thank you ma'am please the court we are here on behalf of she on federal because we believe that the st single reason the serve the value of low carbon steel which we believe is inflated our margin about fifty percent so we had a seventy two percent in the final results and we believe fifty percent of that was from this single decision where the department selected a value from zero carbon steel which is the majority of the steel used in the nails that was twenty six percent higher than  fourteen benchmark prices that we put on the record and so it's it's x that's a very high number for a commodity steel and you can see the massive impact it had on the company's margins and so what i'd like to do is cited not brief indicates that when you can make a linkage between the government distortion and the inflated values you have a case that the department has to reconsider its service value selection and so without turning to the that they're generating revenue by insisting that importers pay the highest indicative price from a previous period so the thai authorities interest is in generating revenue by maintaining the highest possible prices based on previous quarter benchmarks that they call indicative prices and so it's not logical that they would only go after two products in a huge range of products and we have the evidence and the benchmarks as well so i mean i don't would suggest the standard is a lot lower to just regard the tie in works and for example in multiple respects but if you look to turn to page twenty eight of our create what congress has done for thailand they found some generally available export subsidies available to exporters when they export from thailand and he said because some companies in some products were once found to be subsidizing their exports we're going to disregard all thai exports for ever as surrogate value import in other words having found distortion once for a few products they've now tainted exports with it for all exporters of all products and their values will forever be disregarded by the department and that practice exists to this day and so that and the problem is it's government interference now there's another context for this where if they find government subsidies on a financial statement the congressional intent says if you have reason to believe or suspect government enter into interference we will just regard the financial statement in congress has almost a blanket rule to disregard all financial statements with any evidence of subsidies so i had a case that i lost when we had zero for the subsidy of the indian case where there was a patent credit and i said but it's zero and the court said we don't care proves the government was interfering in the gun company's operations and that's the reason to believe or suspect standard and so that's a very low it's not substantial actually a lower standard in similar contexts where there's government interference in the market for financial statements and all tie exports and so we're saying why don't they also use that standard for tight imports when we have these u reports against ukraine in the philippines which were our alternative surrogate countries so why aren't those forces better than a country where there's pervasive interference in imports to specifically to raise the values and collect additional revenue so that's our argument but even the lower courts will not rule specifically on the us your reports on the work lines central evidence to us said when you link the government interference to the higher prices compared to various benchmarks then there is a cause for a premium and we think that you know that in that case for example is jacoby cited on page fourteen and follow the direction you're trying to go and how how do we keep ourselves from having to evaluate the political temperature and the official on this record there's a u s t r report about thailand and not about the other countries so we're paying attention to the u s t r which is a government agency that is expert in evaluating distortion and this distortion goes towards increasing the import values to but at this time they were the only company with all these reports it was u s t r it was fed ex and it was the commerce department export edition having all the serious concerns about the thai import values and we back that up with the benchmark information that's listed on page see that most of the that part of the chart is all the biggest type producer of steel wire rot in thailand it's a domestic price starting at six hundred and thirty five dollars for loads carbon steel now the bottom four come right operating from thailand why are you assigning to them metal as raw material costs twenty six percent higher than what would be available from the largest steel producer in thailand so that's a we feel it's a very persuasive benchmark  and it's actually you know with respect to the bottom four numbers even a little bit adverse west does include some high carbon steel so that's why we think that low carbon quote at six hundred and thirty five is much more relevant i'm going to see the international trade that the generalized concerns or concerns with respect to cigarettes and alcohol that were posed and the reports were not enough to constitute a reason to believe her suspect there was something are subsidizing with respect to these specific products and this is because this issue i'm not sure of this i've not sure that there are any other cases that are currently pending in which this issue is being argued however i know that there were several court of international trade decisions within the last few years dealing with this issue and i believe basically all of them stated that these generalized concerns were not enough that congress is determination that these generalized concerns were not enough to render the  brief but i would also turn the court's attention to one recently issued decision that we did not cite in our brief from the court of international trade is that decision came out subsequent to our response pretty thin that case or in this present case and that case would be good job of explaining that these generalized concerns are concerns as to other products does not constitute specific and objective evidence supporting a reason to believe or suspect that the ties that i as to steal imports was distorted w to certain situations i don't believe they went into much specificity as to the actual evidence at hand in their briefs but where commerce disregarded or excluded certain export data because commerce had reason to believe or suspect that that that the in fact that the that the data was subject to subsidies subsidizing or dumping and again this is the same standard that commerce would apply here which is a reason to believe  suspect and i don't believe john here is contesting their reason to believe the suspect standard and i don't think this court has necessarily articulated what exactly a reason to believe or suspect means but commerce has and the trial court has established that the reason to believe or suspect must be established by particular specific and objective evidence and here there is no particular or specific evidence that these tie customs constitutes specific or objective evidence that the issue in this case is unreliable and i do want to move to john trying to tie that to the alleged aberrant issue in this see all is put on the record and which calmer and congress again specifically went through each of these sets of benchmark data and determined that they were not even appropriate benchmarks to measure the  disputes against as a result there was no finding of apur and c made and did not put any evidence forward to show that even if the johns number of twenty six percent higher is true that that would in fact demonstrate see in fact the court of international trade has stated that commerce would find average see in a situation where the present hand is many times higher than other benchmark prices and here we're talking about twenty six percent one and a quarter times where is even the cases john cites are we're dealing with things that