affiliated companies in the group particularly the court erred regarding both prongs of the collapsing regulation in one thousand c f r section three fifty one point four a one f and also fair failed insisting in failing to sustain a determination which was supported by substantial evidence with respect to subsection f one and i suggest you get a little bit closer to the microphone and you perhaps can be even better i apologize your honor is that better two major ways first throughout its determination it failed to accord commerce the deference that it's required under the substantial evidence test in particular it ignored the findings that congress relied upon in  with respect to subsection f one with respect to subsection f to it replaced findings of fact that congress made with an assumption that was not founded within the record so in that sense it erred with respect to the application of  substantial evidence test however it also made a legal error it made legal errors bow in its interpretation of both prongs of the collapsing analysis both under subsection f one and subsection f two in particular would subsection f one ignored in ignoring excuse me an irritant ignoring subsection age of the regulation that subsection provides that a subcontractor that is not actually an ownership of the subject merchandise while it is being used to so recognized in subpoena and page three fifty four and fifty five those facts were pertinent to the distinct to the distinctions under subsection f one as to whether substantial retooling was necessary in order for there to be a restructuring of manufacturing priorit upon the next proceeding indeed in this court's opinion that the virus earlier this year but for seventy six after it had thirteen fifty three and thirteen fifty three to fifty nine it states that congress may depart from a prior collapsing determination so long as the new determination  supported by substantial evidence and that is what this determination was there's only one other issue i haven't touched upon and that is with respect to the final error with respect to subsection f two and that is that the trial court actually erred in relying upon an incorrect fact equals export producer equals in this case under the regulation the company that owns the subject merchandise as it's being manufactured and then sold and because the trial court failed to recognize that in all of its determination and instead operated on arm's length as a normal commercial entity and that there was no indication of any kind of collusion or participation in an attempt to manipulate production or prices or other relevant it is true that there was no such indication on the record but that is irrelevant under the standards of the regulation under the regulation all that's necessary in order for there to be significant potential for price of production manipulation which is the  segment f to which is what the trial court was addressing all that's necessary is common ownership as i mentioned before share directors facilities and information were intertwined operations the reason being that all three of these companies after having sent the bill it's to the  that they own to the to the sum contractor to be rolled into why rod could simply take it redistributed amongst themselves all being affiliated that's not disputed and then sell it to the cut through the company with the lowest margin and that's the kind of thing that congress  trying to stop when it applies the collapse analysis and that's what it did here for the foregoing reasons and the reasons there briefly respectfully request that the case be reversed and remanded with the instruction to sustained congress's initial determination before do argue that f one was misconstrued as far as the second prong and what i would say is there's a decision cherry that you look at the products produced by respondents companies  the three indian companies to us buyers was that it was that was not at issue what was at issue was the significance of that and  l did not produce the same products then and only then did they look at whether their facilities could be retooled without substantial investment with me as it is would you be satisfied if we requires an examination of the products produced and then and only then if the products are not the same do you look at whether the facilities and where there was need to be retooled and so the bodies think that the trial just took a as they were in ninety seven ninety eight and so in his view there was no change from then prior review to the current review because he looked at facilities and what we're saying is you never should have got to that second level of facilities to compare the two reviews it should have been on products produced at both reviews and if you look at products produced during that prior review only one company made a stainless steel wire rod and in the second interview both of them did thank you