point on and driving to the ground and again you're wrong as a matter of common sense you're wrong and humans well i wouldn't know what i would say is that trait that whether you can use or the training stake when if you say if you started only with the stock commodity by the starting point for the further processing then that would be subject to the scope but let's say there's two pieces of standard rebar right off of the  manufacture floor and one goes to a construction site and the other going to some agriculture site or were to your plan your client what manufactured what the says that the product covered by the all ordered by the orders is all steel concrete reinforcing bars the end user is embedded into the language of the plain reading of the skull and it's specifically excludes rebar that has been further processed through bending or coding and when you look at the with that i would agree that they are straight other than the point so they're not further process through bending they are but they are further but there is no they have to be straight through out the order says product covered by orders as all we would argue that an angled product is the same as bending there's no functional difference there's no definition in the petition there's no definition in the order for what was meant by either straight or bent so if you have a product that when it's lying on a flat plane and it doesn't touch through the hole flat plane that we would say is either ben bending well where we would say that it's no longer straight which is part of the sky the plane reading of the scope and our definition that we provided was that straight is exactly where tickler has until without a bend angle or kirk there is an angle on this product there's clearly an angle and it's when you when you because of the point and because of and really these definitions of whether it is you know the different definition degree angle a bend i think it could be either bent or angled him so in that case every time you cut a piece of rebar straight across it's now graham is that correct i don't your definition i think it depends on if you're cutting it straight down and it wouldn't be if it's if it's a straight cut i don't think it would be bent it's a ninety degree ninety degree cut yes then it would be an angle that would be angle i'm not sure how that  that's not true when you look at the premiere it's not straight because it angles so we it's our position that commerce department's scope ruling was unsupported by substantial evidence when they said and you're  through the the bar instead of hands ridges going down the the entire length of the part that you know how would you say that that straight ridges have tiny angles and and the ridges are designed to interface with concrete deformed rebar which is not further process is subject to the antidumping duty orders they said that specifically in their st onset review so it's our position that when you have just a stock that deformed rebar that stock commodity we are that's within skull once that goes through further processing that takes it out of scope in addition we think that the products also fit the definition of merchant bar and in fact it didn't dispute it it also didn't raise it but if you look at the k one factor is it has the i t c report breaks out subject product and then it has separate categories for non subject products which includes therefore we unless you are saying whether it's emergent bar is irrelevant otherwise you have to build in an analysis of merchant bar before you get to the bottom line conclusion find that this product met the physical description of the merchandise the argument that queen made that that in fact their product is a merchant bar which is a different product that's made to a smooth around something special surprise not a commodity product that's used for congress position on the question if they had put on persuasive evidence that this was a merchant bar that we have what consequence for whether these items were within or outside the scope of manufacture rebar also used to manufacture merchant bar and i didn't read that language you are saying and therefore merchant bar is something different from rebar and outside the scope but i think that you know again i don't appendix and the description is that merchant bar products include bars with round flats where cross sections in are used in a variety of products but the context of that description is that us rebar producers farmers so i guess my question to you is is rebar construction equipment concluded that simply stamping one end to a point is not is not bending under under reasonable reading of that language so that there are only two exclusions for further processing they don't meet either of them stamping could be further processing but the language that we have here is that congress is not simply said the good language is not simply set further processing such as through bending or coding common commerce the scope language specifically limits any further ask was so what your standards are really with respect to the scope or because it seems to me the only issue here is whether the warrant deference to previously depending on the scope of any cutback in kaiser that results i don't think there is anything that the commerce did here that required it to interpret and big regulations that my view is it should be interpreted as equipment i agree with you i think it's materials used in construction and the same thing and agriculture that's correct i mean i would argue that katyn did not argue below that its product was farm equipment before commerce it never made that argument only made later in the appeals process is is there any of that is in the record that demonstrates that point to in the rebar is made by a process other shampoo not that i'm not that i'm aware ok so you're experienced in representing the studio the steel industry my correct that that one way to be in a bar you should not just focus on the points one point on the bar the end of it that is pointed at does not change the fact that you have a straight line going from the tip of the rebar to the center of the butt end that  straight and commerce found that a reasonable interpretation is that that bar has not bent and in any case if that were true then one hundred naming your group at any point on the on covered in the skull it has ridges right if it's plain it's outside the skulls by the scopes terms and honestly you know from my viewpoint if you want to use there is nothing about this rebar these agricultural training stakes that would prevent it being used as a reebok it has ridges only difference is that as a point on one end the physical characteristics of this product you have to manage i think with regard to the issue of merchant bar up in the congress or i don't know well they made say that now during litigation but commerce a scope ruling is not supported by substantial evidence because it actually says that the description of the merchandise under consideration also includes farm equipment so in one place they're saying that we match the description of merchant bar and then in the later section they're saying that we don't that decision is not supported by substantial evidence commerce and petitioners want to base it basically ignore the plain language of concrete which is in the plain order of the plain language of the order of the scope they want to ignore concrete and the fact that the only use talked about anywhere and thirty one materials is the end use of concrete the i conduct commerce the decision was just simply not based on substantial evidence they can nord and use that after further processing this would no longer be used for concrete reinforcing products and they extended this case fo