is there anything you can do about that to make it a little cleaner maybe if i speak closer to my speakers that ok ok give it a try thank you ok i'm holding it right next to you so as i started to say on tools china sold for two affiliate sales companies in the united states and maintained records a normal course that would allow us to determine the origin of all places so through the affiliate companies to a certain is just trying to can i ask you this question which which i do is going to take as a premise something that i think you just said you disagree with but i ask you to take this as a premise because as a practical matter it seems to me there's some difference between the legal principles and what you need to get a larger amount of relief and here here's my question i want to ask you to test any information specific potential substitute information only for missing or compromised information by which i mean only for missing information or defective late unreliable or on verifiable information it does not authorize use of substitutes so called facts otherwise available for information that is present and is compromised in the sense i just mentioned because there's no information gap to fill as to the vat submitted uncompromised information my question is does any case or regulation for that matter preclude that information specific interpretation of six hundred and seventy seven compromised information about their source of origin then the theory would be the only units only imported units for which facts otherwise available to use subsection a language could be used would be that the at the outside the universe of the two point five percent well judge serrano you skipped right to the end of my argument brilliantly if i may say we would no case that the government or diamond saw blades the domestics will say no you can't possibly say that the following cases explain that you know once there is some missing and accurately designated as to their origin is it is it a dispute is it is a disputed fact that the only problems encountered fall within the univers those entry items that you say represent two point five percent which is to say the universe of items for which the st two steps of the process for identifying country of origin did not supply an answer and this mysterious fyfe methodology had to be resorted to i would absolutely say that there's nothing problem and verification with respect to the ninety seven five i do see i look forward in the record and i did find an appendix three thousand and forty nine there's some ambiguity this is the government's position and they say something like given that the sample sale traces that verification comprised a small number all together we cannot be confident that there were no other error with your methodology and i don't it's not clear to me that they were if they were just talking about life on the air or whether they that statement also went to the other st two steps in the process do you have an evening yes i mean it's absolutely clear that they could have only been talking so because you were reading the original verification report in vain to find any discrepancies for the other ninety seven percent normally a verification report will go through each material fact in the database of the company and if they find  this case my question was more general which is with this three step procedure do you have a team playing when you do running the good through the process as to what percentage is going to fall out in categor hoping you'll buy that and they'll take the newest nelson tuck it in the back of the refrigerator so that's what this company physically did in congress verifies that certification and so by knowing that and knowing the purchased a by these trading companies and the shipments are marked by country of origin and you have the dates of the arriving shipments so they have currently that's right it's very important i understand although i don't think it's dispositive the case that supports the origin was claire that entry other documents that were original source documents of the company to establish the ninety seven five percent like their unique product both souls from each country or unique prices on a price sheet for each country that's how we we can establish the end origin at all but of course that's not lawful because commerce and the courts are required to consider the entire record based on the entire record and both times other records and documents kept in the normal course you  determine with certainty the origin of at least ninety seven point five percent and the and the invoice there is the invoice that posts in usa or pioneer should have created when they sold to recollection that even in the st portion of the case where commerce sided they did say this is fine but don't do it next time go back to the regular country of it was time as opposed to thailand but it did say identify your sales of the merchandise which is the chinese sun then commerce issued to supplemental questionnaires because it felt that both and earlier reporting needed clarification on what went on as opposed to thailand and i'm sorry i believe the court was starting to question perhaps you're talking really fast as you can basically understand from the questions from the presiding judge that we're interested to know where did commerce issue an instruction so as to be able to say that both didn't comply with the form and manner and you're telling us that there is no evidence in the record in front of this court to support your argument that we have to absolutely does not support the finding it doesn't say you have to specify country of origin if you have things from different countries that those to identify that subject ok and then congress issued supplemental questionnaires  under a one information is missing and then srey of the subsections paragraphs under eight to impeding the proceeding the one we just talked about and maybe not be verified and c the very very best document that would have done it right then to clarify it was an after the pack methodology they were using product codes and prices they were not they didn't have the information country of origin which  conceded that they had on the warehouse them or were stamped on the commerce you look at page twelve of the remand results as commerce is explanation i believe that confidence in the record as a whole and concluded that there seven five but you know it's not an