are i think two thousand three hundred percent higher or three times higher which is three hundred percent higher so the order of magnitude is going to ok no i'm referring to  the pure bearing and the jacoby hartman's cases that john cited and again with regard to those cases i think there is another point i'd like to bring up with respect to the data from the other countries that john offered up as benchmarks regardless of whether those benchmarks that a countries war economically comparable or not one key factor is that at least for i think two of the three sets of data china itself which is the home market we're dealing with here was part of that data set and it would be inappropriate for a commerce to rely on benchmark out a for which is the home market that we're trying to figure out the normal value for is actually part of the d and which is also on the market economy country and again congress is required to use market economy on trees to try to determine a normal value so as i said there is no indication of abernethy even if you take john metals twenty six percent and the benchmark that offered at face value but there's no reason to even do that here because commerce made of reason determination as to why each of these sets of data were not reliable or appropriate  and i would just like to finish up by talking a little bit about the specificity of the inputs again commerce is accorded wide discretion in valuing factors of production and determining the information so even if it is john might disagree or even if the court might think there is a different way that commerce could have evaluated the factors of production the only standard is that a reasonable mind might accept commerces determinations or reasoning is adequate  and this is something that this court has held and the trial court has always implemented and here is john is essentially asking this court to really weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the agency which it should not do he commerce went into actually a very large amount of detail as to why that high data was more specific than the philippines that and the ukraine data and lot of that depends on the carbon content which congress has highlighted as an important factor determination was at least reasonable or supported by substantial evidence even if john might disagree and then i would also like to just finish up by saying that arguments with regard to the specificity of  responsibility is to determine which the best available information is for both respondents not just shown on and in fact i believe in this review stanley nails was in fact the one that recommended and put the tide out on the record for co consider finally i just want to point out quickly that the record here at lax syria get value data from the philippines in ukraine with regard to several other inputs that stanley consumed and  so again the tide out is the only one with surrogate values for both respondents material and puts and with regard to the ukraine commerce did state that it was not just the specificity although that was an issue that the ukraine metal studiously ignores the existence of stanley but they were are you know one of the to respond as who's inputs needed to be valued and as congress pacifically noted in its decision the information for ukraine and the philippines did not contain values for all  inputs and in fact the inputs included a very important one commerce facility called out copper coated welding wire which is fundamental to how one of the main types of of the subject merchandise is actually a factor i'd like to shift gears briefly  the claim that the tie why rod values are aberrational they are not it is true that on average the type of values that congress use are twenty six percent higher than the benchmarks that she put on the record but i will note that even within the benchmark values that she  put on the record those values differ by nearly thirty percent from six hundred and one dollars from measure time to seven one hundred and ninety dollars for metric and also the cases that are relies on the two jacoby cases are fundamentally different in those cases the values it issued were three to four thousand percent greater then than the benchmark values and also in a nd case it was three hundred percent greater plus converse at evidence from the of these sort of values in the past two reviews that was also fundamentally  o comment more on on the u s he reports but on specificity just as an overarching matter which we argued regardless of whatever specificity there may be in the tie data if they are average and they are distorted it doesn't matter how just how specific they are you can't overcome that by being and that speaks to other smaller issues in both records in ukraine and philippines but more importantly with the detail as we've argued at length in our brief that type of detail the carbon is not supported by by stanley and by metals that that model specificity matters in our purchasing we did discuss stanley in our brief yes we put more emphasis on our own client but stanley purchases low carbon steel and they provided one of the ranges that they purchase out there but the they say that they purchase low carbon steel as do us and condoms which lay out the product specifications for this product only specify a low carbon steel under point twenty five dollars the purchasing materials of our downstream customers when they're buying nails from us they're not asking for point ten to point twelve in our steel content that level of specificity is not supported by the record as mattering what matters is whether it's low carbon or not and for that case you do have ukraine both metal export which the apartment has relied on  our specificity is not in these little incremental overlapping carbon content and then again even with those issues specificity doesn't overcome and i'm going see and a distortion we were discussing u fair amount before just to be clear you know we're not saying they need to make a bright line rule that tiling can never be used we're saying thailand when you have something more you have these u s t r reports and you have something more you the something were there the values were three times they're right used do you think that's a distinguishing you know that case it wasn't one it wasn't all of the it was a few different inputs it wasn't the major raw material it wasn't a commodity price when you're looking it's a commodity price like this is that what's driving our entire the entire margin difference as my colleague said it's about double because of this twenty six percent increase this is different than if you have a case with a bunch of different chemicals a bunch of different raw a ban or they're all in a range so much lower we didn't provide just a very cherry pick variety of things we provided major world benchmarks for the department relies on in countervailing cases from international sources we provided domestic sources in thailand itself export prices from thailand prices in the other circuit countries this is a wide variety of prices on the record that are all showing that this tie source is much higher than all of these other prices  large realm of information that's on the record showing that twenty six percent for a commodity price is a major difference and also i wanted to correct a point with the u s to your reports they are not specific to alcohol and cigarettes that's the record with the whole report you can look at what sources they reference for this annual report they put on trade barriers it's a it's a government agency the whole role is to be involved in our trade and they put in a very serious allegation  getting dismissed as a speculative concern it can be this is the u s government saying thailand you're manipulating your import values or putting this in our annual report every year this is should not just be dismissed as a general concern that's not happening on this record you have that right and you have all these different benchmarks ultimately palmers hasn't considered the breath of information on this case instead they keep dismissing