antidumping process in the determination of margins is to find those margins as accurately as possible so remedial not of punitive procedure and because a mistake by our client in a supplemental response and supplemental response the same mistake do you mean that that if statement that the other blades were produced by another company was on was incorrect yes here are is there any evidence in the record that shows that it was actually incorrect when they were initially imported into the initial import records do indeed seem to prefer origin and the producer as talent which is an accurate statement was brought in the only primary or documentary evidence so what were the mistake was their interpretation of their description of it after the fact when it was brought in to the united states and i believe what they wanted in the record showed that they made a mistake when they wrote letters are or submitted to congress s well were it was such a tiny thing that you should ignore it or you should take it in mitigation it instead it was incorrect they didn't determine that it was incorrect when they sent that initial letter they were trying it's a small company they misinterpreted what what they had were sawblade course which had been produced by an ineligible producer which they had then altered  substantively they had tenser them they had prepared them for the attachment of the teeth in this instance there was a single purchaser one of their customers who asked them to not complete the process type of fully attaching those those chief to the blade itself so it was essentially shipped in parts but it had been substantively altered from it i understand a lot you may have an argument if there was a mistake that was evident from the record maybe but if there was no mistake that was evident from the record how  intellectual core and that they didn't attach to it and so on because i don't recall seeing that right and that is the problem is that when they responded to the supplemental inquiries they made the mistake that in describing it it was not on the record at all it's not on the record intel it was intel the determination to resend was actually finalized and then they have sealed the decision it was the further investigation they were able to determine in field thirteen on that that entry document so it's in the confidential because they made the mistake at right before the final rescission was issued essentially didn't have an opportunity to make a greater record i've done it in front of me yes where does it say on this page that the parts weren't attached and i think doesn't it doesn't say that what it says is that the producer of the of what was being imported was  it doesn't doesn't say what they later interpreted that of well what we did was we imported the scores that were produced by without any is that any of what you're telling us here in the record about the corps versus the attachments and the substantial change i apologize if that's what you thought i was saying what i meant to say was that there was evidence in one of these volumes no i understand you are a know it it is not as i was saying was that because they had made the mistake and how they described the if thing not there what you're telling us is a door is not in the record and as a result it's simply a turning argument how are we supposed to review that i understand your honor and what i'm saying is that the only documentary evidence indicated not the more descriptive analysis of why those how the scores have been changed and why they were not they would not render you jane talent an eligible the only thing that it was in the documentary evidence that was part of the record was that they were the producer of those goods this is agency efficiency has to be able to rely on the record presented to it yes  the reason the reason we're here is because as the reason to change talent is seeking relief is because it's a small company that made a mistake and that it is trying to doing what it can to try and correct that mistake so it's not  global anti dumping margin that that is going to or was applied to this category of goods is approximately eight times higher than it was a means by which you could have submitted supplemental information or still funds meant supplemental information to conferences or non my understanding was that the proceeding before commerce was closed with the final rescission with with regard to that they are seeking separate rates so all we're dealing with here is from the purity review up until the end she had an annual review your government releases the case is moot because all of these items have been liquidated are there any future consequences from the denial of the new shipper review that would carry over to items imported in the future there until there is a determination on their their new annual review which is not yet been completed the original the country wind rates will continue to apply to them so there is depending on how th annual review turns out up until that that date there is additional injury that may occur also there was a state issued by the court of international trade and well i think i'm like question i'm afeared to assume that the state didn't affect the liquidation of these items of the government's correct of the items here were there actually liquidator deed liquidated and that the cases moved us to those items what i'm asking you is whether the denial of the new shipper review the going forward consequences for new imports and and the answer is that until and my understanding is that their annual reviews is undergoing now so until the final rate that they have to pay until there is a final determination on their annual review which way it would change the ground rules going forward which has not occurred so if we were to reach your questions that challenge the denial of a new shipper review and if we were to agree with you and if that were to be reopened then to get a different rate that would actually have continuing consequences for something other than the items during this period that is my understanding yes your honor on page one of its reply breakthru jang says there is no dispute that the only contemporaneous evidence