the issue in this case is whether the commerce department sufficiently corroborated the adverse facts phil will anti dumping to be more from that assignment to go an ocean why would they go to the japanese market why would they go to the japanese market i'm sorry i don't well if i'm correct that the figures they come up with for their constructive a value come from ship am i can't see a much larger market difference than thailand and japan japan has the highest seafood prices probably in the world but comparing thailand to japan seems like  the rates and comparisons that i would like to bring to the department's attention in terms of initiating the cases and juliet that we were not involved in cases that time and typically respondents do not get to say anything with regard to the initiation of ended up in cases other than whether or not the petitioners have standing to file the case in the first place another thing that bothered me is the comparison to broken shrink broken shrimp has to have a vastly lower price even in the time market in fact that i s the main concern of our argument and the specific point that i'd like to focus on this morning so let me know you weren't dumping broken shrimp you didn't participate so we don't know that you are dumping broken sram because both are covered by the duty or are both are covered by the duty or but the point in this case is not what products gallant ocean sold to the united states i i submit to you that that issue is completely irrelevant the issue really is whether or not the sales to commerce used to corroborate the petition rate are sufficiently corroborated what sold or did not sell or how much they sold or what they didn't sell is really irrelevant to whether or not rate the commerce used was sufficiently and adequately corroborated by the specific transaction mark to set a lookout for the mandatory respondents in that particular if you will and that is really the issue that i'd like to focus on the issue of representativeness throughout this proceeding congress has claimed that the sales of chose for corroboration purposes were representative of the sales used by the three mandatory respondents saw in brackets i thinks some of the numbers you're talking about so i can't be too specific either of them but automotive industry we're comparing that to a rate of three to ten percent or so for the people who cooperated correct the three men per response receive rate between two and a half and ten and a half percent over their overall sales so the rate difference is five to twenty percent i mean five to twenty times around the rate the comps the sun is five to twenty times but i'm hesitant to say that because like that was one of the confidential issues well it's out there that i'm going i'm not going to get specific numbers but i understand that commerce based the fifty seven percent rate on a very small number of transactions per hour and you know out of you know sort of the large volume many far less than one percent for example of a transaction nineteen out of nearly ten thousand oh i wasn't going to say th might not be relevant to a determination as to whether or not a decision by commerce is supported by substantial evidence really the i believe the facts of that has showed that the real issue isn't a magic number or a specific threshold the percentage of sales that must be considered but whether or not the sales are normal cells or their representatives whether they are typical of the actual sales that were used to determine the adverse rate in the first place sales might not be relevant but congress makes its decision looking at the sort of the totality of all the sales but again we don't know you weren't jumping broken so how do we know it's wrong for them to use as corroboration a rate that pertains to a certain kind of shrimp when we don't know if that wasn't the exact same function you were set but they are not using the sales of the broken shrimp to corroborate gallant ocean sales they're using the sales of broken shrimp to corroborate the petition rate which everybody acknowledges was not based on a broken sales it was not based was based on typical normal sales by usual thai exporter during the petition when the push was filed for years or are that the rate was based on order and the duty order as i understand it doesn't distinguish between broken shrimp and number and trap so the rate that they have to proper in their petition has to be tort to apply to the shrimp that are being sold right  the rate should apply to the various types of shrimp that are sold to united states market but the rate in the petition itself that specific rate was not based on a typical from product sales it was specifically based on normal  commercial quantities are normal products in the normal price ranges in order to demonstrate a particular margin that existed for purposes of initiating the case it was not based on what we are claiming to be very typical very commerce itself has never explained why it threw that sale out probably because it was so outrageous that was you know nearly one hundred times the margin well and that gets to our point that you need to corroborate that with reasonable rates that are beat by other men and her aunts during the period and who's to say that there was no corroboration in touch and because that was their own sales right correct  sales were all normal sales typical sales that were sufficiently similar to the adverse transaction sale to be representative and thus be reliable and relevant and demonstrate that the adverse rate continue reiterated in pam is that although touch on the facts allowed one sale to be sufficient for corroboration purposes one cell was not the threshold and one still might not be the threshold in other cases and to me that means that five seals or ten cells or twenty cel might not be the threshold but are you complaining that sales of other companies inside of yours were used and that yours were used that part of