your arguments contain a common theme that carson impermissibly interpreted the statute when a determined the phrase any other information placed on the record permitted the agency to use decisions of this court and the court of the national trade suggest that we should consider your arguments weight us feet great american insurance company for instance it's well established that courts that arguments that are not appropriately developed in a party's breaking can be deemed way why shouldn't we reach the same conclusion in this case on that issue or the specific appeal as the commerce does use ascii pieces supported by substantial evidence and that's where it were limiting it to that narrow argument you contend that sixteen seventy seven  the congress interpretation of it is impermissible because it relies solely on to turns and fair to say correct it in other words you didn't cite from the prior review so you incorporate it into your analysis not in the brief for this court so we're again we're just focused on whether commerce decision is supported by substantial evidence  and we're focused on the stand this commerce relied on a continuum standard to do so and based on that standard alone and the data commerce use we believe that th which the standard they're applying because they're saying that it has to be a non average dumping margin and they introduce the continuum test and if you go based on this continuum test then they're the koran they don't define then what they mean by it as far as what is a significant cap if you look at statutory measures of what is it that they have like point five percent or three percent who if you go based on those are the only standards we see in a statute congress could offer another standard they have not well you're not suggesting commerce is required to use the average margin at the most frequent margin right correct so commerce picked a few of the margins that were close to the chosen  it that's how it justified the highest transaction specific right what's wrong with that i am and then the trouble is i think my colleagues are in fine in figuring out why is a matter of law i mean your are you acting as a matter of law they use they they used improper kathy elations because they didn't buy standard and they didn't articulate a standard or apply at what standard are they required to apply and i mean they put pick the number they justified it they compared it to the other calculations in any case there's going to be a continuum of what it is what do you mean by that if there is no signal that here there were that the dumping margins were fairly close and then they started to jump up and commerce just the corroboration portion of the statue right it seems with the statute pretty unambiguous late contrast information obtained in the course of a review that is saying primary information that in this segment any previous segment of the investigation and they determined that the highest calculated weighted average jumping margin was nine ya's own cooperative margin from the immediately prior segment the commerce department determined that assigning n and i'm just explaining why they went to transaction specific margins instead of applying a prior weighted average margin in the early prelim as your honor noted the commerce department selected a ninety nine percent transaction specific margin that was calculated for nine in the prior segment in its case brief to the court of international trade nine yards that commerce should look to the current review the current segment and use the information there and that's what congress about the specific tests that were cited in nine yards brief those tests are tests to determine whether the individual observations are different than the the average or median calculated one number and how do you know that number isn't necessarily an outlier what's the standard the congress looks to see whether it's supported by substantial evidence what is supported by the the selected transaction specific margin so here the commerce department determined that this was ordered by substantial evidence because it was a calculated raid on the review it was the same review with the company selling the same merchandise it wasn't significantly higher than the other calculated dumping margins would fall within the mainstream of margins that was not the result of an operational transaction and they looked at the the weight the quantity in this in the shipment to see whether it was within the normal range of quantity whether it was you know i mean it's all subject merchandise but they look to see if it was specifically different in the factors that are considered in the con analysis and determined that this was not operational transaction and it was appropriate to use  najaf makes a number of allegations regarding the traffic the transaction that it was aberrational because it was a small quantity but that's just part of that is just a function of how many transactions there are in the in the entry if you have a thousand transactions the average transaction is going to be a tenth of a percent if your brother mr khan it seems to agree with the government's position that does agree with the government's position that coronary national part of a continuum and i guess the best evidence that this was part of a continuum i just cite cage for this this is business proprietary information but i would note that at the bottom the footnote at the bottom of page forty one continuing on to page forty two it shows the highest rates that were calculated for najat in the prior segment and congress chose the ninety nine percent rate as being an appropriate rate their rate higher than that that that the commerce department did not select because they felt that ninety nine was the appropriate rate was no