kind of caught me by surprise because i forgot that we were swearing jessica but what catches me as a worst surprise is that she's actually leading i usually say that these are bittersweet moments for me but th just i just just the guy has just been a tremendous asset to our chambers and to the court in its entirety and she's just been the light for the chambers and the court in its entirety to come here she made a greater sacrifice than most because she schlepped a whole family over here too and we want to recognize and thank them for that contribution but her girls are in d c public schools and her husband has moved  here the bad news is they're moving back to california and that's really sad for me but i just want to express my gratitude to jessica and her family and it's been a wonderful ride and i hope you will cherish it because i will the panel has reviewed all of the supporting papers in the affidavits and were pleased to grant the motion  particularly on a rehearing saying the relief went too far you shouldn't have ordered the adoption of one of the two methods you should have given the agency a chance to decide whether you had a better reason than have expressed the coalition believe that that would have been one option for us but that the appellate for example was not cited in cases anything that would say that's the only way that this issue can come back before this court and from a practical perspective the prior panel the decision remounted two aspects of the case one with a very open ended and instruction to the agency to reconsider it was not clear how what the effect on trying to just think uncomparable situations where you say you know we didn't like the opinion but we thought we had a fifty fifty chance of winning now that we realize we've lost under that we get to we question it again where if you had the opportunity to question it rehearing again as a practical perspective given that you know you don't want to force issuing advisory opinions if it's not an issue that's going to be as important as the client there's no way to really know that until we get recalculation not just on the issue where there are direct and real and with a very open ended one involved how the financial statements are going to be years just was not clear to us at that point that we would get quite the dramatic effect on remount that we did it where a seventeen percent margin went to zero too low to keep the c s o win and the only mandatory respond in the investigation within the scope of this order because of the change of the methodology on the overhead things to working together the asli had been a fact and it is as you may now and i don't think out the asians being as complex as they are it can be extremely difficult to predict in advance what the effects will be and particularly where you have at least one issue where there is quite an open ended remain and congress has any number of things that could do and remain with respect to those financial statement  i think i think i understand this but tell me but as a result of that going to zero here c s when vietnam is no longer subject to the i don't think didn't really think that if you thought that there was still a problem what course would you have prior panel stated when it was evaluating congress's financial statement calculations the agency has unique expertise in the administration of the and i don't think the last the tariff charges the agency with awaiting the record evidence here given that the agency was are concepts that are conceptually related to a lot of the case but not precisely the same the supreme court has explained in arizona versus california that a lot of the case doctrine is a more fests it's a judicially created doctrine and less commonly defined to judicial discretion and to the extent that the president panels it isn't isn't isn't there a fair bit of law that says the mandate as part of the law of the case is pretty darn strict yes but that mandate rule really court that issue the mandate should few issues that they come back up on appeal and again the supreme court you know this is sort of a discretion of the corps do we want to revisit the prior rule of law in a prior panel has emphasis on the fact that the prior panels determination circle solely on the law does not mean that statutory interpretation or what the regulations mean but of which record facts are the most persuasive and reliable and now like to turn to the second issue in the case which is commerce his determination not to seek clarifying information from ganges the company that issued the surrogate financial statement the financial statement here is not ideally clear with respect to the degree to which various line items included or contain overhead expenses the agency repeatedly attempted to separate out the overhead expenses only for the lower court prior panel to profess confusion as to the methodology used that were used and agencies rationales for party surrogate like ganges here does it go to public documents or is there ever any contact as a matter of general course with the third party surrogate agencies general practice as i understand it is not t directly from third parties generally it relies on the parties to present surrogate financial statements to the agency it does not go out and seek such data and sound now that being said i have seen congress in certain cases go out and do its own research hind for example what a word means and a surrogate financial statement or whether there is any evidence to show that a particular company is really being products similar or identical to the product at issue congress has great discretion and even though said and she seems sometimes when he is often have publicly available financial statements and that was one of the reasons that for many years