face your own and make peace accord christan work ethan allen ethan allen case i think does begin and should and at the holding of this court expressly adopted in chasidic when it said that a producer who supports an investigation did not do that right there was never a question you filed with your client check for correct that is correct and but but to be clear your honor said that there are a lot of facts a difference if that's the only doctor difference between chase in the in our case  their investigation support box but all other actions being equal that finally cannot be based on the plain language of the statute certainly the statute doesn't say anything about checking be it neutral investigation position you're right but we did those we filed questionnaire responses and with this court held in shape than it was at the filing of the questionnaire responsive is the support you find that language at the supply it you respond to questionnaires not respond in a particular way but if you respond to question there and she sydney not the one that begins we hold the next paragraph we reject them resemble the itc's interpretation of quote support term and six hundred seventy five cities to mean the land indicated expression of support here's where they're addressing correct the preliminary plans for example or produces expression support in response to a primary question is critical to the determination whether to commence an investigation of an anti doping to sion so what they're stressing is it's really important that at some time and actually if anywhere more important the problem nary one that you check quote by its terms the statute clearly defined supporters at persons who either submitted letters or responded to questionnaires you have to ignore the census to census later that says but the statute plain language does not require that producers indicate an expression of support other than through a letter or by filing a response it states that supporting producers are those who submit letters or response but in doing that you know yes we did it we filed a questionnaire response we filed a very thorough questionnaire responses precisely like folk who did what we didn't do is check a particular box but what the shape in the opinion the same there is support to be construed as lending the litigation support of answering raises many constitutional problems but in our case if you look at the holding of chasing it the question is did you file a response when you say you take no nation that's probably support because you're not supporting it's looking at and a question of whether he said support that just that is that support negated or overcome by the statement of no position in the second question is there no clearly distinguishable from your your cases the rule you want to determine how to guide this interpretation should be set determined by where the court actually says we hold and where they said we hold is makes no references to box check and we know that box checking is irrelevant because the court then goes on another exactly right or going under shapes and that box checking is a real then it does raise great constitutional problems because you end up at the end of the day rely exclusively on what that box is checked but you don't of course have to reach that goal much in the book that does it don't you make it hard if we were to appears all over the statue but rather the distinction between doing nothing for checking the opposed the doesn't that present a more convoluted complicated and difficult constitutional issue with respect  he's positioned in light of s k f and shape sydney at the end of the day the only difference between getting money and not getting money comes down to whether we checked the particular box but you know you put a lot on extracted sentences from shay sidney and it's almost like for every one you give me that appears to clearly favor you there are you know at least one other one in there that maybe not it's kind of difficult for me to read it exactly the way you want me to but it's almost equally difficult to read exactly what the government wants me to so let me just goes over to the application of what you all keep talking about is the critical posts which represent the whole thing to the best of shape sydney where judge rein it in the very last paragraph applies it really  must be included you said no they don't and you know i understand your position but then he goes so i had one such important one such important circumstance is whether producers participated in investigating by providing supporting information or argue with the questionnaire responses and we did well you know i don't know if you provide supporting information an argument given that you did taking sishen but even if i grant you that you did let's keep going here are shades to be provided sales in production and other dat right significantly this is application of the law the fact in this case it's significantly shaped sydney did not fail to file responses to the questionnaire it did not engage in activity in opposition to petition and it never expressed that it oppose the petition exactly if we we might meet everyone but the problem is you say that you would like to have the broad reading that includes both take no position an opponent you were willing to stand here a minute ago and defend  pride would be happy with the position i am but the the point if you're going to continue to tell me that she said he stands for the proposition that even if you and suppressed opposition to the petition you get that i'm willing to tell you that i'm on the of our case we can prevail and we can prevail on these narrow grounds for the need to reach that question you begin by applying the hold again or is it the other case that you open the door so answer the question yes are you telling me to sydney stands for the proposition that if you check the box suppose you get that i play as long as you filled out questionnaires but i think that the ultimate comes down to this question does checking if checking the box a yes or no are you telling me shades sydney stands for the proposition and if you check the box o and fill out a questionnaire response you get that i think that that it can be read that way but i don't think for us to prevail judge more you need to read it that way because the way that we can prevail on narrow grounds is simply this you begin with the whole do you did you was something probative of support that's following what we did with checks take no position that's neither protocol support nor of opposition therefore we check off every single metric that shows where you picked up but it was a significantly we didn't responded to the questionnaires as supporters so that you do away with having to rely on the abstract expressionist and that does get back to the final point also really we know from chasity that you cannot either reward or penalize let's  it hypothetically of the statute instruct on what we're left with but we haven't briefed it and so i don't want to speak out of school too much but one argument would be that the statute if it's been conceived as air war for parties that were seeking relief that congress so should be rewarded struggling with the idea