upwards then leveled off and stayed at that high level for the rest of the period groff low also increased its prices to customers at the midpoint in order to pass along its higher costs so if grotty of commerce is trying to calculate an accurate dumping margin over the entire one year period clearly congress should avoid comparing us prices in the second half of the period to home market prices in the first half of the period or vice versa because it would lead to an apples to apples to oranges comparison but they didn't do that they did it quarter by quarter that is correct and commerce commerce got that part got what they got right was not dividing  do what happened was they chopped quarters one or two when there were significant increases in cost and quarters three in order for when it was almost zero increasing costs it's result they couldn't match they wouldn't allow matches between quarters three in order for sales or between quarter one and quarter two sales and that's where a client is injured here is because commerce has a rule for determining what is the best match so they can counter like the most accurate dumping margin call the nine hundred sixty rule what they'll start with is say for example that you've got a  me market sale and ape it's the last quarter of this period here rather u s sale in april what commerce will do is a first look to see what's the most identical match and see if there's one in april if not april the milko back after one month to march if not if nothing is identical in march to go back one more month to february if not then one more month to january if there's nothing three months before the month of the say us sales then they go one month forward in may one month forward further in june has a consistent with the statutory requirement do it on a monthly basis statutory requirement requires a month by month comparison and this is the regulation the congress hats and has had for many years as far as the this ninety sixty rule which is what they've done all the e we're not saying the nine hundred sixty rule is inconsistent with the statute what we're saying is that what commerce is the way commerce is filled in this gap in these gaps are is essentially arbitrary because what congress has decided to do is they said ok in a situation where there there is a big increase in costs we realize we can't we can't use just one annual period we commerce likes to use one annual period because smooth out any sort of random fluctuation cost and it gets kind of smoothed over and companies base their pricing decisions on the long run but companies also will increase their prices when there's some big event  and here there was one big event that occurred and the big event that occurred was in the midway point the period that was the only big event that occurred in terms of the costs and the price and so what happened here is is is they're not with within each of those have they're not coming up with the most similar in the most contemporaneous matches so you say luckily i'm saying that it's an obligation on commerce to look at the fluctuation and then to select a period which would be most favorable to the important not that it's most favorable but it least have one that's rational and non arbitrary that w quarter by quarter that what irrational about quarter by quarter is is the same reason that would be irrational for them in this case i mean our side of it could have imagine if congress decided ok we can't use one angle period so we're going to go with really oss in fact in october two thousand case ten case they did go with daily cost but that's not rational because that has a big downside to it as i mentioned before longer cost averaging period a short cost averaging period as explained in their may two thousand a federal register notice where they set forth their policy they prefer longer to shorter because it smoothed out the short term fluctuations so there's always a preference for that and in that may two thousand a policy they said there are certain situations in which we will go to a shorter cost averaging period it doesn't say there are situations where we will go when we go to a shorter cost averaging period will always go to a quarterly cost averaging period all we're saying is follow the evidence make the divisions where it makes sense in terms of a cost in the prices in this case don't just say don't pose a false choice say well if it's if it's not going to be anywhere what's going to be quarterly and we're just not going to consider any other alternatives so what won't send you a sense it makes more sense because that's the only place where there is a big increase in prices the prices between the second and third quarter here spiked thirty to forty percent so you are saying that they must look at how the prices change and then choose a period that was i'm not quite sure the cost of the cost i should say the cost in the cost increase between thirty and forty percent during that period and the prices did as well and so they know that they need to put a dividing line between the second and third quarter but between the third or fourth quarter you had a one percent increase in cost so what happened is you had we had situations especially cut using a semi annual period but because it's a quarterly period what congress did in says they had matched it to a little tanya instead because what this sounds like a great argument to make the congress which i guess you did but you know why is it our business it's your business because it's correct that that that you don't want to get into the nitty gritty details of everything congress does but you do have a responsibility to court to make here without giving a reason they didn't even analyze why semiannual is a bad thing or why that point to be missed more discord it after all the goal here is the most accurate dumping mar possible this or has said time and time again that's its goal but this process you don't always wind up with the most accurate dumping margin because you'll have a us fail in april of two thousand and eight that would normally match to a home market sale in march that can no longer match didn't match the one in march and why because of that spike in prices no there was no spike in prices between march and april or between thirty times or clean thirty or the fourth quarter it's one percent