primarily relied on india as a surrogate for china and not market economy cases it was just very easy to get financial statements out of india here we have an indian financial statement that for better or worse doesn't have a deal clarity with respect to this line item and how we are going to separate out the overhead expenses in it  can but we have generally good reasons and we're going to rely on them here for not asking because the likelihood of it would be we can't force them to give us a an answer that we can't confirm to be reliable without far more work than without burdensome work and it's just not worth it why is that not a reasonable way to proceed that might be a reasonable explanation for your general practice of not going out and doing this but this is a case with extremely unique facts congress has got multiple bites at the apple this is obviously a confusing issue they've been working sort of blind with a lot of guesswork as to how to separate out these where everyone has scratched their heads and puzzled over this financial statement multiple times and information from ganges if it were obtained it would be another data point that could clarify all of this confusion and what's the standard that we use to review this to that's a good question and i would say it's very much similar to their normal time you articulated a satisfactory explanation for your conclusion given the facts if you power and go back and try again you can either change your mind and ask them for information or you can come back to us and give us an explanation that holds water and get you have to have an explanation that makes sense and given these unique facts that isn't just an explanation of why you don't have a general practice of requesting such data why does it make sense here what with the specific burdens be here for issuing a very short questionnaire and if you didn't get the information well then look at least have tried the precise question is except you know what how do you do tower seven yes it might be something like that it might be just we're having trouble understanding why it was two three and five please tell us to what extent our set of cost line and kind of acknowledge rickly that they need this information that puts more pressure on them if they don't get an answer to then have to undertake further development on their own no not necessarily i think if they asked the question and didn't get an answer followed this for its instructions specifically with respect to the crime wave discrepancy issue and this were made very specific instructions directing cars to use on this question and in particular this court's decision in banks which discussed the minit rule as part of the law case doctrine is applicable and in particular i note that banks regarding regarding the second issue with respect to the ganges financial statement to congress also for all the courts direction in that court instructing congress to provide an explanation  value companies the parties to the proceedings that is when our trade coalition and c s wind provide financial statements as as part of the process of developing the surrogate value information that congress uses to value the price of one of these went hours for market i would direct your honour's to the record here in this case particularly comments to  as a third party company who is and has no real involvement in the proceeding it's only involved in the proceeding is that it happens to be a company in india that has publicly available financial statements and one of the parties reach out and grab those statements and provide give either of the parties have an opportunity to remain and to submit to go out and talk again she's themselves and submit information we've got it got information you should have it as a general matter i think i think that's a rarity it is very very much the rarity that in this type of contacts where you have congress that review and i think the time to appeal has as it has expired there are also provisionally excluded from the fifth review which has just started so the way it works is that the provisional excluded you know unless and until something different happens and if it's it's really about ultimately up to the parties it's not between six responsibility and the agency further here i think make clear that it's not just a matter of potentially not getting a response at all but as as your articulated this reasoning earlier  it's about getting a useful response and the likelihood of that the cost turning essential in these surrogate value calculations is required of you in every non market economy case into it affectively in a million best occasion into the circuit value company and what might be behind it it's public financial statements and for that reason as the trial court agreed with commerce it's it's a matter of the of the  affirmed thank you thank you court having concluded that the court of federal claims was required to follow the earlier mandate to have a whole separate second section of the opinion that says we're not really better or so b  consider ourselves the service determination it was focused as my understanding of what the lower court was required to do and there's also an interesting question about what a mandate is a mandate really just transfer back to the lower court so the mandate does not itself by virtue of being in the mandate somehow bind this core issue into the mandate does not buy the fact that there's a mandate that exists to bind this court in perpetuity to a particular why you didn't do x and they have not yet done that adequately and frankly i'm a bit confused by mr marsh exclaim that we didn't raise the question and i remain on comments to the agency because we have a whole section on our e mail and comments to the agency on you should go