prevents the imposition of dubious statutes actually twenty nine says that implementation matters including revocation of orders applied prospectively in the sense of respectively to a special perspective  history review determination there was no such determination in effect where is that what that means united states and united states steel the competition in the original review into consistency with the you the deputy or that was done here everybody would reduce it was done properly nobody is challenge that here or in the limited nothing in the statute says it does limited it is itself the basis of the authority not the only independent of the order of the revocation if you do not as disclosure as explicitly rule do not have case is identical to the court's previous decision in what we call chorus two which was in two thousand and seven and i think what mr cunningham said is that that case involved a different congress determination but it involved the exact same congress determination which is this section which many and determination and what happened was that this one twenty nine determination came out at the end of april beginning of may and there was all kinds of activity trying to figure out what it meant th you that were its decision shortly thereafter right around the time that commerce issued its final results this fourth administrative review and so we talked about how it was clear from congress fourth administrative review th congress had no intention and apply it section one twenty nine determination retroactively for a variety of reasons not the least of which is that the statute requires that determination be applied to entries that so that's a good thing and that's absolutely not the case the statute is quite clear that there are two events that have to happen first congress is directed by the us to issue a new determination it may or may not be if it is directed issue a new determination then u s t r after consultation makes the decision whether to implement whether to direct implementation of that in whole or in part so of course the u s could decide not to direct implementation of it which does is recalculate the margin from the investigation to come into compliance with the decision made no finding that there was no dumping during the original investigation it does something very very limited and in fact what section one duties and all of the subsequent administrative reviews there are many situations as this court noted in the two thousand and seven corus decision where that original order can be the effective date of that revocation is prospected so the way that thirty five thirty eight where which is which we refer to in short and a section one twenty nine the way that that's actually where it's sort of outside the realm of six seventy three it it works something for the purpose of implementing and first every decision and it's what we refer to as entry based it doesn't care what's going on where the agency doesn't care whether the critical inquiry as to whether the prepared with the change standard if you're wearing applied or the theory and it doesn't matter in the government you if the dumping duty determination was made after the policy to the extent that in this case the entries that came in during the fourth administrative review my coming with work really has no bearing on what should happen in the future and that makes particular sense because section one twenty nine i to go back and fix something that happened before it asks the country to comply in the future and that's why the statute is written the way that it is and did it as a and t what your honor is getting at is different kinds of retroactivity announces in terms of how a statute should be applied in whether it should apply retroactively the first place that you look is is to the statutory language itself and it's the  tells you that it shouldn't apply retroactively that it doesn't play retroactively so i'm not sure that it fairness really matters when and when congress itself has told us exactly how that should apply and this is as the court articula concerned with what where congress is in the process or what stage the administrative review is and that is exactly right this case is identical to the situation and in the two thousand and seven court's decision so i don't i don't think it has any bearing we don't disagree with the notion that as a general matter you need to have an affirmative determination of dumping and in that case that's certainly what the court decided but that has absolutely no impact on the situation you please the court my name is ellen schneider and author skadden arps and i'm here this afternoon on behalf of the united states steel corporation the question for you today is did the department of after the imp words entered the united states commerce implemented section one point nine terminations well i proposed that the answer is clear congress has the authority and we don't have to do any guesswork about this to get that answer because it is spelled out in the statute this is section one twenty nine c one which states that a determination implemented under section one twenty nine will apply only with respect  that enter the united states on are after that date the u s t r directs implementation so as we've all said today the application of the section one twenty nine implementation is prospect here are directed implementation on april twenty third two thousand and seven entries government discussing to the fourth administrative review entered the united states in two thousand and four and two thousand and five simpler or any more straightforward than that now all of the authority that bears on this issue confirms this straightforward conclusion so obvious for you to say which is the statement of administrative action which congress and the court expressed lean recognized to be the authoritative statement of the interpretation and application of this statute and that says without question a section where twenty nine terminations shall have perspective effect only so that means that it will only affect entries that enter the united states on or after the date that the us to your direct i anti doping liability so as you yourself have noted this quarter and it's true that all the courts that have considered this issue have recognized that yes and if lamentation understand she went twenty nine has invalidates all subsequent actions by commerce even with respect to entries that predate the section with determination but courses premise is wrong it cannot be squared with the statu in fact this is precisely what the statutory scheme specifically seeks to avoid the statute is clear that is section one twenty nine determination is going to be limited in its effect i course the gauged in dumping under us law what happened in the one twenty nine is that commerce made in newcastle agents simply to bring that determination no consistent with international law with the dead and that's what we're talking about and the scheme that congress put into place is to make sure that that implementation will be limited and those prior interests well congress did not do which could siddur the most important question to ask of that review which is what is the significance of the fact that there is not the determination of dr fact the answer to that is what do you mean by there is not a final determination because they determine the course was in fact not dumping in the original investigation period submitted and counsel for their argument