success is that with the primary issue addressed below by the trade court we have demonstrated the president's safeguards and lawful for two reasons first the president acted without a recommendation of the commission and second the president recommendation that garners in the jargon prior to presidential action i see where this actually requires a finding serious injury but i don't see where the statute requires a recommendation before the president connect  r i think those that are requires it in several specific areas first if you look at section twenty two fifty two after the statures the commission was promulgated a report that must include a recommendation of the commission  commission shall include in the report be the recommendations made under section iii and an explanation of the basis for each recommendation that you might your own or wonder why it says recommendation if you look at section easy it talks first about a recommendation of the commission that could be for example a tariff a tariff or a quota and also talks about certain other recommendations that it may make to the president for example it may suggest that he should conduct international goshi ations or other things but it's clear you are that there has to be a recommendation of the commission that's one is further explained in the clear that a report by the commission should contain if there is a determination or b which is a serious injuries germany  don't we have a report which satisfies the requirements that we have a report in which each commissioner lays out its recommendation and a number of separate views that's right are we do have individual recommendations of the commission but we do not have a recommendation of the question as a whole which is required and that's not our decision if you look at twenty two fifty one a which is what we dealt with force i think it does say that if there's determination of serious injury the presidential act and we held that finding by the i p c about the finding of serious injury was a predicate to presidential action but there's nothing has to take certain action you are just this that the statute says that he shall take all appropriate and feasible action immediately before that with it's within his power with the president determines so it seems to me that accordance with this part furthermore if you look at other parts of the statute your honor it requires for example in twenty two fifty three that the president explicitly take into account the recommendation of the commission so it's very clear that congress wanted him to take into account the court discussed how the commission has to explain itself and how it has to explain in detail the basis for its recommendation so i think it's clear from the statute and from this court's holdings that it's more than just a question of serious injury this court said that the commission's findings also have to be internally consistent so the commission with the court was saying that you have to go beyond just the question of serious injury it's a question of what the commission actually sets and the commission must make a finding a recommendation and very importantly on it without a recommendation congress presidential take all appropriate people actually i'm assuming that the president decides what's appropriate feasible with within it's part of which the president determines again it's up to the president to determine at that point what type of measures are going to be applied we don't dispute the text of the statute or but the statute has multiple requirements yes we don't dispute that the commission needed to make a finding a serious injury in order for the think that that is because whatever i think of our that is because it's not just about twenty to fifty one the statute has to be read as a whole you can't pick isolated parts of the government has requested again twenty two fifty two into the statute is neither consistent with the pla language nor consistent with any rational policy that i can answer to you are let me add one practical point for your consideration the statute provides that the commission shall have one hundred twenty days to make a finding of serious injury ok but the commission t statute also gives the commission up to one hundred eighty days to make its recommendation and to issue its report if the congress wanted process the and to be able to act without a recommendation but they would have said after the finding of serious injury which must happen within one hundred twenty days the president can act instead they explicitly condition his ability to act or judge ran his comments explicitly conditioned his ability to act on receiving the recommendation of the commission why is that because the commission is considered a body of experts a body that the that the president must hear from in order to but the conditions of one thousand us eat thirteen thirty weren't met and there was not a recommendation of the commission so your point your honor if we can pick and choose from which statutory requirements to pick from the statute also says in the same provision where it says that the president shall take into account  explicitly kept to use your word kavin the president's authority they said that if we find that the president has acted in a way that different from the commission we reserve to ourselves the ability to pass a joint resolution to override the president's actions so very clearly in this instance without substantial share without creating imports accounting for a substantial share here your honor the words substantial must be given meaning that ignores the fact that there was also a determination that the imports from can contributed importantly to the serious injury or threat of serious injury which itself constitutes an independent basis no your honor the the president is required to x glued canadian imports if there is a finding of either not being through substantial share or the canadian imports that not accounts for contribute importantly to the serious injury found by the commission here canadian imports only accounted for one percent by value as my friends from the government of canada have explained in their brief and your honor as we have said that this court and the supreme court has said substantial must be given meaning it has to be considered whether it's