know i'm talking about actually the dumping margins in the case the sort of they might have been at certain times bracketed but they're they're actually not the names of customers and they're not to know secret cost production information they're actually dumping marjorie's that are now six years old department utilized and i have a rate based upon a single transaction out of one hundred forty one transactions and that single rate was an outlier that was significantly higher than any other margin on the record substantial evidence that is not substantial evidence trying to this was secondary information from a prior review so in any of the cases where progress is required the information they use the data that they select must have a meaningful or they send it back to the department of commerce and told them actually invited them to use a pan style analysis because traditionally they have a if they cases the department has been forced oftentimes by this court or other courts to find a big grouping of transactions so that you're not just using the highest transaction they're looking for high volume transactions here just funny was inviting them to do that instead they came back with a novel what we believe to be flawed methodology get they have rights and the partner has clear responsibilities as articulated by this court along thing kid in other cases that when they do their analysis when they do their cooperation it must be logical and the rate they come up with must hav yeah well the normal values that they've made an assumption that because the exchange rate for and it's actually going up that the prices must have gone up so i will concede it is not as flawed as their us size so if you want me to say is it as bad as the us side i will stipulate to that price for the single transaction and they use they said oh the import statistics are even lower and zero seven zero eight van dijk then the gross human price was in zero six zero seven therefore there must have been even more extensive dumping in two thousand and seven two thousand act and that was the extent of their cooperation well tell us what your problem but i have three significant problems with that first off the transaction issue in the zero six zero seven review was the c e p transaction six zero seven so it's not apples to apples the second big issue is he was clearly on the record before you go on to the second issue and now the reason comrie made this comparison the way it is because if if they can go out and look for other information about when they did find that information they have to make a logical but actually between the facts on the record in the conclusions they reach so the first problem was it was not an apple fabolous comparison the second biggest issue and it's not an apples exactly how much that delta was it was huge so to assume that because you imported it at that you would sell it at y without accounting for that belt that we believe is the logical the biggest mistake we believe they may know why isn't that sufficient to cor orate the truth that because you can't cherry pick the assumptions you want to make you must look at the record as it is and one of the things important things that is on the record is that we made a comparison between the entered value in zero seven zero eight and   single transaction price from zero six zero seven is representative of life you're not a correct the prices went up twenty five percent and how you reach a conclusion that there's more dumping basically florissant the exact same gross unit price not just the one with the forty three point five eight percent so if you look at what they did they tried to cooperate a single grossman across nineteen transactions had that same price the average dumping marg sorry i'm not laughing just because your judge i think that was a good judge but the next thing i'd like to talk about if it's possible is that let's assume that they've gone and actually in fact in their mind corroborated that number right but let's look at what the margin was that was calculated as forty three point five eight percent it was that margin so it was based upon a aberrational outlier sale and this and this court and the courts below us have never counted the selection of a single outl number unless it's incredibly proud right by the things and using that means there are other margins which are in the general vicinity there has to be high volume transactions which also have margins either around it or usually above up and in most cases this court has accepted as called right to forty three percent for the number you would also find margins of fifty eight fifty seven or thirty one or thirty two here it sticks out by itself there was a reason why that margin stuck out by itself out of four hundred and thirty nine transactions of that that type of merchandise only two of them were half of los magnesium of the heavy products and only to the transactions and had half the los already has a lower quantity than the by far the vast majority of the transactions then had a huge freight cost that was three times higher than the other freight costs on the record so i think everybody can agree that if you have one transaction that is forty three percent and the next lowest margin is significantly below that and you can tie the fact that say happy load with an incredibly high freight costs that gives you pause that that is an outlier and aberrational margin into itself so i would not say that commerce ignores that information your honor but it is my statement what it shows correct not quite your honor i what's the matter with what i said the the average import value that that price given to eight as an estimate because it had no other information i'm not saying that but the problem is there seems to be you're using it for that purpose which may be fine but the problem is if the zero six zero seven data the zero seven zero eight data were aware yes if we were aware that those were the same the same number of the same apples to apples comparison and we knew that we could calculate what the actual constructed export price