court in this case commerce issued a very broad questionnaire asking for a lot of information again time i provided responses directly six questionnaire six sets of responses at the verification that commerce economists and accountants and analysts found that some information on the finance statements had not been reported at all in response to the questionnaires some there were expenses  well respond and bears the burden of demonstrating that it has certain expenses in the united states in order and it wants to spread those expenses to keep it us price and therefore its dumping margin low so if the wants to have a small amount of it to the particular product for the expenses for that product it needs to demonstrate its entitlement so in that sense commerce was saying if you want to demonstrate your entitlement to just a small heat of expenses for this product as opposed to the total expenses you have on your balance sheet you need to provide all the ledgers all of the  receipts showing rebates commissions you need to document the amount you're trying to allocate for this with respect to the rebates and commissions all that again type provided before verification was an agreement that provided for rebates and expenses but did not show the extent to which those rebate aboard commissions had actually been paid or distinguish between aftermarket and the so called rebates and commissions so that was all commers had before verification after verification wanted to submit provided that i'm not want to hear about what they tried to do in your mind supplement the record with but what were the deficient bring me to know their case they didn't have a document showing how the amount on the giant couldn't even or do we have to provide you with that well i think it's a little bit of both but more the latter than the former with respect to the rebates and commissions for example i provided before verification provided a hypothetical but the hypothetical wasn't consistent with the actual documents provided verification and there were no actual records verification of actual rebates and commissions paid  the letter instructing and what to bring to verification is very specific now without seeing the documents commerce couldn't say we need to receipt dated october sixth one nine hundred seventy two between you and toyota because it didn't know documents existed so it's i mean it's crystal clear from the law of this floor it that a party seeking a deduction or an adjustment in the antidumping duty margin bears the burden of demonstrating entitlement so the burden of demonstrating that an intel it provided the in the documents in the information commerce couldn't ask for anything more specific than to say all documents all the letters all financial statements they didn't supply any documentation that would support their claim that only some of their indirect selling expenses should be allocated to this product w information i don't i don't believe those were additional ledgers but it sought to provide new information after the original information that i provided did not pass clarification it didn't pass verification on a right we're just pointing out to us something we missed out verification and we will fix that but anti said we want to submit new information congress said we can't take a dump of new information after gravitation especially rebates and commissions and congress did not interpret the agreement that to be quite as clear is as you apparently do in being limited to only one type of sale but even after verification  the new information and the anti is not faulting thomas for not accepting new information on rebates and commissions it just is arguing that it submitted enough that it never came forward with additional information on rebates and commission if i could just to finish just a response to that question there was never any information provided before or after beautification that showed actual rebates and commissions it was only the agreement it's your would you call it too much to do really start with the issues that are brought up but i guess i look at this and i appreciate that commerce said let's focus on these ten sales and every one of them was an after market and you brought what you thought would satisfy turns out it doesn't and you know they focused on three he didn't have what you need to substantiate it and i almost understand your briefing to say ok you're going to apply the partial first findings apply to all of our aftermarket sales but what in the world where you're coming out of applying it to the originals that's generally what you're doing right so i guess my question is what did you provide good deal torie for congress to simply take you at your word not you personally but you can understand the need for them to have proof because some companies like make such an assertion that it turns out they're all rebates going on so you can see the need from their perspective would rationale it wouldn't make sense except that the terms of the negotiations called for that the business practice is to move the cost of inventory back to the supplier and so it  the am customers is that they're they're paid for a certain amount of sales made each year if if you buy x percent you get this much of a rebate and so on but that's so they don't show up in they know that information doesn't show up in the individual transactions for the am sales we provided the individual sales information and checks showing that rebates are paid we provided individual documentation the problem we had a rose was that we could hands and therefore they should be excluded bring in all of your growing on record and throw them on the table one point and say see no commission a rebate well i know th prospect but shouldn't have been so big i would think you know that it would soon are that our obligation there's no question we have an obligation but we were asked only to provide documentation for these particular sales and to know now my understanding is that what you want us to do is to vacate a decision of congress and send the case back and tell congress that they have to include the items