frozen shrimp from robeson he may sought to be treated as a voluntary response in order to seek at that time what was called three zero zero ok sure your statement i'm sorry i'm sorry to cut you off the time is limited why is that improper unlawful why is that problem but the reason is because several years two years ago by during the course of the litigation during that period of time in the end litigation for to the company at issue what used to be called robust became he made it was the subject of a relatively messy divorce between the joint venture partners and as a result it became clear to the company over time that it was going to ordering congress to go forward and then what how what amount of time passed before you went back and asked to terminate so that the change in ownership occurred during the course of the litigation that the  it did it did but at that time the company didn't realize that it was going to be difficult that the divorce between the joint venture parties was going to make that difficult for them to follow through and i'm not sure you know through my question which was what period of time of last between the cia ts ordering congress to come forward and the time that you came forward and said never mind the final judgment was issued by the court in nothing happened in the reconstructed review the commerce department not issued any questionnaires there was not in the expenditure of of government resources with regard to the case when you were supplemental questionnaire right around the before you made the withdrawal that they were going to do this examination or of the c r t c order right that commanded them to based on your request that they do it your honor at that point they had not t the proceedings are not going to further could not have been significant by that point i'm not sure how to think of that case i mean one thing that strikes me is your position is not particularly sympathetic given everything that  your request withdrawn but beyond that is it your view that commerce had no choice no discretion if it was commanded by law that they must have withdrawn considering you as a voluntary respondent once you've made that withdrawal request it's our position that it is an error of law for them to have defined they had that they had no choice but to proceed because it had been taken outside of the c r t there was a final judgment there was not a pending reason and there was a final judgment if they felt like they needed to go to the judge and get the judge's approval notice judge polk wanted out of his decision they could have done so advantage i'm not sure i'm clear on what you're arguing so you're saying the error here was congress perceived that it was compelled to do this your view is that they had the discretion as to whether or not to elect a new standard that's right discretion it's an suv i guess because it's a two step process number one they have claimed they had no choice and what i'm saying is yes they did have a choice they could have rescinded the fine the fact there was a fine of just to tied their hands didn't occasion of the order becoming a saying ok because of the change that occurred in our in our corporate structure we can proceed with this and as a result we're willing to stand pat with what you would assign to us in the first place but what about  litigation during which the long period of time at the last and during which a change in government in the company's corporate structure that occurred makes that provision not as applicable as it would be if we had been in a situation where the of the other side of pointed out some other cases such as carbon steel from sweden and that situation the company was chosen as a long term respond and it went through several pieces parts of the proceedings suddenly a cost investigation was was initiated and the company said you know what i don't want to do that let's stop and the company comes from so numb well by that point of course you go that far longer in the proceeding and the company says they want to back out i don't blame the commerce department from for  instance i think it's completely different i think with all due respect no i don't i think we are or should be viewed in some of that manner because they're the ones in the first place the didn't follow the law if they had followed the law in the first place and granted a request to be chosen as a voluntary spawn we would have happily gone through the whole thing at that time but the amount of time that passed in the interim is what caused us to be in the position in and i think we are far more sympathetic than you give me your script for in light of that  that this was going to be a problem like change of ownership happened before that well before the order drove us to issued by the trade as you can imagine your honor changes in ownership don't always necessarily particularly the break up of joint venture partners in some of messy divorce didn't didn't necessarily play out yet in indicate to the company the extent to which they had difficulty in verifying etc what else whatever would have happened in the course of the region does it reveal in the amount of part over the course and you have issued some decisions in this regard part of what's relevant in determining that is not merely chevron and chevron one and two but also whether or not the decision is an abuse of discretion whether or not the decision is capricious if if it is not then it is not an importance of law but we're something st john is that we think that this case is one in which the company is in effect punished for having won the appeal previously and they were very angry at us about winning this case so the fact is we think that this is a very good example of capricious arbitrary capricious action by the constable and therefore isn't he and it was back to the promises regulations and then still further there was an additional month before congress issued the initiation notice that it would be individually examining drove us to the voluntary responded and so even from that time frame you have additional money commerce to back away if it wanted to and that's i don't know if that's the question but i guess that's my question is it in your view is that the government's view that in situations like this after you've accepted a voluntary  settlement work done some kind of change that but they never did and so they were tardy and so once you notice came out and cover said that it was going to treat progressive voluntary respond it that's under three fifty one point two zero forty two and according to that the science to shut down and review before it ever gets to finish line or is it your view that when it comes to these sorts of matters commerce has to push all the way to the finish line far f rescission regulation which is at the start of a review and all of a sudden asked once you've been accepted as a voluntary respondent to pull out of that review and then still get the rate you would have had before it's all of this comes down to the fact that three years go by this sort of litigation to instead of receives a three point i believe seven six percent rate they wanted to be reviewed because they thought they could get a zero percent rate except then once they were actually except as a voluntary respondent they didn't cooperate the rate was actually it taking on them at their word that they didn't have the problems that the problems didn't surface until that time so if you accept that premise then the one sort of punishing them for waiting too long but you just saying that the law doesn't the law because of the passage of time for you to go do something else that the law doesn't allow for the pastor here for us is arguing that for some reason the passage of time should be factored into how to apply congress's regulation authority to rescind the review this is on page three three seven or dried appendix does not have the authority to pursue the review of the volunteer responded once it initiates we disagree and  the department previously rescinded the review of voluntary response in other words the commerce department is up today to tell you that they didn't like that they don't resend after initiation but they specifically responded to the domestic producers in this case saying that they could they did that they did have that ability and that they had done so in the past and they cited to the honey case so the notion that they didn't have the ability to do this merely because they initiated it is patently false they know they said in this case that they have the ability there's been discussion about the strain than our strained analogy to the relevant portions of the regulations talking about  balancing test again i just draw your attention to that we recognize that does not apply specifically to us what we're doing is we're using as an example given the unique set of facts post litigation the unique set of facts i it's a useful set useful portion of the regulations to see whether or not it is reasonable or not what congress did in this case in our view given the lack of expenditure of government resources it would make perfect sense for them to  one of the unfortunate aspects of the law is that you have to go through in actually fill out the entire very long questionnaire response in order to be even considered as a volunteer respond so you fill it out and you hope that they'll look at it and examine which they then later after judge pope really ended for them to reach a doctor review and once that was done under the final judgment we asked first for the review to be withdrawn not until mom there companies or for example so it was should not have been particularly often done so here