that it should be severed in such a trying to save the statue to whatever extent was consistent with the congressional purpose that was identified and the congressional purpose that was identified was to support those parties that were  were again in the way that the chez sidney decision reads you can read the decision as risk requiring specifically that the party had at least in one instance checked the box but let's say the court doesn't go that reading and says that a party that never checked the box but didn't otherwise oppose by checking the box is eligible that would although the new suggestion is well if you turn some of this on a box checking exercise you're raising a constitutional concern of that constitutional concerns addressed and it was resolved by the court in favor of saying it's not  can't give you what i want to give you i can't give you what you ask for because i'm bound by judgment precedent so what do i do with this sentence he holds all you do is on a questionnaire response to take no action probably to support we're opposition you get mine clear as day that holding that i do assuming you mean again before it's already discussed all the other language initiated me decision it's inconsistent with reading it in that way but even focusing like a laser on that particular  language as we had addressed in the breeze and this is also an issue that came up in chasity it gets back to that question again whether or not i there really is three positions in a way there's really investigation in that time checks in those unique facts where the party didn't check the support box the first time but then took no position it might be good there you would say you wouldn't want to treat the no has not indicative of opposition because of the unique facts involved but in the cases like ethan allen where there is no support it was never any explanation any checking of the box for support in the plymouth area that the they are really in line with parties that don't support and in that instance those cases can be reconciled thanks supported the petition he didn't say if they first support and then later take no they're actually your honor he recognizes three other places in opinion that the action that is probably the off addition is checking your postbox and what i'm saying to you and they did that with your honor just like if i was in the us but your honor they did in the sense of what i'm saying is as a legal matter the effect of standing up and objecting to it in court versus saying nothing versus saying that you're finally what the courts are doing the objection is different than those other two which really do you think support it's already in a support and then what is addressing that approach you read this language specifically what he's addressing the unique factual situation where party is within the statute and then the question is does it get disqualified by the statute by doing nothing so their vote already counted in terms of right on your own i mean there's different ways of reading that as to whether additional support to be weighed in but i think what he's doing there is invoking his k f on the point that what's going on in s f is a cast aside for that task and says that as long as you've indicated support and you answer every single fact that he says exists in that case he doesn't focus on that never has the focus from the fact that they had first checked the box that support the whole thing and application a whole paragraph every detail of it is about after footnote thirty seven on my minimum at best the role of parties opposing or not supporting the petition or responding questionnaires is similar to the role of opposing or neutral parties in litigation who must reluctantly respond interop the tories or other administrative proceedings a party that takes no position both the first questionnaire and the second questionnaire is taking action that's probably give off position because in this administrative proceeding as everybody knows that counts as opposition online sh court provision whether it expressed support or not in a questionnaire response the questionnaire response contains that very specific question do you support a view of what is your aims both preliminary and final questionnaire language and imposed a participatory test this court said no that's wrong because of the statutory requirement for an expression of support it's constitutional with the kavya that there had been further active participation in the proceedings there's no question about that there's no question about that in this k f there's no question that k f was applied by judge raina in the end when he m the same thing as saying we all we adopt only what you say the first time around as the very next sentence from for example if it produces expression of support in the political and in the response to the plenary questionnaire is crucial to determinations in the so for the commission's purposes and that's what we are getting shaped sunni's the peats the preliminary determination was no different substantively in that sense than the final determination of core beliefs different and that's what the basis decision on had you x out of the opinion the sentence that says the statute plain language does not require the producer indicate an expression of support other than through a letter or by phone in response it states that supporting producers are those who submit letters in response to that is absolutely correct and that is consistent with shaping gets to the point i was making at the outset of this rebuttal the rule in our favor doesn't require doing violence to the opinion it requires you to harmonize a very set up as we've discussed today in the way you do so if you apply t and you recognize that when the court in the few instances emphasize that shape indeed had a plymouth barely registered for it but that is consistent with the panel's decision next is there evidence that protruded of support or opposition checking that box happen to underscores he is referring to one important circumstance and the key there is as judge rayna and a panel of aside the surrounding circumstances the government position would do away with any inquiry into surrounding circumstances because the only circumstance that would ever matter that would truly have dispositive significance and in fact the government says posit significant page forty of their briefs is did you check the box no other surrounding circumstances matters once you say even now and check do not support that also is said is that that is what the stats the clear language of the statute fire and then to determine whether there is in fact any other factor that's when you look at the surrounding circumstances and that he needed to say that the panel needed to do that too to reconcile also i think i think we win also and the fact that the recognize that there's really no difference between the initial investigation and the final destination is important to emphasize that the final investigation after is just as important as that initial questionnaire if the doesn't issue a final ruling then there are no distributions to be had and so to suggest that shays sydney taking no position there candied ignored because it answered yes on the