eleven times the highest rate ever calculated for calling this quits over one hundred million dollars in the duties for this period of you alone and that's on top of a comparable amount for a period of were view to as well now commerce purported to corroborate this if a rate based on a single straight transaction one transaction from a period of review to that had a reported were numbers in the fifty percent range there was it actually it direct your attention to page thirty four of our opening briefing there's a graph here which is also a hundred sixty two there was also one transaction between forty and fifty percent so you can see the one hundred forty four is barely discernible there all the way over on the bottom right hand corner there's one other transaction about forty to fifty percent of that of course is well below the seventy five point three six  primary information sticking your nose well the four hundred forty four in this case would count as secondary information but in any event of the seventy five point three six percent that has to be corroborated is seventy five point three six percent a fair  building increase or deterrent now if again if i draw your attention to page thirty four of our opening brief where we have this draft there's nothing about this frap the can even remotely suggest that a seventy five point three regionally out of line with all of the other margins as i said earlier the next closest you can find is forty to fifty percent and that also is only one transaction and that was well below the seventy five point three in the petition for the seventy five percent rate so it used a combination of data from another company mitsubishi and used some of  data but very little so koehler's actual data played a very small role in calculating the petition rate and as you know the vision raise something supplied by the petitioner so it is in some ways like the  the least trustworthy of any of the data here and therefore subject to the highest corroboration it is something that the statute allows commerce to look at but is unquestionably secondary information and therefore has to be corroborated and the reason is obvious because it is not something that was calculated by com or for a previous period of review in the previous periods of review the highest ever calculated for cola was the six point five percent from the original investigation tha it was never actually used because the rates were always lower for all the other periods of review interior review one of the there was a single digit number which was then overturned by the c i t and on commerce determined that the amount after properly taking into account the rebates was diminished so it's effectively zero so there's nothing remotely close to corroborating the seventy five point three six percent or so earlier there's over eleven times the six point five percent that was calculated in the original investigation so there's no evidence from any period of review can even remotely corroborate the seventy five point three six government's fundamental response on that is we are entitled to ignore all of the rest of your data because you lied to us about some of it so we can't trust anything am i getting their position right i think you're getting their position right it's hard to actually take up the straight face because it doesn't mean that they can just make it up and that's all they did here so that the commerce department decided because of course submitted information that had made it home market sales that we don't have to trust anything that they're saying and we can just speculate on what it might be so congress even goes so far only to say that in this graph you're on page thirty four reflecting the period o basically will not accept the figure on the left side of the graph we mean as far as we are concerned we're going to assume you made those up too i think that's an accurate description of what commerce and i think that's not the calculated to calculate a monthly average which is then compared to individual u s sales so this chart reflects margins for u s sales as compared to an average home march so there is no there no sales that are actually missing from this chart now these numbers if you were to include the omitted home market sales might vary slightly because i'm say work home home market sales and so the u s sales individual u s sales here are fair to average monthly home market sales and so there is no evidence whatsoever that any u s sales are missing and so of the actual what the actual margin i'll be it was some bills increase as a measure of the charts it doesn't mean that they can simply throw everything out the window and that's exactly what they did here there's if you throw out all those data commerce looked at what color reported as its own commercial practices in the previous review and looked to a range of transactions and the petition rate the commerce ultimately used w not at the hundred forty four percent that was at the top of that range but was significant and closer to the other high margin transactions that were at the bottom of that range the precise number because i think it's been disclosed publicly you know there's a forty nine percent transaction there was a twenty nine percent transaction and i think a total of eighteen in that twenty to thirty three developers hundreds in the in at least double digits that tended to ten to twenty percent or so congress at the end of the day how could this rate which is i mean i don't know what what the numbers would be but is aberrational by any weasel view of this chart be considered relevant doesn't have to throw out this chart entirely to determine if the f a a read here seventy five percent was adequately proper id and that goes to this court's decision in k y c which means very clear that in applying and have a rate congress does not have to apply what would be a typical dumping margin for the industry in question were typical dumping margin for a cooperating responded or and this bleeds into this court's decision and then you have something that reflects what the rate would have been if the if the respondent had otherwise cooperated well why not why