of the subject merchandise united states and the responded much show that imports were made to account for the claimed adjustments with respect the export of merchandise in the preliminary determination of this case the department of commerce granted  and requested additional information to show the linkage to the advance license program in india requires detailed documentation of for the manufacturers and this case s r was able to supply very detailed information for all of the invoices related to the advance licenses in question however for one invoice they were not able to supply or did not supply complete documentation for that in which the department of co for this invoice not because we didn't do the linkage it's because the documentation was different we did supply documentation on the record for this one invoice that shows the shipping dock of the shipping number for the for yes to the ten thousand degree you have the same time each correct so wherever the ties they invent license the documentation for the advance license has the shipping number on it which have the quantity on it which ties back to the invoice and all we're saying is the department of commerce should be looking at that to provide the linkage between the time that and contractor letter of credit assigned and when shipment deliveries actually made in the united states indeed in this case we've provided information that the time period was over two months significant impact on the margin found in particular in situations where prices are fluctuating in the preliminary determination of this case the department of commerce for page are from ford for paragraph was while there were deviations between the letter credit day and when the actual quantities that were shipped then vall the action in terms of the overall tolerances with then a a letter of credit and all these letters of credits in the contract provide for a certain tolerance plus or minus two usually ten percent or something along those lines there is only one and we are one letter of credit that where the tolerance was exceeded which involved less than five percent of the overall sales to the united states in other cases similar to this including a new core still and including in cut the length of play from romania the department of commerce has accepted that there will be slight deviations in these types of situations and they have accepted it therefore consistent with past present we believe the department of commerce should have been consistent with its own preliminary determination except to the letter of credit for the date of sale in this case because i was able to we were able to show and there have been a number of numbers that have been floating around in this case and in particular exactly how what percentage of the sales were impact on this i think there has been a bit of double counting that has occurred in the situation because petitioners in this case have looked up the overall sales quantities they've looked at the prices and they've looked at individual line items specifications can include up to thirty to  hundred different line items and they were looking if you i believe they have double counted we were able to show that there was only one letter credit where there was that exceeded the tolerance in this was less than five percent there which we can't talk about because i don't not sure why but it makes me very uncomfortable and i can't talk about the central thing in the case but one thing is clear it gives us a tonnes but they've got it's in tonnes but they've got it down to the third decimal point so it's accurate to the pound of steel now you've got if we go to j k one two into the hot rolled steel going out if they do that they get their drop back and not even notice what they've done they have identified to the panel and in this invoice one sixty five the e sat same number a more than two thousand tons down to the pound of hot rolled steel going out why isn't that your honor to establish the linkage one of the key documents with the shipping bills and f r and its case three to the department of commerce and that is in the record also it one two ninety one admitted the shipping bill is the link that when they have that for everything else and they obviously lost it for one but they can point you to exactly the down to the pound coming in and going out what's wrong here what what am i missing as to the reasonableness of their linkage well your honor if you turn to page one two two eight six in the record i'm going to have to go down  one two seven four zero and there's an invoice number on this document that invoice number is not here linked to the advance license and the shipping bill is not in the record and also  they have it for everything else there seems to be a regular business practice here that they have followed that is dependable they've lost some documents what's your apprehension that your prey they're hiding something well your honor the burden is on sri to create the record and here they are and they had it created a pretty effective record they've done it for fourteen others thirteen others this is the fourteenth and they got it down to the pound coming in and going out  you're concerned those are not the shipping bills your honor there's another document it's a list of shipping bill numbers but they're not tied to the other documents in the record the shipping bill isn't there the bank realisation isn't there and  i understand that but the point is they had that for everything else there seems to be of a regularity to the way this company does business there's a a  explanation well we we just don't have the records on this one are you afraid of something or your honor it's it's their burden and they did not meet that burden the documents in the record do not establish there's no way to go just need to have a link why isn't the pound down to the pound of steel enough but again your honor that's just a list of shipping billed numbers the shipping bill itself is not in the record the bank realization is not in the record showing that this was exploited against the  establishing that it was entitled to the duty to draw back by record evidence in the commerce department properly determined they were not entitled to the duty drawback for this one invoice number but dia gave them the duty drawbacks for all other entries i'm sorry all other exports turning to the date of sale issue as the court noted the commerce department regulation provides that the invoice date is the proper date but that a party may establish by creating a record that another date was the proper would be more