the problem or not no that's not that's not an issue it's really whether or not the cells that were  not even going to let you start i'm going to ask you how does how do you reconcile a five to twenty times rate as being not punitive or aberration petition that you know it you have to answer it because this is looking punitive to me which is against our law i understand and so i'm trying to figure out a few exceeded whatever discretion you're entitle to under touch and and that's a benefit that they receive because they participate in the profits if the party the memory from martino another one of our cases where it says yes when they don't participate they're in a little bit of trouble but it says you still have to have a reasonably accurate dumping margin with some built in increase renters and so you get an increase maybe two times maybe even three times twenty times how did you how can you convince me that you made a reasonably accurate effort to get the dumping margin when everybody else is in the three percent to five percent range and you hit them with nearly sixty percent is that reasonably accurate range and now why couldn't you have started there and even doubled it i don't think we'd a had any consideration here but twenty times that should provide you get a some built in increase but with the actual self it is not punitive right or the actual sales as we've discussed here come out of japan and include broken shrimp which already took looks to me like you're making a distinct effort to punish not define a reasonably accurate rate if you were looking for a reasonably accurate rate you could have gone to the cooperating shrimp producers and then had some built in increase above that touching case it was once said we have the pills less obviously in those cases we didn't perceive that there was a the prospect of punitive ness or a lack of reasonable effort to get be accurate number supported by the data the data doesn't support more than say twenty or twenty five percent with the kicker for noncompliance kind of thing so if congress were to make that determination would be free to then put it twenty to thirty percent rate upon the non permissible and the statute provides that they may provide the corroborated which is what they did here they have other options besides what they did used to corroborate it with i mean they look for other sources but were there no other sources what happened there and it's part of a larger view i'm sure law and they are allowed to or so reliant petition and that's what they did here so there there may have been other race in the record but that's not what they chose to do and what they chose to do with permis use any independent sources that are reasonably at your disposal i think this obscure and eventually or the question that the judge will can ask you but you had a lot of other sources other than the petition didn't you that were reasonably at your part to suppose you had the cooperating ship shrimp producers which were the three percent rate many of them you had markets other than japan i've i'm trying to figure out why you are you required to go to the petition which of course you can imagine will be seeking the highest rate possible anything to limit the competition and they are not required to but they are reasonably accurate how do you get reasonable accuracy out of something that's twenty times the rate imposed on others respect was because the race was based on actual health later in the period review we believe the rate is recently accurate there were sales that transpire in the time period that happened at that rate it is that it is a real rate existed  they were not a typical volumes and it is they used a lot of their pam's own data to corroborate that which is also the distinction has been we have to we again we it's not clear from the record whether we had it there was data from alan to corroborate and but you certainly had it at your discipline at your disposal a lot of other independent sources didn't you a norway and so even though i have discussed those sales as being used for operating purposes i have no idea and and congress has not provided any indication as to what those sales actually were they might also have been a typical or unusual sales the court decided you know the substantial evidence is not heavy but it's not a federal either thomas has to go back and look to see whether or not the sales we now have remaining in terms of proper ation are sufficient for determining whether or not the  i believe represents the idea that the whether or not corroborating sales are sufficient depend on the facts of each individual case and whether one sale might be sufficient and on ten and twenty nine all sales they had cessed a forty five point four nine percent rate a rate that was ten times as high based on half of one percent of all sales and we have firm how do you get daylight between that decision and your case i think the key issue is whether or not the sales not to use were represented of whether they were outliers or whether the corroborating sales were representative of the adversary in that case no one objected no one claimed that they were unusually typical sales in this case there is absolute evidence on the record showing that the sales commerce useful corroboration are not the type of sales that they use in the petition and that commerce from the very beginning of this proceeding has established very special methodologies for calculating dumping margins involving the special type of shrimp ok it was a setup tell me one more time though so i understand your argument so the internet can do the water covers both broken shrimp and regular shrimp that's correct there and the rate that gets applied why in the world can't commerce relicense broken shipping regular shrimp are going to be covered by the same rate at all times and since they're both covered by this anti dumping duty letter and since we have no idea what your selling why isn't one of the