when the record indicates that there is only one state owned and to tea in china where there is no dispute that the entity has cooperated in the review were commerce has made an explicit finding that there is no on the facts of this particular in the record of this particular case in the p r c wide entity are one in the same and want to tell you why i think that and that does change your argument where you say they can't incorporate the findings from the a prior investigation yeah well what we're  well it's related to that but it goes more directly first of all to the issue of the twenty one companies i think that looking at the record is probably the best way to approach this so what we're saying  so if we take a look at our section in response which is of may turn out of two thousand and one of going on of the eighteen i meant if you which is a joint appendix of one seventy one seventy one in are quite confused about what point you're making at which i think maybe i think that you're mentally was getting up to that in this case we can ignore the twenty one we can ignore i don't know how many else might have been part of the p r c entity because are you saying because a t m is organizationally actually related to everything in the p but once you're related to the government the question is whether the other diamonds operate companies are also playing it rocked we said that we are not related to anybody else and if it were the case your honor if it were the case that those other there were other diamond saw blade companies out there that were related to the government that would be a false ok because we would be related to them we said we were not that has not been of our company to other companies that might be government controlled fair enough we're fine you know we will give the case we lost now we're here and we're saying let's take a look at who are related to the record producers in china it just because time is short and you proceed at least to address whether you have an argument for whether you have an argument on the assumption this court said recently used as i'm sure you're well aware that you can't use you can't bring in information from outside it's not a record of it it's him and that's what they've they've done here among other things they took evidence that was on the record of this case which was a point one five percent in one hundred sixty four percent which was an adverse rate and combine them to come up with a cd some percent rate eighty two percent rate so that we believe is erroneous consider is there anything about the methodology about the averaging that you object to well it's a simple average or honor i mean there's you know one to two numbers provided by two so in that sense there's no math logic there and you just you just think it's it's the the point one five rate is where we should be but with we think that for a number of reasons but one is that the hundred sixty four percent return is not on the record we had no ability to challenge whether that rate is an appropriate rate here on the record of this case which is you know we believe to be contrary to law as we said on our brief so yes me we think there's a huge problem that  number will you knew that's the number they have come up with the first time around right the first time around neatly original investigation that was a few r c m to the right well in the first in the original part of the investigation we didn't care because sixty four i mean that's where you could have ended up the averages oh yeah actually we only absolutely absolutely rule where we challenged i mean that was all that was what happened during the reunion for the congress or what i thought you just said to me didn't have any opportunity to challenge it no we didn't have any operate we objected on the grounds to the hundred sixty four percent we didn't have an opportunity to go behind it and find out how it was calculated to see if that could have been a sensible rate and remember your honor that the congress apartment as for that opportunity we had to remain and yeah yeah i mean we conduct the commerce and said that it's inappropriate and one of the reasons was it wasn't on the so when you had a rematch you didn't ask to as you say go behind it and challenge the merits of that one sixty four determination we said it was on the record so yes we do challenge it you challenge the fact that it wasn't a record did you challenge the substantive conclusion of when sixty was on the record so we didn't have any right because you have to justify your continuing independence what do you what did you think was going to happen if you lost that we lost and what you've done whether you were independent or not we thought that they should look at the facts before the court there were totally separate issues you know we our client shows not to address and to raise the issue of the of the hundred sixty four percent or whatever really was  pleasurable in the appeal earlier there was no reason to do that this was the first time in this case is the first time that this came up in what we thought would happen is actually that the commerce department would follow the law which is to look at brief why is that not sufficient to allow them to commerce to invoke six hundred seventy seven b namely to draw an adverse in france because parts of the p r c here here's what we i think we need to think into account is that this court in the return case talked about how presumptions work and what they said was this quote a presumption completely upon the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the nonexistence of resume fact that evidence that we're talking about is the evidence that we've that we pointed to that went t a moment ago from the very first where we said we are the only company in china that makes diamond saw blades and we raised that with commerce back in in the initial court we raised that again counterpart in the second case were about to hear that the twenty one companies were stripped of their separate rate status and put into the p r c entity because of the failure to cooperate thing to say if they fail to cooperate from saying they failed to show that they were independent the chinese government might understand a second would not trigger all by itself the adverse inference provision what was