require a response to such just care of germany to acquire cost information on finished products that it purchased from the one affiliates competitor in germany i don't know why but me not quite i not able to do so so the commerce department then on its own initiative asked for the data from the competitor which in turn supplied information to the department of commerce directly so that the initial request was for us to do is a hypothetical question the commerce posed as its reason was that if in fact the un affiliated calls data do not give sufficient data to completely cover the costs then we should not be able to use those purposes for the united states so it's not really a proper requirement for that sale unrelated to dumping to be applied to the to the x s k f export price calculations means to distinguish which products in that container are subject to the any dumping or would be manufactured in germany to exclude products from poland which are not subject to and have a dumping order so that becomes a customs issue but for the anti dumping purposes of calculating s t s at a dump in margins those products polish products would not be included in the german products produced by the un affiliated supplier become subject merchandise for argue congress doesn't have the authority under the law because the ne dumping law is is created to remedy price discrimination that injures us and astri one of the remedies for that that the law s impose is to have foreign companies that are dumping remedying their pricing so they're no longer in the us if they can't do their they can't completely do it i just want duties and polls to make up the difference that calculation and th right to try to eliminate your dumping margins is dependent on presenting your own cost and pricing information the law prefers that the information on the books of the company be used to the extent possible for making that decision and that's consistent with the overall purpose of the law which is to give parties the right to control their export pricing to the us subject of dumping to try to eliminate when you're superimposing data not in the control of us which the company cannot see the attorneys cannot see until after it's been submitted you are using data from a totally unrelated supplier to calculate the information in the calculations dumping a particular point because we're going to everybody not not at that point the way that would be accounted for in this company was subject to the same review that company would have its own reporting requirements to the united to home market sale for the company the commerce department in calculating that company's dumping margin will treat that sale as part of the home market sales for that company calculated the dumping margins for that company it would not be seventy seven twenty eight is that export or or produce or the term means the export or the producer or a combination of the both the two together to the extent necessary for congress to calculate e rs that do not produce merchandise but there is a close relationship with the producer and commerce in sulphur and several of the other cases that the only cases cited by the by the government is found in these situations they have to go to the producer because there's no there's no control and there's not enough information to get to the other side of the equation but in situations where you have competing producers and exporters in the supplier situation there's no reason to go your right to have your calculation of your margins or your liability is based on your investigation and the fact that there is another supplier in the country that makes the same variance and may in fact sell some variance to you does not give the commerce department the right to not base its decision on the basis of the company's own information that they reviewed it my company require us to calculate a margin based on my company's activities and  does not have the authority to use my competitors information that we have no control over it we cannot factored into our pricing because the company has no idea what the pricing cost or that it's provided to the commerce department it's a fundamentally unfair process that they're a specific information for the company being investigated not information from  your starting in the second paragraph on page five thousand and two commerce first starts talking about the relative in significance i'm in the middle of the paragraph of sales of merchandise purchased from an affiliate at some pliers for some company then later on the second and the next page five thousand and three in the middle paragraph with respect to s k after germany commerce determines that a substantial proportion of its u s sales and some were sales of merchandise produced by an affiliated suppliers and in that instance commerce to terms that determined that it it may become necessary to use as the basis for normal value and we should require the respondents to provide the c v that's congress first step and minutes determination and this review of course now commerce in the in the previous review indicated to the parties that it might take this step in this memorandum constitutes the first step in this review or who have had an insignificant number of sales from other suppliers it might not be appropriate to to disregard the cost about was it but for those companies like s k f that had a substantial proportion of bearings from another supplier there's there's absolutely no transparency into what the cost of production is the reason why commerce changed its methodology here is because in situations where where a significant proportion of sales is coming from what the actual cost data is now and i think it's very important that congress makes a distinction between those companies who are getting an insignificant proportion of their of their bearings from other suppliers versus a substantial proportion from fifteenth review obviously commerce has been doing doing it one way for the first fifteen were in the fifteen third view one of the domestic producers alerted commerce to potential problem that some companies were getting a substantial proportion of their sales from other suppliers so commerce looked into it and determined that with they were too far into the fifteenth