question which is we're talking about something that happened in two thousand won why are we here in trying to game dealing with this is this a cut this is a continuous issue that even though it w because our position that the duties were artificially inflated so what happened what's happened in the seventeen years in the interim have there been further just agreements or disputes have not been in courting mesereau what's been going on for seventeen years well that the main thing that's happening rather is litigation in front of this court considering the outlook at the time kerry now the first period of review which is subject to litigation here is unusual as compared to the subsequent reviews that are always a year the first review sides can be you know large much larger or smaller than a year depending on certain circumstances so what is what we decide here with respect to this discrete seventeen year old process of bridge you have impact on other stuff that's happened in the interim or is this just of discrete issue well there are some genuine themes here but we're here because we don't want to have to pay that dumping duties that were assessed on these entries that came in between the want to know two we think that they were they were unreasonably calculated for the numbers of those reasons for that is that that you said that that it it was inappropriate to rely on the two thousand article if that the two thousand and one article but didn't we didn't we decided be or didn't didn't the court decided we'll have to be that in fact that use of the two thousand article was a reasonable well that was the court below and we had to do novo standard here we respectfully disagree with who ha we believe that there was  plenty of reasons to pick the two thousand and one article over the two thousand first of all it's understood which is more contemporaneous which is a critical commerce criterion for selecting surrogate values so you don't  our standard ever appear with respect to the question of what constitutes the best available information and substantial evidence and not to know if i'm not going over that's right it's whether or not congress this decision here the critical finding why commerce used the older older article that was less complete that was not only less contemporaneous but it was less representative because the two thousand article used honey prices from a single indian city whereas the two thousand and one used honey prices from the largest indian state i don't think they were drop that i mean this is really out very fact based determination and you're right you will close there in time but there were deficiencies identified in the study that you were promoting so under substantial evidence review how do we get to where you want us to death we just do not see how commerce or the court could conclude that the later article was unreliable we lost but life i would draw your honour's on a tank that was a clearly erroneous yes that was clearly erroneous because if you look at the wording of the over an article on the p p x sixty three they're talking about imports coming in at prices between twenty that twenty four rupees is india want so yes it may have been impacted by the import prices coming in at the lower end of that range but there is from our perspective it is crystal clear that that twenty four rupees price  india it wasn't calm are saying that this whole area part of this article is not as reliable because saying that there's imports when in fact the data shows that there was no imports here fact because you can separate out the thing that was untrue from the thing that is your content here is true but for two reasons the first is yes your honor the fact that it's clear to us and we think any reasonable mind that the this is an extraordinary occurrence where commerce supplemented the record and it included interviews that they had with the author of this publication they said that those interviews that so that the author has  response has had many internal inconsistency so here's where there is just no reasonable mind could find that this is what the author told congress the raw honey price of twenty four rupees was from a raw honey market in  nothing to do with with imports from and in fact if commerce was concerned about that price they could and should have asked the author when they spoke directly to him so you're saying that that commerce should have but let me figure out which statements in this article might be right even though it's clear that some of them are not rather than just say this article does not give us the best available information because there are definitely some things that are wrong if co is going to take the time and effort to go behind the surrogate data which they seldom do and interview the author it's on them to clarify any concerns that they might have here they did the opposite what they did was they didn't tell us you know had they put this on the record we could have commented on it we could have rebut it they concealed it until we went to the foyer process at which point they reach into the article and they say well the author said international competition so therefore it's all the more unreliable we find that that is the no rational fact finder could make that what we see here is an administrative bias to stay the course that terms actually in the administrative record and  artificially high administrative but up into the cia to did a remained in order to allow further development of this this record right this was a voluntary i had an opportunity to make all these arguments right and we did make those commerce disregarded its own members memorialized recordkeeping there's something called the presumption of regularity which which in this case means that when commerce interviewed the author and wrote down the twenty four rupees price is ind that's presumed to be valid unless somebody shows contrary evidence that information was concealed and when it's put on the record we're faulted with not having done enough from our perspective this is you know heads we win tails you lose approach and it contradicts the presumption of regularity similarly turning from the ronnie price to the inflator where we contend congress added insult to injury by taking that ronnie value and improperly inflating it using a convoluted tripartite methodology there was handwritten prices from two small b farms that were inflated well above that were used to inflate the price well above the w six months now it's important to note that commerce had rejected these prices as a surrogate value finding that that these handwritten b farm prices were not public and they were too limited but yet congress turns around and uses these people  information commerce that basically commerce and we've got two different articles neither of which is perfect wine it represents data from the largest honey producer the other either the second the third but the but and then the two thousand and one heart of what they said had a number of flaws and they said you know choosing between two imperfect choices we think that the two thousand is if more representative way clearly so did the specificity factor was an epochal as it's all about this rule of the representative this factor goes our way it's all about this reliability finding what congress where congress byrd was saying from a binary perspective they're both not contemporaneous with they're both not countrywide what they didn't do was we