affirmative statement that we know of the com or said that they have no possible inkling that there was there could have been anything wrong with the ninety seven dollars it's rather the opposite the errors they found on both the methodology led them to determine that the reporting on the whole was  you can't point to anything in the record that says here is a problem that we discovered whether on these three traces or elsewhere that applies to a i'm sorry to interrupt but let me get my question in here too because i'm quite confused brielle forty nine is what i asked your friend about because that was the only thing i could find in the records that arguably raised some question about the ninety seven five percent but it didn't but it doesn't get me there if you're if you're relying you're relying on the main paragraph in the middle of that page so what sentence to you relying on to suggest that there were problems with something of their beyond that methodology so it's the sentence in the middle that says given that the sample sale traces the verification comprise the sole number of transactions all together we cannot be confident that there were no other errors with both right and so that's that's ambiguous but look at the last sentence in the paragraph which i think maybe gives some clarity because the last sentence in the paragraph says for this reason we now sign that based on our verification process there supplemental responses explaining feisty were not said attacks are stacked in v t which leads you to conclude that even though that sentence may be ambiguous all of this paragraph was talking about  potential and actual problems with the feistel methodology but not with respect to the remaining ninety seven point five percent of the data and my you reading it a different way than may what about that last sentence that that take entirety of the reporting because ultimately led to the conclusion that it felt that the reporting on the whole was unreliable in part due to the specific errors with the fifer methodology found as well as these physical characteristic errors which it doesn't specify there whether they were not because there had been a problem with five other because that other than the fact that the fifty situation shows that it's mainly possible to have committed air point i don't know answering my question my question is why does why does poison with regard to sift through point five necessarily require poisoning of ninety seven  we're not saying it's required in all cases we're saying that commerce ultimately concluded that here based on lack of confidence in reporting it again supported by the cancel evidence i'm asking whether that conclusion is sustainable as a matter of reason commerce earlier decided that it was sufficient and then now only tells us that it was insufficient because there was a better method available and wireless they are understanding is  sorry i thought the court was finished and i just don't see the i don't see the rational connection between saying because the five voting method may have a problem the other methods of identifying it are not trustworthy in a situation where you that this was part of an overall after the fact reconstruction on the part of both because it didn't keep the records in the normal course of business and commerce lost confidence in its reporting as a whole  is based on the fact that both some had a better method of doing things and didn't do it and for that reason you can't trust the information they put in we would say used was faulty can i just sum up just mr trotter just to see where we are on this one very narrow question if hypothetically we were to conclude that if you want to include the government want another crack or stick that would be worthwhile because there is a likelihood there possibility that the government could come up with those problems or are you willing to concede kind of not that the record does not contain seven contains sections one and sections two necessary information not being available on the record or any of the number of things can justify resort to the fact the vailable including commerce found here and conduct origin specific verification just to try and figure out what the heck broke both of them was doing with this reporting this was not a normal source and let me ask you on this  had bosun kept records directly of origin which was certainly the normal and standard expectation particularly for a party that had been ever spondon in several prior reviews and the investigation and a major point that we haven't not sort of st off category that you look at it a way you can defend yourself if you've messed up on the earlier categories in my reading the statutory provisions correctly i'm not can not exactly defend yourself against their will but call upon congress to use a formation and rely on it even if it isn't exactly the standard type of information that it normally relies on you could say well i acted to the best my ability in supplying this information the information you have is what i can provide you while acting to the best of my ability and then congress must see is that deficient information or what it would normally consider to be deficient data  commerce directly relied on that statute here one of the things that the court of international trade pointed out to makes sense since the i'm relying on your deficient information statute of one thousand six hundred and seventy seven and each has a prerequisite acting to the best of your ability and that requires you to maintain full and complete records of all the information you're reasonably anticipating being called upon to produce those and simply didn't do that here they had the information and failed to maintain a track thank you very much we'll turn back to mr ma defense is maintaining and that is because responding to something questionnaire is more arkansas and every company has different records and different challenges meeting the requirements of the questionnaire so congress leaves some flexibility in how they answer the question here of origin records in future anti dumping proceedings in which you may be selected for examination so that may be telling or not telling for this case but is there any dispute on your part that going forward congress has the right to order you to do that and that you have the obligation to comply with regard to the country of origin records correct it would it would be preferable it would