standard for the investigation has everything to do well the standard for the investigation has everything to do with it in the spirit of the investigation change in december of two thousand and six now is the point and there were prior to the surgery i think you're missing through asked as it relates to that particular important on the foot it that way rather than change in midstream and if they change in ministry how can they tell which way things are going because you're now comparing apples and oranges well with all the risk that the investigation involves pay particular set of time whether it was before the year was around or after the around and that sets the order itself once the were a set the administrator reviews are conducted based upon entries gurning the most recent period of time the regional investigation has absolutely no bearing on how human history review is conducted with the compelling commerce apply this same methodology in every case in an initial investigation and it will straight review well that is not our argument or our argument is that that all the time or at least my colleagues claim now i have a defense that maybe the government doesn't have with kids my hands are his there's no law requires me to be reasonable i take it under sharper and there is some sort but now we are forced by other circumstances by other policy considerations to go the other way a circumstance in which we have little control so therefore it is reasonable that we maintain the position we have here to throughout that's reasonable this is again i won't bring up course to you but this is i think this is the ad issue that was raised and the most recent quiesce case that was before the square and it's the same before us the question we were wrestling with and that is how can there be a different interpretation of six hundred seventy seven paragraph thirty five in additional investigation compared with an administrative review well that this statute it's a big u s therefore the chevron deference applies to the agencies interpretation of that statute and the and the agency is free to provide an explanation and indeed we inherently inconsistent with that is there not what no and in fact that is exactly the question that the court took up in the most recent course decision in which the court did not issue a published opinion that's exactly the same issue that was before the court  procedure ault way in which this issue was raised so i think as both of you know offer a rationale for why you should be allowed to use one interpretation of the statute for the first step in the calculation process that is for the initial investigation and then when you come back later in time to evaluate exactly the same set of questions is this palmer's change just methodology with respect to investigations was to come into compliance with our obligations at the debits yeah that was the reason ok there was no is that because your is the government's position that that is a legal basis for the government's position that it can take there's reasonable for the government to take a different position with respect to zero and with respect to administrative reviews and a different moment investigations and if so was ok if the first answer i find that it should be doing what it's doing for investigations but the only right because the statutory basis for both is the same right right and is that is that not correct this century definition is the same but if if  you to continue to hear the question is not whether it's reasonable for you to continue your because we have warm so that it was reasonable for you to do that the question we're now asking is well if you've changed your mind and you don't want to zero anymore and we've said well ok well ter that's a reasonable position to the question is can you hold both of those as add up to a booty what is the different purpose it's different the different purpose as stated by commerce and one twenty three determination for investigations was to come into compliance with an average that meets your report and that is  rating that the decision not to zero is unreasonable except for the fact that you were forced to do no that's that's not what we're saying what we're saying is the reason that congress gave as to why it's reasonable is that congress was complying with section one twenty three and one twenty nine of the statute and changed its germination based upon its political branches decision to implement an adverse difference because we're talking about the same statutory provisions and the government's inter converses interpretation of the state stepped down provisions means that there was really no distinction well being of course if you recall that that was the government's view in that case it was the government's feel that it's that and now we'll see us hold up the circumstances here well i'd like to put that into a little bit of context to the issue important why and as presented by chorus was whether  zeroing was was prohibited as a matter of chevron one by the statute so we already had to get and we knew that we were in chevron to territory in tempe and but of course presented the issue to the court as this is totally different this is a chevron one issue it's prohibited on the face of the statute and what we said and what i think the court agreed with is that you know this is still a shock right to issue so to gain by the court for that purpose and yes at the time since we were doing it the same way we argued that it that we have the same reasons it's obviously reasonable that you're saying it's reasonable for commerce to take the exact same statutory provisions in circumstances which the government has long argued are essentially  the interpretation was the same for the different procedure as i don't think that we have knowledge that investigations and reviews are identical and i don't even think the court or the court held that in chorus but it's the first acknowledge investigation in the review you were arguing that those are the same statutes ought to be interpreted in the same way with respect we were views and you changed your position we have not even not changed our compliance with the w t o a change that's cracked so that's the rationale that that it's the same statute it's the same provision it's the same issue to be determined in both initial investigations in administrative reviews but the in investigations it's a reasonable interpretation of the statute being and it ministre different views and it's a reasonable interpretation to take the same statute and apply it differently in those two different circumstances that's correct and secondly do you have any cases you can give us because i don't think you cited it cases and read of them that the cases you talked about here are cases what's your best support for a lot of government to take that position and what friends with with said that congress can interpret for like product it didn't say that it can't interpret it differently for different for different purposes what it said is what you've done commerce is not provide a reasonable enough explanation go back and do that i congress went back and did that and congress commerces multiple interpretations were sustained so i don't i don't see how s k f harms us at all in fact i think it helps that chevron which again involves an agency ultimately the agency was taking a universal view of the particular definition at issue but along the way the point was that the agency had taken a different interpretation had different interpretations  i don't think it makes a difference whether congress is using the same or different methodologies and the same set in the same proceeding in fact that they have talks about the fact that the one twenty three and one twenty nine process can lead to that very congress using one kind of methodology in one segment of the proceeding and then changing it to come into compliance with that with the deputy zero report and then you have two different you're trying to hold two concepts at the same time in the same proceeding think of it this way if we were to bring fog let me back up even one step beyond that let's assume i cannot hold with two different ideas simultaneously this if they can't justify having two different interpretations in one way to get there would be to say well maybe these people are really your grandfather  reading practice because in and we could ask because the initial investigation started under the old rule or the cause the fin all what is called the final water in the in the end of the administrative review it is in a final order isn't that what it's called one could say if the initial investigation is under one regime that all the later investigations should stay under that even if you change your policy on the one twenty t were you could say only if the final results come then before the new policy comes into effect now in their case their final determination came down a month after but everything else may proceed does the government think any of those grandfathering concepts have relevance or do you want to stand on the earlier position  finally interpreted you to be did i make any sense in that question if i'm understanding the question and i don't think that the grant this grandfathering principle would make any difference and i think the reason is that the way that at least with respect to change changing methodology is in response to that and nothing about changing methodologies for some other reasons but it with respect to this issue yet congress is balanced by the statute implementation of honor we approach this very differently and i'd like the court's indulgence we think there is only one interpretation of sections thirty five b and that interpretation is that the statute in its plain language requires the commerce department to use zero in this case in every case and i am going to go through this quickly as you know but we you would agree at least with the tone of the questions here which is reasonable for another question is do you bet that there is any basis for taking the same provisions in the statute that are applicable to dumping martin those terms that are applicable to us to investigations and also to administrat any basis for quite a different interpretation to those statutory terms in different terms or any legal or policy basis well i think the i think it's very clear that the position of the government is permissive statute that it does it that this particular section of the statute gives the agency latitude to choose and if the agency had a reason to basis then yes they could take different positions but i think  question is not whether it's permissive in congress can take different position question is can they take different positions at different phases of the same proceeding the initial investigation and the administrat do they could abandon zeroing in investigations but continue to zero the administrative reviews definitely but i would like to demonstrate to you how the plain language of the statute requires the department to engage in zeroing in every case and rebuttal thank you for and we get three minutes but if you need a little bit more time given the fact that we gave the other side a little more time that's fine too but try to give a brief visit the court clearly under since the issue that's actually over asking for cited for that proposition the answer to that by the way is no the second thing is that this court is interested in well inconsistent interpretations are contemplated with respect to implementation that is