appellants in their briefs seek to portray this appeal as a series of errors by commerce and taking adverse action against the appellant's with the opponents are actually proposing is a fairly sweeping alteration in the burden of proof that three issues raised by the appellant shares a common theme and a common flaw they asked the court to assume the very facts that they need to establish and they seek a benefit that they're not entitled to first accounts demand that all of the be treated as carbon when the record in fact demonstrates that both carbon and alloy billet was used they demand that they receive a scrap offset when they can't account for when and from what products the scrap was produced and they demand that commerce use no market economy freight charges instead of a more appropriate surrogate simply because the non market economy for a few orders were paid in us dollars to be clear none of these were add for sections taken by congress with respect to sampling can never be used in establishing a composition of the c t g the issue is the connection of the mill certificates to the un sample quantities and there is no evidence here that a particular the mill certificates themselves and we know that these runs took place across a number of months used in some cases six different suppliers of billet and across multiple hits so we have nothing to say that the what commerce was faced with was evidence going in both directions there is certainly some evidence from the mill certificates that some of the o c t g at least the tested o c t j was composed of carbon was composed from carbon billet we also have evidence on the other side that at least some of the contract numbers and some of the o c t g was composed of allo commerce came to a reasonable conclusion to split it in the middle i think is and judge goldberg described it as a solomonic solution the standard of review here is whether or not converses determination in that regard was supported by substantial evidence and while you could certainly come to a different at perhaps a different average or  we believe that this entire argument put forward by the the opponents is really a sideshow because to be clear the statement that the appellant's made below in the prior to the preliminary result proposing an alloy based surrogate as appropriate for the entirety of the subject merchandise that was not inaccurate or at least it was not wholly inaccurate so the idea that it was contention was a mistake sort of lacks the necessary predicate it was actually false or that it was actually wrong and in any event comers considered whether or not it was a mistake and we believe appropriately rejected that contention based on the progression of the record and looked at the initial identification is out of the way they looked at the inventory slips it looked at the incomplete mill certificates and the website screenshots and came to the conclusion that some of this so c t g came from billet that was out if i may move on to the scrap offset issue if if you can show that there was a scrap generated from the subject merchandise during the period of review then you are entitled to a scrap offset but if he or the only information they provided was not tied to the subject merchandising it was not tied to the period of review so we don't know i think in in more to the point congress looked at it and said we cannot congress looked at the evidence that they put into the record determined that they did not that they were not entitled to it that they didn't cross that threshold and converses determination in that regard as do a great deal of  respondents there provided information from the rich an estimate what could be derived from which the information particularly was it produced from the subject material subject goods was it produced during the period of review that even if you didn't have it if you couldn't come to an exact number you could come to something that congress was comfortable with what we have here is an eight in absence of that where we don't even have enough to make that to make that estimate and so i think that's where that's where commerce found itself and this wasn't a punitive action come to a conclusion they didn't have evidence to say eighty twenty sixty forty and so they they selected fifty fifty as as the average that they used again you could that was sold any of this crap that they're claiming should be used as an offset actually came from the subject material as we don't have anything tying that scrap that they're claiming to the subject purchased from a market economy supplier and paid for in a market economy currency with the price paid to the market economy supplier of course here we had a chain where chained the paid if freight forwarder who paid a chinese agent then paid a korean market economy carrier and we had the prices paid from chain de to the freight forwarder in the prices paid from the french quarter to the chinese agent but we simply had no information about how much money was made from that chinese agent to the market economy carrier the korean carrier and that's the information the commerce the commerce needs now chang beat change he did provide documentation but all that documentation said was that the payment was made in us dollar settlement but it didn't provide the