work your honor that's exactly what i was going to spend my first paragraph explaining in my introduction i'm here on behalf of social and we've written a joint brief for them and since hard really to mandatory respondents on the appeal with me is my brokerage in handling in my eight minutes i was going to try to roughly evenly divide that time if i could if i could manage to do that and then i was going to reserve a few minutes for rebuttal and two minutes right up right a few minutes financial statements for the financial ratios and the brokerage and handling so thriving right in with the financial statements the department's principal practice for as long as i've been practicing since one thousand nine hundred two and earlier has always been to require that financial statements you use for the surrogate financial ratios overhead s g and a and profit come from a publicly available source and this is one of the most uninterrupted practices of the department that i've ever seen in my in my twenty years of doing this and when you i want to maybe just walk you very quickly through the history of this litigation because i think it undermines the department's credibility entirely they started publicly available statements well that simply wasn't true they never alleged that they got it there and we put a mountain of evidence on the record there pete made the effort to do that and we do the prince screens from the ministry of corporate affairs and proving that the statement was not completely available from the ministry of corporate affairs the key missing information is the income statement portion of the annual report and that's where they pull all the financial ratios from all the numbers on that page are used to calculate the financial ratio so the fact that that's not on the ministry of corporate not even involved in the server view and in the fourth review they signed it totally f a so they didn't make a decision about the financial statements it wasn't a focus of the briefing at all and the company was fighting for it so i was in their counsel at the time but you know they said you had some rescue the company and congress came out and verified those documents and gave them a margin and that's that's what we're arguing and so what we're saying is the first time this was ever a legitimate square issue it was focused  is in our view and they are five and there's a very wrong established principle of administrative law of the congress apartment that each segment each individual proceeding whether it's an investigational review or a subsequent view stands on its own and it's based on the record of that segment and so you can say whatever we did two reviews ago is fine and kind of jumping quite a bit of that in my outline if you look at the steel nails from china decision commerce you know we're involved in all those we did our job we went and looked for it and we can't find it so it's not publicly available he would lose discarding the statement and we're moving to another circuit country in fact because that statement is not publicly available so whether it was publicly available in the past  previous review is totally not the point if the commerce department is going to be a neutral arbiter of these disputes it has to do its due diligence when a party is rebutted the presumption of public availability and we did that and we showed the amps and ca web screenshots that it's not available congress didn't bother to check the screen shots like they didn't steal nails they just said no problem because they put it on the record because you had a chance to comment on it it's fine well then that would obliterate any definition of public availability because there's no such thing as a nonpublic document all you have to do is put the document on the record and the parties get a chance to comment on it i can put the u s military has nuclear codes on the record and the public documents because i put them on the record that's no standard at all it's clearly not the stair they applied and still nail ok saying commerce and preparing to remain results was presented with the question of determining whether to use the financial statements of a company that produce identical merchandise still grating what is financials were not publicly available or the financials or the financial statements of a company that produced comparables merchandise but their statements were available congress recently chose the latter commerce in still greats did its to diligence and said look if someone is rebutted the presumption of public availability the submitter of the information has to go back on the stablish how they obtain this  information and that is genuine and that really strikes at the heart of the whole issue the whole issue is is the statement reliable for the calculation of the financial ratios when it's been submitted to a government authority like the ministry of co e fear then it's deemed genuine and reliable this company's name says infinity modules private ltd it's a private limited come company under the indian companies act one nine hundred fifty six they don't have to publish publicly disclose their income statement in the ministry of corporate affairs or public records they can do it if they want to but they don't have to and they didn't in this case the other two companies we've argued for maxima limit it that means it's public and  was filed with the government if they you can't provide an annual report with those chops on it they will say it's not reliable on the go to your tax filing because the text file it was filed with the government they need an official source that is hundred percent reliable they didn't have one  inexplicable and for the judge to say was on the record about the comment what's the big deal misses the point that no one can say that the statements reliable it could have been provided to the petitioner in response to a request to buy the company hey we want to buy your company show us that you're good healthy doesn't misunderstand this these are other years other later years of max and max some of the companies we want to present what congress used was the zero six zero seven infinity there is no such later statement on the record from them and our contemporaneous period is zero eight zero nine so it's two that's another argument we made that you know contemporaneity is one of the criterion it's critical especially in this case where this is pretty recession but if this company intended for its status to be public why couldn't they get the contemporaneous statements like we got they couldn't even get one one year left and contemporaneous the only one they were able to recycle was a three year old statement so add all of these facts together we that i didn't get off the first page of my outline this is a sea change case for thirty years congress used the detailed verified reports of indian companies in dumping cases with thousands of lines of programming about their brokerage and handling companies i just want to make one more point about sense hardware for the first time ever in thirty years the judge threw them out of the circuit value this discussion in the court i've never seen two companies not get the same sort of value for a commonly used thing let's discuss these financial statements were acquired by the petitioner than an emetic industry joined if there are administrative review put on the record in that review they've been on the record in the third or fourth review in those reviews purpose of the rightly was fulfilled whether or not they were publicly available that the court didn't have any concerns with the reliability because these financial statements had been in the world for a long time and parties had an opportunity to comment  i could have a