would be were going to be in that situation but we're in this situation because of these not talk at the zero seven zero eight period so commerce was bound to use the information that it had to corroborate the margin that it shows but the fact that there wasn't better information is not that that's involve look there are other low quantity transactions but they don't have the same type of margin so the fact that the low quietly transaction is not the driving force for why this is a high margin and it's not aberration said look this low quantity is not the driving factor the same is true with the for the freight expenses the there are other transactions that also had high grade expenses but the next highest rate expense was slightly lower and it margin was that vastly lower than the forty three point five eight percent margin so again congress looks to those numbers and says this is not the high freight expenses it's not the driving factor of why that this margin is high but these two things the reason why is looking at is not it doesn't make this transaction operational it doesn't show that this margin is different because of those two factors and the fact that it's the highest margin itself does not make it aberration in commerce can certainly look to the highest margin and it's a calculated margin used with the visas on prices it's tied to a visa zone experience no six of seven and then commerce or commerce determined that the twenty one point seven one percent rate that it might otherwise use because that was the key calculated margin the average margin from the investigation it determined that was not going to meet the purposes of adverse inferences and therefore chose the forty three point five eight percent margin and then had to corroborate the fact that it's the highest margin in of itself here is commerce does not want to use transactions from the previous year that had some sort of it was different from the other sales in some way that made it different so again if if the low quantity transaction made all of these on the related margins very high for whatever reason then then perhaps it would be an outlier and and it would be appropriate for commerce to consider another directed by the f a a and by the adverse inference that statute to pick a margin that is sufficiently adverse to concur its participation in future reviews now obviously that means that it's going to have a slightly higher number that might be supported by the record right now not necessarily honor in this case it was the highest transaction but that's not commerce purpose and that's not what congress you know i see in my time is up so we respectfully request that the court affirm the trial court judge dykes question about the corroborating methodology methodology and the concerns expressed the by the this is confusing because the the information that we have is from zero six zero seven review report on the say that that's right that's correct you formulated their government's position correctly the government does not know you cannot know because the information was was removed from the record and that's that's the whole that's the whole issue here i mean that's that's why we're here we're here because of easement pulled its information off the record and we think this that information in the record shows that the margin will be significantly higher than forty three point five percent the reason it took that off the record and it believed it could get twenty one point seven one percent as its rate so it's a visa now comes before the court asking for a very precise apples to apples  calculation of it's something margin want to pull its information off the record it could have it was in control of whether it received an apples to apples precise something margin calculation but the extent practicable based on information reasonably at its disposal and if you say there are other ways of doing so maybe that was a better way to do well there but there is information on the record your honor showing that we believe that but we submit that's the wrong question the question is whether there are a reflexive easements commercial reality in the oast seven o eight review the gal notion k said the rate has to have some relationship to commercial reality and it is the highest rate from the previous review but the rate reflexive easements commercial reality in this review and we would respectfully request the court to consider that in firm the department of thank you again john really previous on p o v is not just to clarify what the record says we did withdraw our b p i information from the zero seven zero eight review but really it remains on the record all of the public information we filed including certified filings sure that that's a legitimate comparison to the customs data for zero six zero seven because we don't really know how those seven the way data was computed with with all due respect oh seven away doubt it was it was information put on the record by the government itself information the statements they've actually says you can use margins from a prior review as well right even though we don't disagree with that but it's how you do an analysis of the past reflect commercial reality remember here from day one that apartment chose the highest margin possible the outliers film one low the highest rate there was sixteen other transactions between twenty one point seven one and forty three point six five sixteen other transactions they never answer the question no matter one of them surpasses forty three percent i think it take doesn't take a leap of late to say something about that transaction is off and this court has required in numerous other cases and pam and kid they want to have you going to choose a margin you need to have that marjorie cooperated by other margins around that in the same review do you think it's high volume transactions above and below to assure yourself it's not just an outlier this is the most outlier margin i think this court has ever seen that would even consider using  and for final aspect i just don't think it makes sense thank you