doesn't need to be kind of close to the what the rate would have short well to a because i realized kind of close is not much of a standard completed in the second review so this is consistent with colors commercial practices and although there are some sales that are somewhat lower than the f a rate which again is much closer to that of the everyday is not one hundred forty four percent even though  specifically urged commerce to potentially rely on that number commerce on the seventy five percent number which is much closer to the other transactions a caller reported if it is theirs and still fifty percent higher than and kind of the relatively small group at than then than the rate so that the court has upheld rates that are based on relatively small amounts of information and are significantly higher than the than the typical rate under the a think that what constitutes corroboration depends on the reason you get to the adverse inference standard in the first place whether it's you know intentional or merely negligent  i think it i think it provides a framework and beautifully when you're talking about a rate that is intended to deter non cooperation i don't know so that's the that's the central issue but i think it's an important framework for what was going on again notion but the important distinction is that this clear that there are limited information sources this is actually said to the extent practicable and color is the only responded in the history of this proceeding and obviously its data had also been affected by by the actual scheme itself permissive permissible actions under the statute and that's all the commercial reality means and here these transactions were all you know what what comes calculated based on the report of the game to do you disagree inference what's the inference if it's not well i think by commercial real i think i think the idea is that it's reliable information i mean you know the statute gives congress very broad discretion to go to when implementation proceeding so on and so forth and i think there's it's a lovely one which are if you live here it's reliable because it's what's koehler saying is these are our transactions this is what we're reporting this is what you know despite the fact that consistent with with with the you know high end of what you're reporting is your dumb transactions in the second review and that in this limited information world were and that's an adequate basis for us to determine that  it please the court i'd like to address your question first i'd like to point out that margin is not necessarily considered aberrational just because it's just a statistical outlier putting aside the fact that cro your case and and also a good question about you know should we look at the nature of this conduct here as part of a clear corroboration analysis i'd like just to speak to that because we have to remember here that this is a this is a fraud case this is a case where  actually plus an additional amount for deterrence what how do you set that additional amount i think it has to be reasonably calibrated to the nature of this conduct that occur in most of these cases you have respondents that either make a mistake or perhaps they don't understand the reporting obligations rationale i don't remember to calm or say that one reason that we are choosing this rate which is pretty darn far from anything else except the one with the word unusual very unusual oh is because that's what we think is necessary to deter this particularly bad kind of conduct actually or is that at pages nine hundred fifty to nine hundred fifty one in the joint appendix which is it towards the end of the the way were in the single digits would be insufficient that would have no deterrent effect and drops to college made a finding toward the end of a page seventeen of a slip opinion where he said that this is the rate that's required to deter the misconduct given the extreme  on the record here is that certain employees in attempt to contravene rodeo and we certainly have to accept that there were agents of the company for and that did this in part for the purpose of changing the and dumping protocol and senior person over involved no no that's one quote that's been taken way out of context which is that was in the context of koehler explain that it took personnel action against those the senior people involved and i would s that means the senior most of the people involved as opposed to the people in the shipping department who repaired labels and things like that but if there's a disputed for that that today where that that points out exactly why commerce should have allowed color and opportunity presented side of the case but it never david chance to do so but i'd also like to point out of an important legal issue here which is that the government said that non yacht speaks broadly and i really want to emphasize that non o did not purport to nor could it overturn discords decisions in cases such as to chaco in gallon ocean so the standard in the corroboration context is unchanged by nonya not also like to point out when i was asked earlier by the court whether or not commerce look to anything other than that one hundred  forty four percent transaction and converses language actually was that it was relying on a range of margins in which the seventy five point three six percent fell but as you can see from that chart absent one hundred forty four something percent correct but but that doesn't great a range in which seventy five point three six percent fall so the range consists of one hundred forty four and then something which was below the not the extraordinarily significant about what congress had to do to corroborate commerce if it did not want to rely on any of this data in the chart it still had an obligation to corroborate and it could have done so under the statute under independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal so it could have looked at data from the original investigation it could have looked at period of review one which was not in any way affected by this transshipment because that started later so it had plenty of data it could have looked at even if it