measure the gradients where ours was much more contemporaneous and much more representative and we also feel that unreliability finding was iraq ira and just to talk a minute more about this amended record because again we have a pattern but they did it with the raw honey prices now with the inflator information consul like that's kept by government  officials in the case of the inflator a u s d a official in india and commerce is saying well now when we're not going to use that information you haven't proved its validity to us well which is that you're going to conceal information and then after we get it on the record even though it's beneficial to us you're going to fault us for not having proven its validity we're asking for the inflator that this u s d a information be used as the same limited purpose as the be formed for the inflat and finally if i may turn to financial ratios this is the third issue of commerce unreasonably declined to average consecutive financial statements choosing the earlier because it only because it covered more than ten months of the period while the new one covered just eight such rigid adherence to the contemporaneity criterion cannot be reconciled with congress flexible approach for raw honey and it ignores this is very important it ignores the dramatic shift in profits for that one company between fiscal year profits dipped nearly thirty percent at the tween the fiscal periods so averaging these two financial statements would capture the most complete financial experience of the a time period that congress found critical for the inflator but ignores all together for the ratio so again the first administrative review is oversized here it's more than eighteen months so that's all the more reason why congress the most contemporaneous data maybe it may be when they are when there is not compelling evidence but here because of the the farm prices because of the profits there is compelling evidence to  on i'm actually joined by the phone intervener and i would like to reserve three minutes for him if it's yes well when your clock at twelve can be started at twelve and then it's up to you to abide by thinking morning may please the court i have to start with one of the first taking up another case and so that's why this is so all just because it was stayed in the trial court and then once there was a decision from this court about our finding of no critical circumstances then that's when it came back to the trial court and the period of review  record which can be found starting in pages five twelve of the appendix and those are actually related to a different administrative procedure and we're going to take it in an entirely different administrative proceeding and again  looking at these amended the amended record from are still determined that the two thousand one article was internally inconsistent as to what the exact price of brocchini produced in india is and so therefore determined that the two thousand article was the best available source of information to value raw honey ok can you explain the inflation methodology it's a little confusing it is a little confusing and so with the inflation methodology and not contemporaneous because they both are outside korea refuse to regard the us and it's later would have had to be applied to that two thousand one article as well but just to break it down there were three different periods there conversely looked at with this inflation methodology and during that first period of the farms to basically apply like an extra hyperinflation on top of the indian wholesale price index then we get to the third period which is june through november or she thousand and two where commerce found that three and came up with one number and so it does seem somewhat complicated but when it comes to at least the b farms commerce used that the farm data to account for the fact that there was that period of hyperinflation with the price of  in a less accurate representation of the data and so commerce explains why it chose not to average the financial statements and then again in addition although it was mentioned that here i just want to point out that the c i g g below examined each of the questions you've been asked here great detail and provides a very good  would mention the only there are four factors to keep in mind is publicly available is the death publicly available is a product specific here rod both sides the i'm sorry the margins are two thousand article and the march two thousand one was broad with pulled up at another recovery but neither one of them were countrywide contemporaneous as my friend said neither was marjoe one article was less not contemporaneous but neither one was and the article the real question here is the fifth factor reliability and you know i can't avoid the word but  reliability trumps really everything else you're exactly right on the analysis that congress looked at specially in the documents that were added after the original final results from the war on review affected by imports from four countries of value prices before the p p riverview you typically apply the wholesale price index for the country as a whole to that price over the period to get the regular inflation of the for friend for doesn't challenge that the second think is that if the record shows that there is a difference for the commodity at that that doesn't it get better challenge that what it gets to is the fact that prices for this six month period right the middle from this before were used when those same prices were rejected by commerce for the certain value for money congress had a reason for doing that the point is that this is an apples and oranges discussion separate criteria for circuit value separate criteria for the range question of whether it was converse of practice to not stack up review to reports from the same company on top of each other and you should look at congress's theory there is that what happens if you get something that's too long it doesn't fit the period it may fit the next period they goes but you can bring data that is outside the period this was just an oversight we would never have seen these documents if we didn't move through for it and it's important to note that congress is only asking questions that helped bolster their decision making if they had concerns about the reliability of the raw honey value which we don't see it from reading the record but if they did it was incumbent upon them to ask the authors when it spoke directly to them next on the inflator methodology i agree your honor it is entirely convoluted but that's only because congress makes it so our primary argument is just a straight w p a i across the board we bring in we have a cabin argument that sort of a back up argument but the main one is just a does in certain instances use a commodity specific inflator but here the record does not support doing that are you saying that that congress has a position that there was and i knew usual period of time at that there was actually hyper to use those handwritten notes to it as a basis for hyperinflation and my last rebuttal point is talking about the record as a whole you know that the government and the petitioner as did the core blow they take each commerce decision and they look at it in a vacuum but i urge you to look at it as the record as a whole you'll see these internally inconsistent agency actions the contemporaneity criterion is flexible for honey but rigid for financial