fun and we believe that the record shows that the price of honey is very volatile we believe the record shows the price of funny actually declined and second he had a period of review so were the platinum did is by accepting his price as the price for the entire war for oil of india it ignores substantial evidence on the record as to what the price should be when you look at all of the evidence and one of the big head reasons for discounting they carolina article on and the well single producer single producer but if you're operating in a market economy the single producer represents the more on the single producer it's selling at a market price because india is a market economy so the fact that it's a single producers for the largest area india i don't believe the record shows it's the largest area it is a tiny producing region but i believe that record's going to show that other regions in india are just as significant in the new production if you look at the india on the internet there is i'm not saying that e t a data is not good data for a particular region for a particular period what i'm saying is that all this other data that department  ear to the next prices jump and then very significantly you have your tribune of tribune article which is published in just write this in the carillon region generally are lower if the economy is not correct decision to get the most accurate margins by looking at a little and representative database as to what's going on in kenya throughout the whole p r war and if you're going to stay go one by one and not doubt it is not that bad but what they didn't do was they didn't look at the totality of the record and especially ignore all the evidence in the tribune article as to how to begin b p keepers can make a everybody has a problem but in this case the department of commerce they had a limited number they have chartered accountants and they just said well it doesn't have a report this statement is no good and if the department of commerce had a problem well do we have to assume that they said the statements no good what they concluded if i understood it was that the other statement b m h p c which i guess had auditors you know and all of this scandal was better was more reliable well in that r schedules listed a repeat and exactly what do you want to do here on appeal to look at the to report the commerces judgment was this one is more reliable because it has all of the snow in the is all the scandals and whatever and we're supposed to  any concern the plaintiffs raised is that somehow the export prices that were placed on the record for ron process tawny were allegedly lower than the raw value bronnie the prices however those export prices were only lower after as well adjusted those prices using its own adjustments and in fact the domestic industry adjusted those prices too and came up with a number that was higher than the circuit values by congress why not just consider all of this information were based on much smaller sample sizes or the source of the data market economy they ought to be part of the equation right i mean any price factors into the economy right for any price might factor into the economy but  larger grid well of the department of commerce where if my dad lowered the price a little bit but that may be appropriate well in this case it would have any lowering the price would have been for test will the eighty eight out it was based upon seven hundred beekeepers and the other articles provided involve either only one producer or was clearly unreliable because there was absolutely no statement concerning where those prices came from all the research was sara and in fact what congress did was it the seventy five values more in the middle of all the prices the tribune article that as well suddenly embraces was proffered originally by the petitioners because the values in the tribune article were higher than the e p a data so in fact far congress did not pick the highest value value that it ended up with was in the middle of the range of values that were out there  nine discusses the plaintiff's apparent anomaly as does appendix seven fourteen and seven seventeen also the plaintiff's concern about  the fact that the only went for the first half of the period of review is not really relevant here if you look at the appendix at page fifteen twelve it demonstrates that eighty six percent of the honey produced  under the e p a data was produced in march through june was produced in the spring and only five percent was produced in october so even if the prices went down by october that would have been a very very small change in prices if there were an october e t a price how do you reconcile that twenty five percent higher normal value than the export price well to make a profit at all well page thirty two of our brief the first footnote we explain the calculational issues that the plaintiffs raised in fact they took a simple average of the e p a data as opposed to a weighted average of the e p a data to come up with what they viewed the e t a normal value to be  rationalization what it does is though it demonstrates that the plaintiffs claims that the department of commerce somehow skewed the data or or came up with the hateley unreasonable or absurd termination congress has determination that the e p a dead it was the best is unsupported by substantial evidence and one way to do that because the substantial evidence standard is very deferential as mr but that's not it's not a trial it's not a theory only picking between two alter if the three articles what i think they're proposing is some combination so even if a b a e p a is much better clearly at the hole than looking at the other three my question goes to why found those three other data sources to be to be unreliable and there will be it will be back to the timing i thought i thought i understood you to just say well yeah there was a problem with the second half but it wasn't the entire portion of the second half it was just one quarter of the second half that should have been affected or treated differently what was it was five percent and that  that's correct but the if you look at page fifteen twelve of the appendix there's only certain months when hunting is harvested so there's so different months have much larger percentages and the primary type of the data you would your your argument is our before the date of the spike any spike that's alleged by the plaintiffs so in fact converses determination is is consistent and internally accurate and in fact in the results congress explained in great detail why did three articles were unreliable and because of their unreliability the agency in its professional judgment determined that it would not increase accuracy to add three unreliable sources to the average when there is reliable data but the other side would point out that at least some of the article one of the articles which we wind on by commerce in another proceeding which sort of call into question your blanket statement with information determined not to use the tribune article on the plaintiffs aren't even alleging that congress should use the tribune article because the surrogate value for money under the tribune article would be much higher than the value that the agency came up with in in the final results so but the sources that plaintiff's proffer none of those have ever been determined to be accurate by the agency are turning to the use of and p h c financial statements plaintiff's biggest complaint about those statements is that it allegedly imposes a last in first out accounting methodology that apparently skews the final results if you look at page eight of as well as reply brief you'll see a table where they talk about profits and losses under different accounting jeems i just wish to note that under c states that it made a profit so what plaintiffs are attempting to do is impose a methodology where that doesn't conform to the evidence the third and final were collected or that were paid in the united states by the respondents affiliates so that's what the department of commerce did here now the plaintiffs are alleging that somehow the agency has to make a what's called a circumstance of sale it just meant between whatever costs were imposed were incurred by as well in china in selling the merchandise to its united states affiliate and compare that with the sales experience of the indian circuit company but under the statute under section six hundred seventy seven eighteen the sales of merchandise in non market economy countries quote do not reflect the fair value of the merchandise so there's simply no no means of making such a circumstance is it still a just me when the activities are conducted in non market economy country and paid for with non market country was not market country currency and therefore congress was well within its construction of the thirty it will eventually degrade yes it's a natural product but it does have a long shelf life certainly long enough to justify the use of a life oh presumption that is simply an artifact of how congress went about adjusting the data to come up with the profit number it just turned out that it assumed a life well based on the kind of data they had before them but there's no evidence on the record best information that was on the record when congress compared it to the other information it didn't say that the tribune data was less with was not reliable at all it said it was less reliable and met data the problem with trying to find a way to use all the data that the court's been concern me morning is how does one go about averaging the data when you have different levels of reliability you have different how do you wait it congress could have for example ok we're going to use the data that we got from the tribune article in the tribune author that data range from forty to one hundred five at the median of those numbers the average simple as those numbers is right about seventy five's right about the number that the commerce department used those data actually support the number that commerce ended up using in this case the corolla article was found to be  s the best information that you had why are all prices in a market economy reputable data points if you had all prices across the whole economy they might be but where you had in this case where  individual data points that didn't represent some kind of spectrum when it e t a did you had that now it was for the second largest money producing region in india but it was may data points over a long period of time these other points worse were single points in time in a single place and so it would unfairly weight the overall data toward those points making this point we're not saying they shouldn't fight we're saying if you have to make a choice between life and if i feel in a financial statement without having any reason to choose one over the other there's something wrong with my financial statement to have to which immediately didn't happen and it did in pretoria which made them make that decision there's something fundamentally groom with the process which has been such an incredible impact on the final result of the moratorium for department to be able to do this i don't actually use the word get away with it but that's what i'm going to say it is just it's one they have discretion but they just have to have to stop someplace and believe this is the place it should stop if everything else