that are shown on two seven three three and then whether these items constitute new material or whether they constitute explanation of material the clerk who gets to decide is that within the discretion of commerce to decide whether they think something that might be viewed as explanation has morphed into new material was certainly in there the fact finder and it's there but they're fact finding it's not you know their ability to make these old exactly the same regulation sorry it's true that over the course of time commerce shares allowed material to be supplied did on the grounds that constitute an explanation that i didn't understand from the case for you cited it that was pertinent to the exact regulation you're talking about here the government complains that the cases you cite for the pattern of conduct are not on all fours with the facts of this case well it's sometimes hard to identify on a horse when it trying to figure out if your numbers are accurate and then you come in afterward and say oh my goodness didn't you understand that you should have used this key to open the lock well i w these have to be the key on logical law they are the key but the issue is what happened we went to verification we provided hundreds of pages of documents we  know that anybody's ever done that in a treaty pace certainly didn't occur to us to do that the nature of their patience obviously one would be in retrospect better off if one had more each of these points had been brought up orally to a verifying official then i would think you'd certainly would win my book but the trikes me that there are some merit to what i understand to be commerce's position the the the practice is one that is under late by statute sixteen seventy seven g which allows the carnies to comment on the record and the evidence if we cannot point to the record and say commerce department you've misinterpreted this these numbers actually add up what can we say in a case three and it's a question of drawing the line and is there if if i could come in and provide a man in at any time we offered to do it right after the preliminary determination came  if we can provide an explanation without changing anything this is all verification information that doesn't change any of the actual sales information we provide if we can't come in and explain it to commerce then court well it might not be my place to suggest this i would respectfully suggest that a rule thirty six a firm ends would be appropriate in this case and avoid the problems of confidential information the court of international trade thoroughly analyze the issues that congress did not abuse its discretion and ask the court of international trade he concluded that the results were as accurate as possible and not punitive because congress did not select the most adverse information it could use occasion and then reassess the situation that's what they're asking for well first of all if it isn't new information then there's no guarantee that it that the outcome is going to be different congress did allow said repeated lead to commerce that it wanted to provide new information after the verification and that's not the regulatory or statutory scheme we have these these investigations as you know are streamlined complex and it takes an army of economists and accountants to pore over this information this was the seventeenth administrative review under the taper taper barry taper roller being you know somebody when you're reading like a financial statement and income statement or something like that in order  sense you have to read some other accounting documents you know just and that's worth doing same way that sometimes you sequentially have to read a statement banks before you can decide whether you have a fusion of the law would be so what is to frame it it's not what it called at the time new information it's now saying was an explanation but i need to supplement my response to the court's initial questions because timken never that new factual information as opposed to say why here's the reason why we did it right well it's a joint appendix one twenty two which is the the final issues and decision memorandum yes the commerce verifiers explained that originally ten can only recorded information for its corporate cost center but then it verification which would have kept  its indirect selling expenses low because it was only reporting certain corporate center cost but it perfectly ation the commerce department found that there were other costs of the same nature that hadn't been reported so in that situation where and there were numerous other instances in it documented in that decision memo which didn't even check the court of international trade but in that situation the commerce department can't simply accept a truckload of information after it's finished its verification and under the statute has a deadline for making a decision just accept it blindly with no no opportunity to check it and say oh well thank you for the key now will give you what everything you want even though you answered six questionnaire responses and to the anti doesn't contend that the questionnaires were unclear or that there was any confusion which in some cases the courts have noted as a problem but doesn't even allege here doesn't allege that any statute or regulation required commerce to accept its information it says that congress has a practice of occasionally accepting information after verification but none of the examples it cites involve companies that failed verification they were companies that passed verification everything was verified but perhaps there was a small item or two that commerce asked them to provide it later or they had some updated information that wasn't available at the time of verification that their responses could be trusted because they had already everything else they had provided up to then had been thoroughly verified and had checked out none of the examples that mentions are involved companies that where their answers could not be verified at the verification and then later said well here's the data just accept it but given the commerce