us importer and a producer of such merchandise subject merchant subject merchandise is a term of art it replies to foreign exports under a dumping order which is i think it was later stated that there was an error that they did state that basically painting logos on finished already finished pencils the record shows that dixon has plants in china and mexico and canada but oh should found no pencil production in macon georgia it only one painting of logos then the same month and this is simply one year prior to our period of review of the interview the c e o of dixon was interviewed by a radio station and this is on the record can i ask you where  it complied with the statute and therefore because it's very it's crystal clear we don't get to the nd prong of the chevron case and that the congress has the ability to interpret them that the court should listen to its interpretation because senate the that's a different statute it's been forced by the u s customs and border protection under different regulations it is not subject to the dumping law itself it may not see eighty also considered this particular fact it did it did consider it and the c i t found that the evidence supplied by dixon outweighed the counter evidence submitted by prof shen and that's why we have that that nd opinion by the by the lower court but dixons mind i mean just a year before all they're doing is putting logos on pencils and their mind that might be sufficient for them to request you know millions of dollars under th the minute but the point is that they were certified they didn't they took this request that they were certified to receive yes and they did they did but in their mind and this is why i mentioned the brother case in detail in brief was to show that painting a logo on an already finished pencil under the dumping statute does not constitute substantial production in the us that's required by the u s international trade commission for example to be a petitioner but not to be an interested party you still have to every proceeding stands on its own and of the dumping law so for each administrative review you start from the beginning and therefore you have to because you're starting over you have to act as if nothing happened beforehand so sure they were a petitioner i don't know fifteen years earlier maybe one thousand nine hundred and ninety four but again there are competitor of russia and there there are just recently before that their chinese affiliate got none of the dumping water who participated in these administrative reviews and it had been excluded from the dumping water so clearly you know their focus had changed in the intervening years since they were petitioners in the early ninety's to focus on their chinese production but they also own production in mexico and canada but that here is the united states government department we grew up with it but clearly patients photo focused overseas production in the c e o of it may even admit it gave us a green process i think you better get to the other issues ok the nd issue is if it's the initiation was legitimate then it commerce correctly find based upon substantial evidence on the record that wrong sharon was under control by the government of china i refer this is actually  seven itself each of those articles are basically the same as any statute in america each article like every statutory provision discusses a separate and unique concept ok comp who is a major regarding voting by shareholders the whole issue here is you have possibly developing shareholders as a teaching as one of them so when th of all shareholders does have a majority the board of directors is comprised of six people in or there were only five the articles of association stake that i s i t g can only nominate one of those six people it did the other for nearly five total percent of the vote so they the section on a couple contribution they tried to put that into the section concerning voting in all the articles while it doesn't say about talk about the voting other than saying as i teach you can only nominate one and have one person on the board it clear it the converse is just can you know where is the issue it tries to pigeonhole something that has nothing to do with voting into the voting article plus any time in the articles of association it talks about how votes are passed it always says two thirds of the shareholders know where in the articles does it ever talk about any kind of vote based upon how many shares you oh it's always when it doesn't mention that it always says two thirds of the shareholders therefore it is not reasonable for commerce to take something regarding capital contribution to get in the voting article and assume that the determination that dixon was an interested party is wrong st appear today russian argues that because dixon used the phrase subject to merchandise and its letter submitted to commerce that somehow precludes a finding th dixon was in fact a united states producer of pencils rocks and never raised this argument below to commerce rather roxanne raised the argument that there was not sufficient evidence in support of that letter there was no determination from commerce as to whether the language subject merchandise vs domestic like party somehow precluded a determination of interested party status and therefore it's waived before this court the nd thing that russian argues here today is that there was alternative evidence that demonstrated that dixon was not a united states producer of pencils but that a party can point to evidence that detracts from commerce his determination doesn't mean that commerce is determination is not  pencils so different time period and then nd this was a healthy visit and so they were looking and had a different purpose for the visit they were trying to assess whether production or manufacturing facility was in fact in operation and congress also noted in a foot no in their final results that osha osha article and fact did say the word production or manufacturing and a different part of the article and so because it's a different time period a different purpose and in fact that osha article did in fact say either the word production and manufacturing i can't quite remember commerce found that that did not detract from its finding and in fact there was stronger evidence that commerce found such as the work if the only thing you could do the megan plant was to put paint on the lettering already fully made pencils that's an interesting question or that wasn't commerce simply said that there wasn't enough evidence in support of the certification that it gave to commerce and commerce can in fact presume that a certification is sufficient presume standing but that's really irrelevant because once it was reminded demonstrates that again it's in support of commerce's determination that it was in fact the united states producer of pencils that's again an alternate certification because it's not looking at the exact issue that we have here but it certainly i certainly one piece of the evidence that congress relied upon but even if we were to take that out we still have the work orders the production screenshots the explanation of the production process the certification from the c e o and identification of the production so any one of those pieces of evidence would constitute substantial evidence upon which congress relied in addition to the certification that the c e o gave and so we are argument is that all of that evidence as a whole demonstrates that separate we agree that it's a simple issue and it really comes down to this when a government entity and both parties agree that shamed international trade group is wholly owned by the chinese government say sack when a government entity whol ownership either directly or indirectly that majority ownership in and of itself means that the chinese government exercises control or has the ability to exercise control over the company's operations which include management and that's one of the four elements necessary to overcome the presumption of government control and so here commerce made a determination based st upon the rd de facto criteria which is autonomy over management and commerce explained that the shareholders elect the board of directors the board of directors there are five of them that are at issue here both parties agree that s i t g one of those and drunks in here argues that the articles state that as i t g can have only one of those board of director seats and that's not the case the article states that as i t g automatically gets to appoint one of those but it doesn't speak specifically as to the other five slots and so commerce explains that because the shareholders elect the other five slots the shareholders vote in accordance with the proportion of their shares a majority vote is needed to elect a shareholder and therefore by virtue of being the majority shareholder it effectively has the power to place the remaining five slots and because  g which again is a wholly owned chinese government entity has the power to place all five of those slots in addition to the sixty one dollars under the articles as i t v effectively controls the management and under the articles of association management is responsible for things such as determining the export prices negotiating contracts determining how profits are dispersed and so those are the other three criteria for overcoming the defacto elements and so therefore based on commerces explanation and interpretation of the articles branch and cannot overcome these fork elements and thus cannot show that it's independent of the chinese government because i think we have you o completely ignore the overwhelming record evidence in support of the fact that dixon take underwrote is a manufacturer of pencils here in the united states that record evidence includes the fact that dixon has been a manufacture since eighteen twenty seven dollars and during the period of review that evidence also includes full production orders work orders screen shots not just painting your honor but full production of pencils in macon georgia when the screen shots show the screen shots were production orders so in macon georgia for example to take a piece of wood to a pencil a full pencil there are several production steps so in order to get from the big to the small there are several steps and so one when nixon submitted work orders but actually again dixon had certified that it was an interested party on day one of the administrative for a view the burden then shifts shin to put factual record evidence to rebut that presumption russian never did russian awaited well a year after  the administrative review was started did all of its questionnaires participated with commerce it wasn't until russian until the record closed and eruption received a negative result that it then claimed dix and didn't have standing but also to take it back just a little bit further russian is trying to confuse this court to believe on the contrary the administrative reviews are to determine whether exporters such as wrong sion are abusing the us market and harming us producers not to determine that that article twelve article twelve with regards voting article twelve company sets up the board of directors there are six directors among which one directors should represent s i t g and recommended by s c t black and white interest it can change this director this director based on the related regulations it also says all the director should be elected by all the shareholders but specific language it is more important than spin than general language