cases young child that's packed versus the united states comfort is you're just a president absolutely absolutely no rational relationship to best packers practice if you look at the record if you look at the comparisons between the younger and younger ones like younger had zero right and two hundred forty five percent china right we don't think there's we think it's absolutely clear your mind that our company is closer to yemen and has absolutely nothing to do with the china white right we fully cooperated like yama we were free of government saying that it put itself in a carry of situation they only think in to respond right but let's assume that we think that was a rational or reasonable decision given the place that they get these two response yes it's not the air fault that the rates turned out to be the rate that they work so if we assume that it was reasonable under the circumstances to only get these to a mandatory response it's not the government's fault that the rate case that this person you know  investigated so you're allowed to use an average and but it has to be of companies that are individually investigated your yahoos individually investigated but the china why density is not a bid for investigation and your daughter's case after face  another method that would have gotten this close human pretty young great one of the rational method that could come up i got closer so you would have been up here if they get fifty percent and then and i argued well no that was an arbitrary number we that they apply the average was just as bad a slight a simple act but secondly if you don't agree with us on this matter of law and we're going further we believe as a matter of law you could go to the facts of the case and say what would have been a reasonable solution we could think yobbos sales where you could take away four percent and a hundred percent weighted average thinking of a half or additional information we gave you said look you know come back we'll give you more information they could have done all the steps but they did something that was overwriting purposes to make this is accurate as possible how can you justify this is accurate your honor this is justified under the statue as a reason method when commerce ha  commercial reasonableness how can you do a substance density of evidence review when you only have one mention mark will be the substantial evidence have to have something else don't you and you could have gone out and gotten someone else through a mandatory procedure you did well the average unit value analysis that commerce conducted was to address exactly this point of whether  is whether there is substantial evidence to support this separate rate and based upon the a v analysis again based on evidence you just average a zero and the to fifty percent and come to one twenty five that's how is that how is that accurate it is there is not much evidence on the record of one of best packs what best pack margins would actually be it is true that this is this is an imperfect analysis but the average unit value perfect but why couldn't you have just asked for another participant got a few more data points well one can't be accurate but again your honor there's not just one data point there are two there were average and yet the simple average but that is but the co both recognize that these are two entirely separate situations one's a china wide government controlled entity the other one is not the one that was not more over one hundred percent again the average unit value announces derives from the information from the quantity in value submitted by best pack and that were available on the record for  excess of what best fact would have fallen into the invoice consistently some indication that that's true the commerce determined that the the information on the record although again there is there is not much information on the suggested that this was there was enough evidence to say that the separate rate was appropriate that means the subject substantial evidence review whether i whether if we looked at it has to be reasonable suggest that you've got enough evidence to say these people deserve a doubling of their price which of course will charge to the american consumer most of the time because you circumstances and that the reasonable thing to do in that circumstance is to average them together that is what congress did here is using a methodology explicitly contemplated implemented by congress both in the statute itself and  to end up in a situation where a patent shoes and all others rate and in fact it did so here i have it still had two two data points average together that's all it was ever going to have to average together and the well in that again commerce use the average unit values looking matches in the information submitted by best pack a separate respondent the information that is that that company did submit which is what the best  right i'm looking for a a more thorough fulsome rationale from the commerce department other than the obvious statement that one twenty five is the middle number between zero and two hundred fifty percent right not the average you know  margins for these companies that's why we are in a situation where it but what information it did have was these average and it values which is an imperfect proxy for what margins might be but was some information that commerce did have and what commerce to use to it to substantiate it's a separate rate that you want to give  different responses that is until there may be cases where there's too many individual responders to investigate so we're going to say you can do with us to gauge that but with that you narrow nineteen down to two you lose one and you end up with this situation with a  say well that's also about and which is you're under the statute contemplates that both of those circumstances are kind of unusual and yet you put them together and then you didn't the commerce department put those see them and they're don't want to see that no was that young was looking like a zero no one else knows that because they don't have all the figures congress is the one that knows ginty and just dropped out and yama smoking like israel their limited resource and i don't think anybody suggested that what they suggest what everyone is looking at is how you get something that's reasonably accurate when you have one drop out as and going to adverse facts only and the other you can see is going to be a zero at that point why don't you take some step to correct and there was no step taken the correct outcome that reasonable i think of the because we didn't say we were violent didn't request voluntary to fight the status of the dot scenario every single company in every single case is going to have to request voluntarily respond in statics right the beginning of the case and you can have hundreds hundreds is just it's not the way it works in the real world where you have the possibility of dozens and dozens or hundreds of potential buyers to respond and companies don't do that they go and they say ok you have two companies somebody standing above them in a mess will go there because that's the general rule the general rule is that the mandatory respondents represent the industry it's a representative rake and i think the government agree percent rate or above or two percent right it's representative because huge zero just actually says you shouldn't use now the fact that it's zero i don't i don't think the statute saying it may not be inaccurate i think the problem with this year all right show you can be a were late into zero company gets out of the case so it's excluded from the audit i think that's one of the reasons you have the zero rate not being you used in the average but you don't use the zero and you don't use the adverse effects ava still have to do something reasonable to get a rate that makes sense and i believe the statutes written under a reasonable standard to look at a market economy case for individually investigated company a chinawhite entity is not individually investigated so we're saying it's a matter of law not up you know we'd like to court to say this is a matter of law you can never use a china wide rate in this act for stock you talked about it individually investigated company and then the statement of administrative act