working to correct the reason they can't correct their owners because the end of dumping statute requires that the liquidation instructions must implement the results of the review this court has in a number of error here which would seem to be a mistake maybe in the instructions from congress or customs or what rate to do a liquidation i'm having trouble understanding grind that is a risk you're in the final determination and the reason for that is because the you know that for a couple of reasons first of all you know because it's part of a single integrated docking marja calculation program this rate is calculated precisely at the same time in the same program as the rate published in the register the other way you know that part of the process of liquidation number well i'm not i don't agree with i mean it's part of the process of doing what the statute directs congress to do which is to determine the dumping margin to be assessed on each entry being reviewed and this is the only that you get it up the margin to be assessed on entries in nothing but the overall rate published in the federal register is an overall weighted average margin for all of the export or sales but what happens is i understand following and so the question in the end when we talk about here is you know the final determination whether they're talking about i'm just interested in the public information or where they are also talking about information underlying that information  now because i don't think anybody has ever previously suggested that a set the assessed rate calculation couldn't be part of the results but the reason why this case is helpful is because in that case exactly the hypothetical you posed happened the mistake was not in the assessment rates which work out do it correctly in the results the mistake was made when the person at the commerce parrot the liquidation instructions copied the wrong number out of the printer and instead of calculating the assessment rate that was intended the person actually actually copied out of the print out the polish number and in that case the question before the quarter actual trade was is this a mistake or a fact it can be corrected under fifteen or twenty in order to do that the court had to go through an yes or on the better that's where it starts on the next page two three seven you have a similar paragraph beginning in the first column that deals with assessments and if it starts out with very similar language which is quoted and then about a third of would have with that is is that a reasonable time and we did suggest that a reasonable time cannot extend to a point beyond which the route the review results have been completed and judicial review there has been complete and the reason for that among others is this ministerial errors while they're different in some ways willers they're still errors in review results and if you want to challenge them you can race before congress but it but if liquidation instructions just fairport didn't tell them anything that they didn't already know about what the assessments were going to be that was disclosed in the second amended final results and they had played it indeed the same error all the numbers were different raised in its original appeal of the original results because the error was was present in those be salts and would be allowed to get relief long after the deadline had expired for them to file a complaint made by a line in a regulation so you'll have fifteen mr daunt to have five unless you are willing to give him some share of the extra time i'll give it one minute wounded were right that's correct into twelve iwan it states the secretary normally will copulate the assessment rate by dividing the dumping margin found on the subject merchandise examined by entered value of such work search merchandise for it's not published in the federal register even though it's an underlying calculation that's here no that's that's not art that's not there's a number of things also don't get published in the federal register or in the decision memo and they are those things and there's a number here and that number is actually the correct number so that's the amount of juice that should be zero however applying the rate found in the fourth column you're not going to get to that two number  and the department of commerce concluded that because it stated its our notice that it had followed its regulation it construed liquidation instructions that were issued that did not comport with the regulation as inconsistent with also in there or in one review of final determination is your is opposing counsel right that there have been challenges to assessment rates as part of those challenges to the final result in the court previous a s i case came to light the department of commerce has been working very diligently to comply with this court's precedent along those lines and draw that line between what is part of the final results issued under so you're doing that why now are you they can we believe that they can challenge it depending on how the assessment rate is calculated they can either if they're challenging the actual exports dumping margin that went into the final results then they have to see action if they're challenging some sort of error in calculation of the assessment rate itself then under this court's precedent it really depends on whether the whether the under c there's probably not going to be much objection in that issue will be dealt with because there's thirty days to bring a see action so it's doubtful that the case would be just the regulation that you promulgated under the  resolving this case under sixty seventy five h and just construing your actions is within a reasonable time why  nother way of asking the question why do you disclaim that you are acting under sixty seventy five may well for all reasons and we actually agree with a s i to some extent on this issue under because there's a thirty day deadline to initiate judicial review also there's there's a statutory mandate that all subject entries to the extent practical be liquidated within ninety days after publication of file  something in the statute says that thirty page limit and the time limits are there and they are to be honored and must be honored and therefore yours willing to say the l correct that flawed computer error generated instruction because it's not based on the dumping margin of the dairy group and i would ask you to look at the language of sixteen seventy five  if you look at sixteen thirty five eighty two there's no reference to important specific assessment raise all the focus is on dumping margins so how do you converse is compelled sixteen seventy five eighty two see if that's the only way i could implement the dump in march so the computer program just made one point of your program that we referred to earlier that's not the underpinning of the fin have two minutes have done that by demonstrating that they are not consistent with the review results which i believe the government's conceded include the calculations underpinning this review or sells this court really cannot  affirm the government and nor can the court is a trader on the theory that the government itself just claims that would be a violation of the cherry dr mohamad a partner for better or for worse has said this is only a fraction liquidation structure this is not a change in review conceded if the court disagrees with that then they have to lose in this case turning quickly to mr durrant statutory argument the problem with this argument is that the the what the statute directs the carpenter to his term of dumping margin on each such entry that is each country covered by the review exporters don't matter interest or imports have interest and therefore it really does calculate to dumping