increase and it's entirely arbitrary just say ok we're going to create these four artificial divisions look at the data commerce knows how to look at the data commerce in some cases does look at the data there's an october two thousand and ten case where commerce chopped up the metal prices into daily c averaging they took the metal prices day to day to day because there was such a fluctuation they thought the evidence here really compels this and we're not saying you know that there is no argument for saying that the that that it doesn't compel it here but at least deal with the evidence and commerce congress does everything except deal with the evidence here they just simply say well because prices because the prices went up when it departs from the annual cost averaging it has a practice of using quarters unless orders are distortive and there was no record evidence in this case that quarters were just sort of that's how this case differs from the  the brash the brass case which posset this year discussed where they went to a daily period in that case it was determined that quarters would be distorted and that it would be better to use days that was a more accurate and it's true that commerce does have a general preference to use a longer period and it believes that in a stable market long periods are preferred because it's who's out differential but in the changing market shorter periods are more accurate and that's that's what co agency yes guess what what's wrong with the already what's wrong with their argument is that there were changes across all four quarters that's true the most significant were across were between the second and third but that's not the test the test says is that as long as there's a twenty five percent difference between across the annual period then commerce look to a quarterly cost averaging period it does i think they're saying are things going to apply twenty five percent test you should look to see whether it's twenty five percent difference between the two quarters and if there wasn't then you should use semiannual that's basically what they're saying isn't that's what they're saying but that's that's not the converse knows and it's the trial court it's reasonable for congress not to do that they exist and again the test is not is not that that there be twenty five percent of each quarter that there were twenty five percent over over the year and by going to quarters you're capturing that you're only comparing sales in that quarter so presumably the small pricing i don't think i'm saying that very clearly but it's certainly reasonable honor similarly converses comparison of u s sales on a quarterly instead of a ninety sixty day period is also supported by a lot converses regulation that defines the contemporaneous model says normally congress will look to the three months prior and then the two months subsequent but because the regulation says normally it's reasonable for congress when it goes from its annual to its quarterly cost man with elegy to limit the let me address a few of the points that the government just made they said first of all it's reasonable because there were changes across all four quarters so if i'm understanding them correctly they are saying that you know say say hypothetically that you had this big increase like like we had thirty to forty percent between quarters two and three but between quarters three and four instead of one percent increase we had a one percent decrease by commerce the annual approach if there's a twenty five percent difference in that then when we're deciding whether to use quarterly or semiannual e or something else we're going to see whether there's any difference and we're not going to say that between quarters three and four we have to find a twenty five percent difference in order that quarterly receiving any differences is enough so what's wrong with that what's wrong with it if you're not looking at the congress does is blinding itself what  agree that if there was one linear change twenty five percent from the beginning of the period a review to the end of the period or review that's fine go to court only cost i have no problem with that but that's not what happened here it wasn't one gradual increase it was it shot up and shot up at the midway point so what you're giving up is not what you're giving up to go to  averaging it's not worth the price that you pay and in less accurate matches and less contemporaneous matches and it's totally needless because you can know women that you're concerned about fluctuating costs by just having one semiannual period and that's what we're saying is unreasonable the fact they say well it's just going to be you know once we've decided to go short of cost averaging the period it's going to be orderly that's what they're saying now keep in mind that the regulation doesn't say that in fact to make two thousand a notice to say that they claim now that well that's our policy that we'll go to quarterly specifically but if you look at the actual may two thousand and eight notice where they set forth their policy it shorter cost averaging periods it doesn't say using quarterly cost after periods of commerce in its wisdom decided to limit it to to give itself discretion to consider the of the case and all this really boils down to is commerce needs to look at the facts of the case and congress knows how to do this commerce did this in the second half of the c r t opinion on a different issue commerce does  case now commerce also says well our policy is we go to quarterly unless it's distortive but the thing that they don't ever explain is even did the time distort it our point is it is distorted when you don't get the most contemporaneous matches and you don't get the most similar matches that's what the statute requires and that's what the nine hundred sixty rule is all about that's the source of the distortion and i don't know what else they want from us now the court of international trade below seem to say well give a specific examples we were prepared to give them the city examples i'd be prepared to give the court specific examples now we gave one example where you had macaroni compared to lose anya why because there was this artificial division between the third and the fourth quarter and would be glad to give you all the examples you want but i don't