proper and here s are argued that the letter of credit day would be more proper congress initially went along with that but  the court of international trade and henri mann determined that there were multiple changes between the letter of credit date and the invoice date and there is a calculation memo in the record at that stage one five zero zero and one to one five zero zero for the calculation memo details all of the changes between the letter of credit and the invoice date and while s are states that there was only one change the modifications were pretty minor after the letter right not in all instances your honor in multiple cases there were changes beyond the tolerance of the the state  one thing we're most frequently cited in the briefing are the ones one one six six three and one one six seven nine where there were changes beyond the stated tolerance there were also changes in price that are detailed in the calculation memo and there are other invoices there were three other in i'm sorry three other letters of credit the letter of credit numbers are in the calculation memo detailing the changes beyond the tolerance the the calculation memo again is fifteen zero zero three and four spelled out numerous instances where there were changes between the letter of credit and the invoice date  and i just want to clarify that so we don't have a situation where we're matching inputs to exports through this document so now we the question has been read what what did as our do here well in there in the original administrative proceeding they failed to make his complete records of the i c and that they didn't to refuse your requests for images and then they gave them a second bite at the apple they said ok here's what we want from you we want proof that you satisfied the conditions of your pant sizes and we want all the in connecting invoice for which you claim to draw back to export under the advance was out as our had an opportunity to provide that additional information invoice that we're looking about here today was not one it's not like they said it's not like they went to the agency and they said look we've lost our documents they didn't mention it and so that was the this i can the bank realization and export certificate showing that they had worked and connecting it to an invoice and then they came in with the shipping bill connecting the exports to the advanced life for this document so we're left with guessing or at least the agency was left with with numerous instances involving several letters of credit and i would refer your as a your honor to the calculation memo that the agency produced but also to pages twenty twenty one and  on and twenty two in our grace where we outlined based on each letter fred and each change the significance and small and of these multiples thank you your honor ok very briefly i'll just speak to the duty drawback issue i think the standard of review should really inform what the court does with respect to this issue and as your contention that even though they did not provide for this one invoice the documentation that they themselves had represented to congress was necessary to support their claim there is in fact some evidence on the record that perhaps the reasonable fact finder could use to find for after now i dispute that a reasonable fact finder could on the basis of the evidence to which as your point find for assar but even if a reasonable fact finder could find for answers that isn't the standard of review here the standard of review is that estimates show that the agency's view of the record is not based on such evidence is a reasonable mind might it what i wouldn't imagine of all minds see that this is the same time frame and down to the ground and on documents signed by indian officials and why wouldn't a reasonable mind say all that's so obviously the same thing perhaps a reasonable mind could but that isn't the standard of review the standard of review allows that there might be more than two reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from the record evidence in here where s are failed to provide for this invoice the documentation such as the shipping bill which itself stated was unnecessary and fundamental document for it's claim it's not out of reason at all for the agency to say thank you very much for honors and i agree with you on the confidential information it's difficult for me as well it's one of the touch on a couple of points that were raised in terms of this duty drawback mr del sanders said that there is no evidence that they would these were export against the vance license the page that we've been talking about j zero one two two ninety four is the final page from ministry of commerce that grants the exemption  finalizing the exemption under the advance license program event places program allows indian importers to import raw materials duty free but at the end of production they have to show that they've actually export it this is the page where the ministry of commerce is doing that and this neither says that there's no there's no evidence on material imports in but that this is within this documentation that is taken care of as well so i do believe that the evidence on the record will support the claim that the do draw back is allowed in terms of the date of sale i only thing i ask you to do is look carefully at any explanation for why you have all of those documents we talked about earlier for the other entries and not for this i think you explained it probably as well as i can this was done on remand or remind you  so several years after the fact and the company was able to supply the information that they had at that time so as these were all paper documents that they were you know that they maintained the ordinary course of business point to our disadvantage in terms of data sale the only thing i actually do is pay close attention to what they're discussing as i said you can have within any given specification or contract up to one hundred or more different lines each line can have deviations from and depending on how the production orders go and these can affect these will affect the overall quantity shipped under the under given contract and these will obviously affect the prices as well because each line will have a different price and in this case while there were changes to different lines it was only one letter of credit volved a very small amount of the total quantity exported to the united states that was outside the tolerances therefore based on the department's precedent we believe that the correct date of date of sale in this case was letter product and