before the ita demonstrated that the shipment that that was being tension of that that word is that at the time that the goods were entered into one that was approved do you have in the records it keep referring to these questionnaire responses as clerical errors what proof is in the oil would be if you put the wrong number i understand in this we we believe that this is a clerical error because we have tributed the single entry to the wrong wrong producer i understand based on a mistake of fact you tell me yes that is the six month period after which that the entries were deemed liquidated was on aug fifteenth twenty thirteen the the judge's order was entered i think it was on september thirteenth and genes liquidation issue simply did not come up but it is mr holcombe correct that the says consequences for the future even apart from the liquidated items well your honor this really raises a question about the entries in question because after three findings of admit to minimize dumping margin it could result in that revocation anti dumping order but there is no real basis for extending those facts to the situ was we say that it was a move because of the it wasn't moved because of that but recognized that there was simply no way to backdate that injunction it was powerless to do that because it was inconsistent with the rulings you know or understand you to be saying is that because they could have sought a separate rate that there are no future consequences to  determine the dumping margin as to those entries there's no question that those entries that the entries that would be reviewed have all been liquidated but what is i guess i'm confused what's the difference between a new ship if he'd gotten a new ship for review he would have had a lower cash deposit rate of the future with respect to other imports other than the ones that you say were liquidated correct if there were any shipper yes your honor that i believe that's correct litigation and they didn't do it i may turn to the merits of the notion that there was a clerical error that the commerce failed to identify and failed to correct does not withstand scrutiny you were directed to  the single instance in the record the preaching relies on which is an entry form that sees your a three forty six and if you look at the field in that one in that one document there is a word that under the word manufacture id that may be construed as as a word that resembles to jan's name but of course as the trucker noted that was insufficient to put commerce on notice that it was supposed to disregard all these other statements and find them to be inaccurate and violence one form and to be clear was confronted with the prospect of the new ship review being rescinded they didn't deserve disavow their earlier statements they didn't seek to amend them and they never sought to correct them or modify what they did was they embrace them and they said on january when you live in that good un quote does not deny that in that and they refer to this other expert companies merchandise it exports a certain subject merchandise produced by an ever first company and these were in the two to be if the company seeking a new ship or review did not produce the merchandise it needs to provide a certification from the company that did it and that certification could not be as the trop were noted truthfully provided here on this record with regard to substantial transformation heard some discussion about the products being altered but also a concession that that information was not in the record and as far as we have argued that there was a failure to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to that argument which is sufficient to dispose of it but in addition the the record evidence did and indicate any additional manufacturing or an indefinite sort of processing and the fact briefly address the issue the equitable arguments that seem to be being made here as the transcript pointed out there is no exception in the regulation that allows commerce to disregard a certification requirement there's no diminish mr exception there's no exception that could be made  there are cases that suggest that the record before congress shows clear error that they be having these you rather certainly are cases that the square and in the in the court international trade involving errors but none of those involve a weather was an abuse of discretion for congress to reject and attempt to provide corrective information but those are facts and this is a server service service and where we're a domestic brought this to your attention  duty with respect to those i have not seen the paperwork but it's my understanding that they're currently it currently applied to participate in the annual review well so that a government process this is what advice from the government says if they're open in fact three enroll reviews already is that correct i believe they're in the third one is it is ongoing now what is the first one completed yes the first two are completed or ok and under those first t ibid i'm not sure of the details of when at some point during those first two there was but i can't say that if they whether it was in the first one was the determination by the ita in relation to those first to your slow moving talent did not participate in the end your views in the first two opportunities but my understanding is the first one took place before the new ship for review separate in the first this is this case has been ongoing in the appeals when the when the second annual review occurred but i i don't know if i could say that they were still with it i mean to  that it getting the new ship review but that the final rescission had already taken place before the second annual review and their opportunity to participate in that occurred and they failed to do so  one one issue that was for one thing that was recently brought and let me just just address the issue of newness and i think i think that until there is a determination in this midst of this annual review they're participating in now there would be and there will be an effect of the determination to to resend their new ship review ongoing so i would submit that the matter