determination no earlier determination was reconsidered this is not a question of in her authority this is not to chaos and case law this was a c c r to four unlike any other held by the courts before statutory language of d three revocation mandatorily applied with respect under put it in interest of the subject merchandise or after a date determined by the administrative authority in other words revocation applied to all of if you think or if you find better without the certification the entire dumping order could not be reimposed does the certification change that conclusion as a certification make a difference we have a little bit better than because an agency up doesn't that create some question as to whether their revocation in art would line up well i think that's correct this was a reputation in part but it was a revocation well at least they would argue i think that argued under the authority to provide in sixty seventy people that's correct and they determine that there can be a revocation in part of the company has three ser with respect to other members of the industry so the question i have is why why doesn't that injury determination remain in place dissatisfied obligation well for two reasons  completely and in whole as the fond boy of sixteen seventy five three does that doesn't that mean the injury determination remains in place at least it certainly remains in place with respect to other companies and remains in place with respect to the other companies remains it had not dumped during the three periods and that it would be subject to immediate reinstatement should the department of congress determine that it had resumed dumping it did not challenge the regulation it in say that the regulation was invalid and this is filling process because standard gap filling procedure because the statute sixteen seventy five d does not define the standards or terms by which the secretary of commerce may actually size his or her discretionary authority to revok order in whole or in part and all the other thing i'd like to correct is that commerce there's also a six hundred seventy five c of the statute a very specific sunset provision by which congress has delegated to the department of commerce and to the international trade commission authority by which they review after a five year period to see if there's a continuing injury and this was the really the question is it was the circumstances who changed the import how do you know the to see whether the entire order should remain in place commerce the reason i was raising it the sunset provision honor is that commerce has absolutely no authority to it makes doesn't purport to make any determination as to whether there's a specific injury being caused by  the joint appendix page one of five noted that injury determination had remained in place at the order had remained in place and that certainly that the other companies that were remained under the subject of the order congress doesn't purport to make any determination  not consistent with the idea that the domestic industry has to start from ground zero and go to the i t c and get another injury determination immediate reinstatement means just that if s s i was the only company proceeding simply be revoked that's a good question i could do was there to get to divisions in the two regulations that congress and promulgated want for complete revocation of an order in full and then one for a part which is the one that we have here typically the  the dumping had ceased to exist and the order was revoked and then there was a later determination that dumping resume would injury requirement be would an injury determination would have to be made the question would be what what principle distinction is there between the revocation in full and the so called revocation in art with respect to injury i don't see what you're saying that  broad not necessarily limited sixty seven it's not as they're limited to sixty seven five i will say it five twenty nine after it six thirteen sixty the court did say explicitly as its name suggests section sixteen seventy five b nothing in the statute that would further bid commerce from going back and looking to see the dumping has been resumed this is an exercise to get you you disagree with the statement that revocation in full  injury determination that go with your money i think i would disagree with that because again to the core of that the congress has provided for sunset provisions and really the international trade commission makes an injury determination to conduct a change circumstances review on the injury determination but there was no intervening evidence of a change in the domestic industry situation and there was nothing here in the commerce did that disturb the original injury industry to take another look at the pricing it there was no request made to reconsider the condition of the domestic industry your honor and that is not something that would be within the purview of the partner commerce that would of course be within the look at the industry's circumstances who changed you know there was not iran or not or so there was no consideration of that whatsoever and the original injury determination continued to apply because the were continued industry they were just saying so if the water was revoked with respect to s s i solely then the injury determination went away but that's not the way injury determinations work injuries are or why they're based on imports of this subject merchandise from taiwan this particular case it is not company specific and that injury determination was never disturbed by commerce its reputation terminated now in terms of the issue of whether commerce had the authority to conduct a change of stance review this review squarely within the first all of the three listed items in section six hundred seventy five b one now we're going to commerce that it's both or to conduct a change circumstances review is not limited to those three items form of s s i remaining on that agreement and when dumping immediately after the revocation was issued based on those changed circumstances commerce determined that s s i was in fact dumping the merchandise just as it had been in the original determination  place i think it's it's it's not accurate to read that decision that broadly but i think prior to it when they took this court was looking at what is the purpose of a change circumstances it did it determined that in fact they changed circumstances reveals ended to determine whether the circumstances have changed sufficiently such that the original finding of dumping and the order were continue abuse not a proper characterization of what was done those were the words of the court rather it was a question of the current authority because of the because of because of the fraud that occurred in the earlier determination in this case there's no fraud in fact there's not even a redetermination in this subject to the antidumping order yet they conduct the change circumstances that's the bright line that gets drawn that's what's different about this case and the other determinations case law and change circumstances review in every instance finally coming back to the issue of certification again if you find that if there was no certification for commerce to do on this include no then you have to say it will whether the certification change we it changes nothing because of congress can't do it under gresham authority in the first instance getting an agreement from us we can't confirm authority under the commerce department even though they have authority from congress where they don't this is been seen before  this company had a right to be excluded from the order you cannot take away that right under the statute by opposing a certification of course we're in a similar she's we cannot be put under an order based on certification after