ok i have some questions for you normally i wouldn't be asking you i'd be asking the crawfish processors alliance if they're not here and they raised a jurisdictional question so i'm going to let both requirement to exhaust remedies so and you might as well look at it and light a boomerang t and other words doot doot do you believe there was jurisdiction in the c i t i think periodic administrative reviews does this preference for contemporaneous mass support commerce the selection of oceanic the commerce selected financial statement oceana's report is usable it can't yell you cannot use either before a major problem with it are are you talking about you're arguing about the lack of break of nonintegrated respondents what agency president supports this and she didn't cite any authority in that state with  if we disagree with you regarding the surrogate financial ratio issue do you concede that your argument about recalculating ocean flavor separate is moo sorry ok now if we disagree with you regarding the surrogate financial ratio issue ok do you agree with me that your argument argument about recalculating ocean flavors separate rate would be irrelevant it wouldn't apply any more surrogate the oceana report from south africa what were the defects in your view with that report that made that report last reliable then the distortion with the t i tease opinion that the judge says why shen did not present to commerce in the first instance its argument about mitt possible misallocation of overhead expenditure inflation of the amount for raw materials by some amount unspecified amount for the cost of goods purchased for trading or the in comparability of oceana groups business and production experiences w certainly had noticed that commerce might rely on the ocean on a report while and it says well why should p s argument it did not take an opportunity to raise all the arguments they raised and now raised to this court and then the court cited two boomerang tube with which i referenced before rejecting appellants argument attempt to raise arguments that had not been exhausted before the agency so my question is how do we get to even hear this argument we have this is from united states v my tech we have explicitly held quote help that exhaustion is not strictly a jurisdiction requirement and therefore the c i team may waive the requirement of the court failure exhaust with respect to the any distinction between the new shipper of you and the administrative review because commerce had affectively treated the two reviews at the administrative level as not just aligned but combined for all  administrative review that's that exhaustion and mr remedies is still a requirement with respect to subject specific arguments and so we did exhaust our we did argue the exhaustion issue with respect to the double counting in manufacturing only one in relevant part only one argument with respect to the oceana report which was the alleged basket cost of sale and so with respect to that argument that argument there was no failure exhausted which months and it further found that relying on those type statements it could do so but it would require congress to depart from its methodology and valuing all the overhead ratio in contrast when compared to the ocean expenses and what it does is it has a cost of sales basket category which includes materials when expenses but further down on the spreadsheet of breaks out materials and labor and expenses and energy excuse and revise it and she is  any weakness and in disaggregation and materials labor and expenses was not material for their purposes in the overhead ratio the personal overhead ratio equals a total cost of over hot overhead divided by