was their band right well that's what they said but that's not what they've said in other cases and that's not what they said recently and that's not what they said before the work they said before the court which fundamentally contradicts achieve holding  ignore some of the statutory three well how is it that they can or they're basically following the policy still pulls in from two thousand and four right in some respects i mean if if this court were to hold that  exception of the sequencing procedure which of course as we don't think procedure is legal at the bottom paragraph a quote significant producer requirement a particular important these cases because the department wants to avoid selecting the surrogate country which the relative scarcity of a major non or little treated in precludes the country from being a competitive producer merchandise so in thailand it is producing point five percent of the real deal china's number one that's where my client lives and their business these five or six countries or countries where we leave all of the information provided we have no idea how they came up with those countries we're pretty sure they never did the research they just basically made made the countries up out of there with energy and i van that was never explain it countries that have tiny production of the wrong main role material of our client and they throw india out which is a massive producer of the steel products in the chemical products that are the majority of products brought before the court of international trade what about that and of course decision on your own don't you have a problem though with health how much flexibility that the court seems to give commerce in this area we all concede that they have a lot of discretion in the area but link the decision to the response economic reality i have no reality is i live in the biggest deal proves nation in the world we produce fifty six percent of the world's steel but now you can stick in thailand or produce point five percent of the market we can't compete anymore if  defeat could it be that over time china's market has been bad and india's declining and now it's no longer comparable market and other countries maybe like thailand well fall within the bandwidth regardless of how to determine that and yet here on appeal you all of said well we're not saying it's not economically comparable we're just saying that it is it's less  character that both the philippines in thailand went through to satisfy the four step sequence of the policy bulletin on this record india could never be considered economically comparable because it didn't satisfy the first criteria to country satisfy the lower for four and in our view that's fully consistent with the position that we are taking which is that india is less comparable on the economic reconstitute again it would it would rebalance the approach right but you're not saying that if you're not saying that it didn't satisfy the first step you're saying that it didn't satisfy you as well so what if it satisfies the other stamp better than the other countries what economically comparable from getting about it whether they produce of the vision a lot of the products how do you see how do you establish that she and i can you know even under your desk of court said well if they don't explain themselves then next could be arbitrary and capricious alternatively we could find that there isn't substantial evidence to support the conclusion on economic reality how do we why do we draw a line here as opposed to hear it specially when cuts off because what they argued is in their submission they argue that the should be included india is a significant enough producer and g evaluate this argument and the exhaustion requirement recognizes that in such circumstances it is inappropriate it would be inappropriate for a court to reach that issue but if the court were to reach that issue it would essentially have to consider the evidence that record reflects how many countries were swept and it wasn't just that countries that were identified that happened to fall within that particular that fair to say your honor i think that is fear i think the seven countries that were identified were countries that are economically comparable to china and most likely to have good data availability and so essentially they are looking at the first step and also the demonstrated the likelihood in these countries are going to commerce or before the trial court the fact that thailand was selected as a significant producer was never now as to the merits of the question why thailand could be a significant producer using brother never d why is the following the statutory criteria top to bottom as it's written a proper interpretation of the statute they've they've come in to this court are you doing those things for the first time pointing to congress is that the answer for supporting the finding that thailand is a significant producer you're on or off the top of my head i cannot cite the data that commerce relied upon but if found that the quantity of exports from thailand was sufficient for it to constitute a significant producer and i think to two to analyze a significant producer question we can again look that looks to significant commercial quantities as looks to all sorts of factors on page one page i believe it is four three in four discusses significant producer does commerce explained in a three man that doesn't weigh very heavily at all because the primary input here is steel as commerce explained in the room and the time data was much more specific on the steel i deal accounted for more than two thirds of the normal value of the of the subject merchandise commerce determined that all the other factors in the financial statements which sound more i believe they i believe they looked at both your honor they looked at the parents the the statement was reported for that of the parent and the subsidiary i believe they considered i i'm afraid i can't be more specific  morning first of all the standard is not producer of steel the standard for a significant producer is comparable merchandise that's right from the statue in jimmy produced a lot of steel the mandated to look for in the statute comparable merchandise not the whole family of steel but the particular subset of steel products and the commerce department did that and found that thailand and  are seventy three point seventy three one eight point one five point five zero five one point five zero five six point one zero point nine two zero nine statement it had data on all of the difference of sirius not there was a consolidated statement but it had information about the individual segments it just didn't have separate financial statements on a statement saying that basis but the consolidated statement show regarding the values of factors in a market economy country or country that's where the brother sponsors quote the remainder of that statutory language is considered to be appropriated by the ministry of the word which is the commerce department imports into the united states not world exports of anything and so our record shows that india is a massively significant producer of the comparable merchandise and their data shows not just china you are correct earlier the commerce department  data and once a much better suited to the country he also proposed three or four financial statements of fact are companies from india on the other hand thailand has a company that says on both the financial statements and angers and still very raw we are primarily put india's exports of comparable merchandise we have for financial statements from india they have an investment company and so you know i maybe make one final point about why floor court's decision should be overturned once the court got it fundamentally wrong