carried over from the investigation was the p r c one rate which was from the federal register notice it was not an independent re investigation of the investigation as part of the record of this review so right now you're asking until i'm absolutely sure what i can rely on what he says on page forty of his brief you're saying is false and that's a really good thing for him that it's false and what was the statement on page forty that that there were separate investigation by commerce they didn't send questionnaires to these companies that those those companies chose not to respond to as part of this review and terms of their legal argument that this means that there was a failure to find an  cooperate on the record of this review under six hundred seventy seven easy we just want to make clear we don't think that's a requirement for commerce to carry forward the rate from the investigation forward and i think i think i understand your argument is never mind sixty seventy seven i'm not sure i buy that but it's a substantially more difficult question it seems to me that if you could say there was as he says on page forty a failure to cooperate of pieces of the p r c entity in this review then you could rely on six hundred seventy seven we are not relying on sixty seventy seven e b e because there was not there were questionnaire sent to those companies of those proceeding because other companies on which the review was initiated twenty one companies failed to demonstrate a lack of the jury and effective control and therefore did not receive a separate right yes and you're saying that that that failure to have and so you're saying that and the extent there was for whatever reason whether was lack of cooperation or not they were they were never entitled to a separate right right and evidence on this record to support that presumption there was not there were not questionnaires sent back to these companies develop a now tell us how much you're selling during this period you know so we can make a weighted average comparison or something like that that didn't happen that's were the only entity in china that it's controlled by the government and that is involved in the diamond stoplight business whether that's completely false or not but once they make that to send out questionnaires or you know reinvestigate all the commercial data for the entire you know people's republic of china every year they don't have to do that so they're within their discretion to choose to reinvestigate these two companies when they got the information they no regulation that says oh yes if a company that was previously got a separate all of a sudden after litigation in the court is determined to be part of the p r c why then do you do an average or what kind of act doesn't it doesn't say that know we tell you if they were affiliated with us again that's comers isn't obligated to reinvestigate every single company and they're not obligated take a t m s word for it as to what the twenty one other companies are doing so again that is not discretion given this in individual situation where you had a company that qualified for separate and then lost it to incorporate the commercial information about that and maybe into the p r c good morning honors this issue's been thoroughly briefed so i think with the court's permission i would just offer one observation and then obviously happy to answer any question that you may have the it just like to do is take one minute to make an observation in regard to the very purpose of the methodology basically here we know that there are at least twenty one and he said have been found to be owned and controlled by the government of china the purpose of creating a p r c energy wide rates is to make sure that no energy that's controlled by the government of china and south being sexually a puddle for exports to the united states so that there's no manipulation of the system either by having one company have particularly low rates whoever all the other companies funnel through them or attempt to have just one of  participate to a limited degree get a lower rate and then have that apply to the entire p r c entity that's the purpose behind it that's been upheld for twenty years what the palin is asking for in this case flies in the face of the very purpose to create an opportunity for one company to potentially game the system and then end up being an export or an avenue for other companies to either funnel their exports demonstration of independence from the chinese government without having the page directly in front of you your honor it is is it is it wrong that there were companies other than a t m that were added to the p r c diddy in the first administrat review not in the original investigation because that's why they were listed separately in the in the initiation of the review to the best my recollection your honor there were twenty one companies thread and a minimal right because i say there are other companies in china that weren't identified twenty one and the sigint to the best my recollection from the original investigation who had failed to reach or who had or originally failed to rebut the presumption and then as fruit's against our client as part of that the the pure see what entity for anything that it feel to do with their quite distinct i mean you can punish the twenty one companies we have no problem with them what's wherever but we're being punished now for something rate in the original investigation that the pulled over to this first review so i don't understand how severe cooperation through the average cracked i'm sorry it took account of your cooperation for the average in other words they said you have to be a p r c wide and because you are under government control well i haven't said that they recognize that that there was cooperation so they didn't average it's but they've used and if we were cooperative which is what they explicitly found in this case there is no basis whatsoever to use any part of an adverse rate i mean that's pretty clear from the case law you can take a look at a briefing to get some detail on that but there's no basis whatsoever one five in one hundred sixty four i can tell you without any question the micro my client cannot export from china the my client is bankrupt so i can't really fathom why that