important or whether it is or whether it's a large number so since since the question of whether substantial was not met the president has not acted in accordance with the statu this court in chorus and many other cases has explained that when the president has fundamentally misconstrued statute by not giving meanings to the explicit words of a statute that's a violation of law and cannot be upheld your honor as i said was or three minutes of time for about yes i guess my question is how should i read that finding picos here the high t c made a specific determination that canada did not constitute a substantial share should we read the president's determination of substantial share to rest of the chairman's suggestion that there was a concern about  the answer is i don't know because it doesn't expressly say search rationale the president does say he considered the eighty six report which would include all four commissioners the chairman who did not find a substantial share in the other three that did find substantial share and then he made his own determination under the statute in the report to congress the president mr mentioned that in addition to making a finding that concern that with the mobility of this industry that under the antidumping muscling you're not included in the items he would work yes with that include for example that create policy staff committee report yes under the statute the president makes an independent determination it's not dependent at all on the  when he makes a factual determination absolutely well that may not be true but if the president rested on him correct legal rationale the case is suggests that there could be review and what i'm trying to ask you is if the proclamation rested on the surge rational we have the statute here which says that provides for surge remedies and it provides for surge remedies only after if he had been suppose he had said i agree with the i p c c that there are canadian imports do not now constitute a substantial share in the basis for my action and his concerns about the future searches would that be lawful action i think it would be lawful because it would be a factual finding this case is just like most insistent as it is not a factual finding i'm saying he says this is this is my legal my understanding of my legal authority and i and i do not i agree with the i t c that the canadian imports do not now constitute a substantial share but i am acting because of the possibility of a future s i think that would be lawful and i also think it would be factual but if the president here did not identify search as a reason he identified the concern with why wouldn't you want hold for him and because of the possibility of  for searches in other countries but there are other trade remedies that could apply in the case of searches and none of them are exclusive in fact the domestic industry has obtained two anti dumping duty orders and two countervailing  already but because of this mobility problem the imports just keep flooding into the united states and that's why they resorted to section two or one the escape clause provision when they had no other recourse i also  would like to know and i have to go back to the count one but on the you know just to emphasize that count on count three the appellant's argument is just like motion systems there to the pla argued that the president must have construe the statute because on this record he couldn't have reached the conclusion that there was that the statute was met that there was a substantial share and that's exactly what they're arguing but that you could as in chorus you could review a proclamation to determine if the serious injury requirement was math that is the only precondition for action by the president under section two hundred one and this court did review requirement for the president to act and that's why this court reviewed the injury determination or any other situation than just you know and there were some there are some temporal requirements some limitations on the duration of the action i haven't looked at that issue so i don't want to can see that that would be an issue but otherwise i am not aware of any section twenty two fifty one and twenty two fifty a standard has traditionally manageable standards correct i mean unlike some of these other cases where the president was supposed to determine whether the terrorists were in the national interest for something like that which was not  would be reviewable right there's a judicially manageable if it were a precondition for the president's action then it would be like the injury determination i agree but here the statute requires the i t c to do one thing to conduct this exercise make a determination report to the president and then the president makes a separate  determination this is not that's not my question my question here is that in terms of a judicially manageable standard the substantial share standard of the statute is in traditional we manageable standard it's not like a standard that sa determination with a substantial share standard we could review that we know what to do right right although here because it's not a precondition there'd be no reason to if we feel standards that present statute speaks in terms of a presidential determination the argument is it's not a view as opposed to an agency determination correct i would like to emphasize the on count one that this court has never enjoying the president from providing emergency relief for an industry or enjoying any presidential proclamation in the trade area and the trial court was absolutely within its discretion to deny requests for the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive relief until the court could consider the case and the case flow is continuing if this court to agree with the  that they are likely to succeed and that the public interest favors their cause both of which the trial court and a very well reasoned decision and found otherwise then the only recourse would be a remain for further proceedings on irreparable harm and balance and interest the government reserved its right to counter the irreparable harm allegations three times on the record and we've never had a chance to we've identified some of the information we would submit if we had a chance showing that the  it please of course we already