only for ten different  the law is clear that they bear the burden of demonstrating entitlement to any kind of adjustment the verifications are like that sometimes no verification is conducted some times commerce only checks certain things it verifications it's all it's a little bit like all of our aftermarket sales white world or you also get the original equipment because none of their ledgers or financial statements showed any distinction between aftermarket and o e m and they never provided  any direct evidence of any rebates or commissions all they showed was one agreement and we don't know whether they've even use that agreement or whether they ever had any rebates or commissions or whether they had knew that there was another agreement  criticizes the court of international trade unfairly for not addressing that distinction but the court of international trade did address it at least three times in its slipped opinion at pages twelve thirteen and thirty eight and actually thirty eight thirty nine  was a two page discussion and the court of international trade addressed in some detail the general problem of no information on rebates and commissions let alone a distinction between the two types at pages thousand and twenty and twenty three and twenty four of its opinion so it's unfair and inaccurate to criticize the court of international trade for not addressing that issue in such a way that this court could review it how those are general expenses and this is goes back to your original question whether commerce asked for the information the party seeking the adjustment bears the burden of sa coming forward and saying these are the adjustments we are entitled to and here's why so they claim to the adjustment and comer said ok now you have to show us the show us the money show us the documents the  receipts the financial statements that demonstrate that you're entitle to this so in that sense congress asked for the supporting documentation if they wanted the adjustment could you support their claim to just move without having the ratios themselves right correct i would assume that you would argue that clearly the ratio if not other material were new factual information that hadn't previously been presented that's correct and definitely not cleanest way to decide this case in your favor just to pick out one dispositive piece of information that was not supplied a verification that was being offered later on that is to compare it to its home market price so it wasn't so much the anti was coming in with additional costs and saying oh we just found this receipt it wanted to keep its costs low so it's in that sense it's  which is not supported in their documentation they came in after verification and said although there's this number on our financial site your show number over here and you need to take twenty three percent of great use in the numbers her was required in order to substantiate the claim to just use that term and was asking for merely a c yes they would have to document that number or by independent verification that that was an appropriate discount ratios what they did supply was the actual number could you get to your prior she claimed adjustment without the ratio what we could do answering yes yes how could you because you could take the two numbers that were used to compute the ratio which were given commerce and say and see and calculate that it was twenty three how would you know which numbers  and that's part of the information that you're now trying to get in the record later on how to do i was trying to find where if whether or not that was a good or not i can't tell you  counsel for the government has talked about us offering new information i think that's taken out of context we're talking and i see what we wanted to do here is provide an explanation after the preliminary determination tame out there were a lot of issues raised we went into commerce and said what can we do to fix this if we can give you new information we may need lot of different offers we offer to come back plus the ratio sorry written expects the nations plus the actual ratio yes that would have been part of the one yes but i'll be honest with you for me the killings healing your cases on the racial because they sure strike me as being factual in nature and they are new and they come after the fact and they appear to be necessary in order to substantiate your claim to just be on the i r c i just be clear the ratio consists of one number divided by another number the ratio of for example auto sales to industrial sales we provided the two numbers for auto sales and industrial sales we didn't write down the ratio but one could simply aren't showing your year the ratio is just part of the key that opens the lock yes your counsel also mentioned that we did not include some expenses were not challenging that we we did not include them we made a judgment that inner company expenses and reorganization expenses shouldn't be included in i c s that judgment may mean honestly is correct converses normal practice is to find this out and then add demand for that we've we've noted in our brief that if they had it in all the expenses that were alleged to be missing we could that that would still leave it at a very low margin the issue of whether information can be trusted or not because it's fair fight examples that we provided that it's really a red herring we're trying to put in this information so we can show that actually we did hear there it should be the rule that you're only allowed to explain things if you have fear for creation because many times issue is what do you come in to explain what you've come in to prove in the case of if lead to check out the court made the decision that the petition margin rate of forty some percent was discredited because the other evidence of record was much lower margins that's we're just what we feel occurred here because one could say that well we don't know that maybe this company passed a company that had dark by a greater margin than in everybody else but one doesn't make that draw that could lead conclusion one says the record shows that