lot and then of and this was a custom of congress excuse me missed the fact that the correction had been made when the fact state regulatory agency to go back for a moment to the unusual the issue was petrol versus power right yes you're right and i saying the original statement was simply generically whack it was generically the verification as you may know as a forward in this case before a process but it's a process where public officials go to the company in question and go over the it very clearly identified that it was correct the information that had been provided earlier in the in the investor in the in the review it stated that it was doing so because issued following verification following receipt of these minor corrections never raise this as an issue but we had every reason to expect that this that this correction had been accepted and on and acted on and it included paraffin wax and therefore that the selection of the all of the sort of value was not facial the indonesian h p s numbers differentiate at the ten digit level between the h p s numbers a lot like hummers which is the nine hundred number point point nine zero zero which the mistranslation which they admit was their own error was timely however you want to sidestep the fact that congress specifically requested back in october of two thousand and one to four values with respect to petrol rights on page five six of the of the joint appendix there's a list where it specifically indicates number one on the list is february the letter was not submitted until the ninth if you look at the actual document that he is referring to the cert and the certification on page two thirteen of of the joint appendix indicates that it was served on february ninth so in any event it was after the one hundred forty day deadline it was after verification and and it did not arise out of verification there is no indication in the submissions however if no such evidence was given in its case revised to this issue so to the extent that they rely on the copy when relies on this particular submission  supported correction if you look at the actual correction on page at the legit correction on page seventeen you'll realize that it does not even refer to petrol wax and it's not clear whether whether it was intended to replace petrol wax or any other factor of production to the extent that they that that they contend that it was clear then then under peer bearing this by its nature is not a ministerial error and instead relates only to interpretation which is which is an error of judgment so to the extent that they lead to that promise we fail to understand or record the issue of the whether or not commerce used the correct wax was raised at the literally after the eleventh hour after the midnight hour in this case one after the record close long after the melting point range the ministerial error so called that was issued nearly a year later does not address any suppose it ever in the questionnaire respond from its face it only talks about translation errors suppose of translation errors in invoices that were submitted months after the original section d so there's nothing on this record at all even an allegation by title that there in which it pointed out certain changes to affect once you can values raw material amounts and specifications well nowhere in this letter is there a statement that the correction in the calculations after verification if you look at the verification in this case it shows that commerce did not address the petrol lapses now somebody looking at the verification report and trying to the verification report and not seeing that address there should know must know that that's an issue to raise in the case but it's clear one fail to do so would address certain other issues but it failed to address it head to wax issue at all and pointed out that much earlier on in the proceedings at patients request commerce and co you want a supplemental questionnaire saying please describe the please tell us the specifications and the chemical what goes into its website we would know the parent company we don't have that information simply because khiam was refused or was unable and it really doesn't matter which to provide that information despite an explicit request from congress so here they are after every opportunity to provide the information to make their arguments literally after the determination comes out it's certain without any reference to the record that now their product has  different composition than what they had regrets presented for the full year preceding the final determination so in closing i point out that khiam one was too late and pointing out the alleged error and second based on the ministerial errors allegations there has been no assertion that the original section the response reporting that produced petrol last was incorrect that stands what was clearly labeled as a correction and use the fact that and this is i refer you to page two eighty nine of the record off in commerce stated that we made minor corrections identified as a verification in through if i were working in the bowels of commerce somewhere processing all this paper and a paper came in with a single word perhaps misspell that that would ring bells in query or climb on fully complied within the proper time will all of a with the obligation to provide complete information on quantities of technical