friend in the front office of a company who is ship me something in a brown paper bag and that would make it publicly available just because i got so what is it what is your position as to why it really is the six or seven period which is being used here but for a later period of time in response to that in that review the petitioner put the financial system that's at issue here so there were two infinity model for financial statements at issue which is typically we limit ourselves to this period of review was because we needed to understand where these fighters him and came from what was the origin of them and so that was why we did that so to the extent that there were arguments that it was improper example com temporary n e s nature or the weather the most comparable product that is that issue for this prangs the department explained that infinity furniture it's clear that there are manufacturing automobile parts primarily twenty eight of the twenty nine customers are automobile tough companies and there was really not a large dispute about that which was a manufacturer and there's appendix size that i can provide for this is all discussed by the trial court well and the various decisions that are at issue so this was it was it was publicly available the trial court did comment that even if it wasn't publicly available on an objective standard the court found that the purpose of the regulation to give parties the opportunity to comment and analyze the financial statements w availability what would not be publicly available since by definition we're talking about something that made its way into the record well i think in arm in this in the kind of fish farmers curious the the correct period of time so there is no clear evidence that they couldn't get the period over for the financial statement that's it being used for that year that they never asked for the correct year but yes they did ask for financial statements  infinity and were not on able to get them that's correct but that doesn't change the fact that the value our financial statements were obtained from trinity models a few years before ours was certified by the council a i believe it is but those financial statements have been on the record all along and as i said in the form of the ministry of review there were other financial statements from infinity modules that were placed on the record by by force and shandi and it just demonstrates that they were using infinity modules financial statements for different periods of time themselves that they found were useful so the pub with availability of infinity modules financial statements was never raised before this th way to try to attack that was through the public availability prai and in the court referred to it as a technicality who we it's our regulations that was the court's language that was a technicality that this was really something that that was  in this period of review to try to knock out these financial statements when they had that arouses on air here over your time unless there's any question of ok we'll hear from your  than a minute to follow up on this discussion of the infinity miles financial statements that the that the commerce department used infiniti my use financial statements in the first review second review their review and the in the third review of the when the the most current one available to us then was for the fiscal year ending two thousand and seven that was put on the record and since hardware it was a party to that case since hardware did not question the report at all the report was it was submitted by by me it was it had an auditor is report it the statement was audited it because the financial statements work they were challenged that were used rather in the third review since hardware commented on it did not question it and there was another party in the third review for whom the financial statements were use in calculating the margin in the fourth review involving fish on sunday first on sunday took the initiative of putting of infinity my use financial statement that was not for the period in the two thousand should not apply are oh that doesn't apply that means they're going to get a calculated margin they did not dispute what the financial ratios should be based not and they had every opportunity to question in the fourth review they put it in for the period ending two thousand and five which would have generated a very very low financial ratio number they were content with using if that purpose when we said well if they might use as a question from the line i think you answered if i understand your answer i thought the c i t actually said that there was a value to having the same  twenty three of our opening briefly claims we never raise the issue of shock and a quote in the middle paragraph in the middle of that paragraph of the end there is no official way for the department of the parties to corroborate the data when it is not independently publicly available even now the parties to not know the maybe i'll pick up on the point that mr i can send just finished and what the judge writes in refer to this reliance principle unfortunately we don't have that luxury in our area of practice because there's a special law in non market cases that says the department shall rely on the best available information on the record of the proceeding for the factors of production every proceeding has a different factual record and they have to decide what is the best available information is on that proceeding it's like if you've made a decision based on you know there's a victim in a decision from two years ago and now you're bound by that dictum in a new case five years later nothing that happened in the past can govern what is happening here and sense motion shandy was fighting for its life or adverse facts it didn't raise the issue it first of all none of those records and briefs are before this court or on the record before the lower court this is all characterizations but i'm just i think you can be sympathetic that phocians sunday was writing a brief on the major margin impact issue surprising it's data and so the issue of public availability was not joining it was not the focus and the and the congress specifically said we don't have to rule on the financial statements because we're given  completely different raw material so we don't accept at all that they're comparable and we think the judge completely missed the contemporaneity issue at all he didn't even address it so now the government council said there's no  great depression or the great recession now they say that there's no task of course there is if you read all this case in the briefs there's a republican resumption once it's rebutted congress goes back to the party and says prove you found it off the company web site prove you found it from the m web website prove it's not a public stock exchange prove that it's publicly available so there is a tax on their ways to prove that and they didn't hear to those ways ok let's hear from your coat on thank you your because whether you can ship or not i mean the future if these guys are wiped out these are your customers in the long term nature future any manufacturer many of these products in their spirit can show up and say we want to participate interested party since hardware is because during the review investigation it produced but more importantly it exploited it and circled arning tables to the united states so there's money it's been deposit it which if you get a changed great i take it somebody gets back and they either get back there are they don't have to pay as much right but there is going to be money changing hands if you in this case but yes and the question is is that money directly going into your pocket