review to make any change but then in the future they would start asking what the what the  significance of the percentage was for the for the different exporters and then congress began answer the congress began asking the question and of course in this review they asked the question and some exporter said know during the this is the seventeenth administrative review the parties first got noticed that this change was coming in during the fifteenth administrative review and remember well it sort of what commerce said was we're thinking this this issue has been brought to our attention by tim can we're thinking of changing it we can change it right now one of the reasons why we're not going to change it is because it looks like it's not going to make a significant difference anyway because the percentage of sales acquired by other suppliers probably isn't that big but beyond notice that this is something that we're going to do in the future and then of course the request from commerce to anyone who requests every review applies to anyone who requests to review their request is please tell us what proportion of your sales you get from other bottom of the page the big second paragraph commerce addresses s k f arguments regarding the inability to acquire this information and i think that's what your honor is getting at  right and commerce raises the same arguments that we put forth in our brief this information is available to us as counsel this information was attainable i mean it was obtained in this ascap references and it's brief now there was an additional inquiry regarding and application of adverse facts available but the reality is that commerce was able to obtain commerce and or s k f together were able to obtain th information and both of the reviews so it really doesn't seem to be that much of the problem that involves a wholesale change in methodology with respect to commerce is reseller analysis and in that instance commerce issued a federal register notice of a change and practice  fifteenth review this was provided to all the parties on the record in that review and it signaled a change in methodology that actually didn't occur until two years later that's that significant notice and of want to take away time from the intervenor but i would like to make one comment about zeroing in with your we submitted a notice of supplemental authority late last week and we apologize for doing it late the reason why we did it is we wanted to raise it just briefly today the court as he has heard many many zeroes in cases over the years it's always been our position over the past few years that there's absolutely nothing new for the court opposition to the terminology really because when the fifteenth or if you i was the one that went to commerce and and convinced them to go get these data where it was appropriate to do so and i did that in a meeting w explained what covers this practice was and there are a number of cases where commerce has done this a lot of these cases of course are cases where it's pretty obvious you have to do it like for example in the cases that involve situation like this where you had a an export a who did some other producing and did some of the other stuff that he sold was was purchased so that too is really not new what is new of course is commerce of application in this case that's true your honor but there's no getting around the fact that the statute says that the first item enough cost of production and the first element of constructive value is the cost of fabrication and processing and then the only the only place to get that really is a with the company or the entity that actually is doing the producing now it can be that in a number of circumstances the acquisition cost can be presumed presumed to incorporate all these costs but i think and a normal course of events i would say maybe not so particularly in the case and a context of these cases where congress has made numerous findings with the god to all of the major producers that they sell below cost in the whole market so the idea that automatically per se the these investigations yet has a smaller product line but still has customer needs around the world for certain variants of the mole person produces in germany and so it acquires these products from there but the facts and seventeen are no different than the facts and sixteen fifteen fourteen when they allegedly found out that there might be an issue but there is no there is no issue and i think that goes to the question of the you know affiliated cost calculation that there used to be carefully cost itself there is a good these bearings in the united states and everywhere else so there is absolutely no incentive for it to give us a beneficial price that would lauriski costs only on the foreign market side this is not me or this is the agriculture cases where you have a reseller and a producer but the seller does not have access to any cost information that's the only legitimate place that commerce has applied this this policy and in other reviews the other thing is it  does put companies like s k f in in some jeopardy in the eighteenth review it was mentioned by the government's counsel the s k have in that review again could not get the cost data from the supplier the commerce department asked for the information from the supplier the suppliers attorney gave the data to commerce three days after the deadline in which co data in time using the different issue than it is a different issue but it points out the vulnerability of a company in this situation because it has no control over its facts when congress is imposing these obligations that has no under a protective order and we did after it was submitted to the commerce department but that's a different situation than a company who's calculating how it sells its its products in the united states pursuant to a dumping order and calving control over the submitted to submission of its own information for its margins so it's not the same to an a p o does not solve the situation any p o allows us to look at submissions by other parties and criticize things that we think are an appropriate it does not have anything to do with our client civilian data that we have no control over so unless you have any other questions i'm s