stated summarize it in our brief why we think the commission's action fully comply with the statute in this case including commissions remedy recommendations what we'd like to see our understanding of the appellant's argument is that despite the fact that the commission remedy recommendations are in no way binding on the president and that notwithstanding counsel's argument there is no requirement in the statute that a majority of the commissioners agree on a were is it should we look at this as a legal term there means that it's got to be a finding of the commission as a whole in section thirteen thirty two is where the term remedy finding  commission was introduced and it's something that was in the one nine hundred seventy six amendment and this was a subject of considerable argument and discussion by the trial court and the envelope and what what happened was before nine hundred seventy six there was concern that the commission was not issuing a majority remedy recommendations in all cases in a number of cases and therefore the statutory congressional override procedure was not available for congress to act when the president failed to take action after a affirmative commission injury determination so what congress did in this one thousand nine hundred seventy six amendment in section thirteen thirty the two is for purposes of the congressional override mechanism congress decided to say we are going to create something called a remedy finding in the commission in cases where there is no no majority commission recommendation and are going to make this remedy finding the commission for purposes of the override available in some cases but not in all cases it's available as thirteen thirty two in the very some sections indicate where there is a  less than three commissioners or the commission is equally divided three to three and but it is not available under other circumstances and here where we only had four commissioners sitting and a majority of course is three commissioners that therefore if you don't have a majority you're not going to have a remedy finding the commission but the significance is the legislative history and the language of the statute confirm its remedy finding the commission is for purposes of the congressional override in certain situations but not in other situations those names the opinion of the trade court here appeared to suggest that the fast track authority cagr us laws and bailable here because there wasn't a remedy recommendation in my reading the opinion cleric my question is do i read the trade court decision here correctly as saying that because there was no remedy recommendation the fast track authority in congress was not available and yes your honor in this case the congressional override procedure was not available because there was no qualifying remedy finding we don't have to reach that question do we know is that really any of our business whether the congress can do this and not is not up to congress and not to us and it is up to congress and congress in section thirteen thirty two made it clear that in some situations the override this provision of procedure would be preference and fate in the legislative history legislative history for commission majority recommendations in all cases and all fine but congress made it clear in that one hundred seventy six legislation that was only making the remedy finding available in certain situations and not for example in the case where there are only four sitting commissioners and it made clear that we are in the one hundred seventy six legislative history that they were not changing the procedures of the commission at  so there are inevitably the way congress drafted the law in section thirteen thirty two there are going to be some cases where there is neither a majority recommendation or a remedy finding supported by at least three commissioners and therefore in those cases the rational override procedure would facts but there's no dispute about the facts here or about his rationale or you can review whether his act on its face is consistent with the statute whether he has misconstrued the statute that again is holding of course in several other cases and i think it's worth pointing out the appendix eight forty six in that part of the president's report to my opposition's comments he specifically talked about a rationale for other f d a partners he said that in light of the frequency with which producers have moved production  other f d a partners he made no mention of canadian imports for that the reason third just days question section three twelve c of the act specifically provides for what might happen if there is a search there's no reason for the president to be acting  with respect to a search where this statute has already contemplated that specific possibility with respect to motion systems are that case is a very different case in that case for one thing the president required on relied on facts he did no such thing here facts outside the record secondly motion systems had to do with issues of the national defense and the national economic interest that's not a question of that can be judicially reviewed like whether something constitutes a substantial share turning briefly to our arguments with respect to count on e first it's very important that in course this court said that twenty two fifty two f provides in detail what the commission report must contain it must contain a recommendation of the commission and it must prove that that same provision also says that the commission had to provide an explanation for its recommendation your honor why is that the case that's because as we've been discussing congress put into place and override mechanism congress wanted to have the ability when there was no one there was a recommendation of the commission to have the ability to pass a joint resolution to pass to override the can the president's actions if they differed from the commission the president had to explain in detail in detail your honour's why he disagreed with the commission none of that has been done to judge moore is really a question yes twenty two fifty one a day and twenty two fifty three a talk about the president acting but that doesn't mean that the other parts of the statute can be obviated by one specific goal you have to read the statute as a whole