  ways that in india you could have brokerage and handling expenses in two different ways it could be by weight or could be charged by transaction tell me one word not involving and so commerce using the best information available no your honor document preparation is a form of brokerage and handling expenses and just because they didn't have  not available for the specific kind of n h cost commerce went to the more general type of d n a to cost which were on the record and drew a reasonable inference that the standard of review allows commerce to use and when we're looking for the best available evidence on the record there was no evidence of the contemporaneous evidence of the specific category so they went to the more general category and well this record your honor demonstrated that in the case of india the experience was there was evidence going both ways your honor and there was there was a broad doing business report that reflected the broad it in response to the accord of international trades re man which said commerce you are assuming that indian law provides for something without any evidence go back and look and see is there any honor i have no idea but that the point the point here your honor is see i had the burden of making the record of what constitutes indian freight forwarding practice or indian law they could have submitted a declaration record so when it came time for commerce to make a judgement they were directed by the court of international trade appropriately to rely upon record evidence there was no record evidence of that no record evidence supporting the assumption to be an indian not those who are raised by law your are i am not aware of commerce addressing that so to my memory the answer is no i offered from that but you know i mean i agree with you normally when you get is one of these special master inquiry come before or were just simple declaration from an indian lawyer saying this is the law and that i mean the the point is your honor we just don't know on this record there's no evidence and so there's no evidence of the indian law there's no evidence of the double counting and as commerce found in the trial court held there's that there's just no support for this argument and it turns upon what was the best available evidence on the this particular record so i can't comment on those other two cases because they involve different records but here there was a mix record of evidence going both ways on the best available contemporaneous evidence which was of the n h cost in so you're saying you don't have a problem with those cases on their records but here we have a different record i  your are the the question of whether those cases appropriately follow the standard of review and afforded the proper deference to the commerce is probably for another day  but i would just say that this should this court should follow the standard review and this administrative record demonstrates that the commerce reasonably relied upon the best available record evidence that it had with respect to the choice of bush on vs welspun or apollo there was no evidence on the administrative record that either welspun or apollo made c t g during the relevant time congress has a well established preference for using identical and sixty eight but they just aren't they can see that something like point twenty nine percent no your honor they conceded that it was up to ten percent they've argued here and they argued in the court of international trade that it they conceded it was a portion they just argued oh less than ten percent that's a tiny portion so clear that's not conceding up to ten percent well that the argument said that it was a tiny portion up to ten percent i believe they quoted this excerpt from the record in their reply brief so ultimately commerce did not agree commerce concluded that some c t g was better than no o c t g and there were a number of imperfect options available on this record commerce ultimately made it rational judgment call in the court should not nd guess it under the demonstrate that by production as a whole including most c t g production it constitutes a tiny portion of push ons overall operations with sales representing less than ten percent i precipitation and large diameter taken together maybe it's you know i know how you guys are writing could be the next page  public and you know the line if any and but there are if you can see that the contract if you look at the prices charged which include what we're talking about here are prices  producer was in india and here you have a question that was being posed by commerce and they were asking you know can you explain what all these expenses are in your brokerage and handling that you've report us and they're g v and states we provide you with the feel expenses and here is a total expenses on the invoice and here you can see agency charges which are on a per metric ton basis so i  just like we would with you know our health insurance there may be things that we add to it to say that health insurance over there doesn't that's really cover our bodies like over here right that's right and so to your honor what i'm suggesting is that had you know we had a full record developed here maybe there would be a clear point that commerce can you know say absolutely with certainty here we've got a next question this i would submit to you is not the type of case that this court over the last thirty years of this court that is a high standard on substantial evidence and this is the question before this court so i just i want to raise that it's not you wanted her tongue basis which may so you're out of point and you know you said it defies logic but it may not because as tonnage increases maybe the value also increases and so maybe there's an element of value associated with the shipment that the company w doing the work will say hey we want to get this right because there's a lot of value here and so we're going to do on a per ton basis whereas maybe you're honest point where the shipping bill we just fill out another zero that they may say well you know we don't based and oh by the way we have this other point for you judge goldberg and we have this other point for your honour's on this court and that's the substantial evidence issue here and again your honor had mr wade provided you know sufficient information to show the insurance aspect and in the year that nobody gets insurance for trucking expenses then that would be a different question right and that commerce might not have the substantial evidence so thank you you one thing but in fact a doing business report that they relied on did not have one of them it had three sectors right what was document preparation one was customs clearance the rd was so the whole port terminal handling and you might imagine that if you're include should be allocated based on transactions where his moving around the port should be based on items agency charges and other charges various expenses maybe it could have been moving things around the port we don't know but we do know that the only evidence on the record about how you think surcharge for document preparation customs clear law i remind you as well foreign law is not a question of fact it is not a question of evidence under the federal rules of civil procedure it's a question of law to be determined by the court and while we all have but they didn't open the record on this issue they didn't say to us when the judge we manned it in said where's the evidence on the record they didn't say hey guys give us evidence on the record we could submit legal arguments commerce is very strict about if we submit anything textbooks anything they say that's new factual information i can accept it so we could only cite legal materials which we did which they ignore the last issue on the profit when we submitted our comments to congress we looked at it we said you know there's this procedure just all tubes all together with ten percent that's a small portion that's what we told it's not a reasonable approach commerce we heard has a preference for using profit be identical merchandise that's absolutely true they also have a longstanding preference for using profit for companies with the same production process right if you follow they never asked ok ok thank you thank you