has before is the three cases for oral arguments before we can we'd like to recognize the contribution being made today by judge matthew conelly who is the judge of the district court from the northern district of illinois who simply doing double duty here to sit with our court and be a part of this panel we sank him so that's really argument first in the appeal number thirteen twenty six from two thousand and seven committee for fair be did or were or would not i thought the whole question here was a prospective judge in a prediction about what would happen in the future forever is one of the issues that  there's a statement in the ninety's in the commission's opinion that page twenty two of their opinion which is page two twenty six of the appendix where they observe the japanese prick would produce a report exports to china peaked particular year well before the chinese transition why isn't that close enough i mean they address that the that the report that the exports peaked which means that they've gone that right it's an issue we think in terms of the time for the whole time i went to china become an dramatic fall off with respect to japanese exports to eight hundred i think it's i think that the commission among other things said that since the fall off preceded china becoming in that export or that the purported cause and effect just wasn't there if that sound the fact that they don't then discuss the data in the later era doesn't seem to be a flaw or a serious omission at all cause an effect it seems like it's quite important when the fall off started if you're ascribing the fall off to the change in status of china to a net export you know the way the way i read this passage that we're talking about here is that they're saying that it fell off before it didn't have any effect and then they essentially take that and say that there's no reason to expect that anything different is going to happen in the future they may have skipped over a specific mention of the specific little bit of evidence that you're talking about but it seems to me that they significance isn't the real significance the change the degree and rate of change in from importing to export and trying it went from being a net importer of ten thousand tonnes in one year to a net exporter of ten thousand tonnes in the next year nobody would be arguing that that's a significant effect right even though it became in that export at that point what do you have by way of evidence that there is a massive change in the chinese situation in going from imports exports that necessarily would have the effect of putting the japanese and them but nevertheless the commission looked at what the korean producers were doing with regard to export asia is keeping up with the chinese increasing production then there's no effect assuming the trends are producing again and i mean one of the points made by the commission was that there was a defective balance of of demand and production right and i think our response that was when they looked at that issue to look at the most critical evidence which would answer the question of supply and demand is what is allowed in for reactors and i thought they didn't look at that they discussed that at some of the tween the japanese and korean markets versus the us market as well as the us vs other well what is your point that they gave too much weight to the earlier periods instead of giving overwhelming weight to the short later period that you're highlighting that they are pointing at first that that gap that what happened at the end of the review period was significant it was much larger than any they also had a ability to shift among various export markets and so the question is will that course they could have done it if not disputed that they could have done it the dispute is whether there was reason to believe they would do it in some mean overlook i started to know a lot of trouble understanding how you you act as if they excluded the evidence they refused to weigh it in their complex analysis not i don't see any basis for that in our contention is not  from the record your honor our contention is that when you have that type of evidence on the record it goes to the heart of the issue they are required to comment on this test works and all tested for the last sugar that they can simply ignore it i can ignore the elephant in the room sort of thing is this was an element this was so big that that it overcomes any argument about preferences for domestic dick and supply domestic supply being the driving force once you have a price disparity is so great shows that the underlying merits decision had to be wrong to get some kind of resolution what's your response to what was living there there are two i that that question is well well put there to oppositions are i think the court to keep them on first of all very heavily will we have the decision we've read it we can refer back to it you don't need to try to summarize it all for us the his point seemed to be that despite all the things they did saying all the things they did discuss were the important things and all the things they didn't discuss were the un important things but that doesn't tell us why the things shane cited have to be viewed by us as an important well first of all we balance of supply and demand in asia partly due to china going to force a change in supply of what the iraqis who looked at this from two standpoint first of all with important question why because of the commission points out at the beginning of its opinion it was the supplying balance in asia in ninety ninety eight that created the problem in the first place so it's an important question secondly they not only addressed specifically the why because there's a certain amount of tension here between the power between councils asserting that charter you have to look specifically at china is putting create entropy and out of the asian arctic sea look to boat because there is a tension there you can't they they recognize the korean japan are part of a great greater asia that's where their markets are now is with the arabs they specifically analyze with respect to japan and they was significant to asia and you know what after the transition in two thousand and four not much change when you refer to their or their exports to asia again we don't suggest that you look at the specific today the second thing they did is is they have not taken into account the price premium testified to by required by respondent by or by their offices and that number which is a public number is twenty to forty fundamental issues which has never been mentioned by petitioner which is the critical factor of the importance of short supply in in determining whether there is going to be an increase in airports and that was what they focused on when they said you know things such as freight cars for example your honor preferred i asked the critical issue because prior price gas were not sufficient to overcome those sort of hindrances to export and therefore price gaps don't matter which is what that included doesn't bear on the question of what happened at the end of the review period when those price gaps became substantial which was never addressed by the commission  to china fell off dramatically from the two thousand and four two thousand and five period and that's the critical period that needs to be looked at because the question is what effect is that emergence china's emergence going to have on the subject producers the fact that you know the number of years earlier exports may have tapered off somewhat doesn't address that question in addition on the korean side i believe th pushing them out of asian markets into europe for example and other markets because they've got a fine new outlet for this great amount of production that what good is the to avoid  information you might be able to give me this in a kind of rough approximation what is the difference between the price differential during the period you focused on the recent the most recent of