doesn't have the determination still not consistent with the law it can require that public be put back into ordering the commerce department conclude that in the water it can in the first instance it can order  so the data was already in there so if there was injury it was also caused by the dust a trip to the extent it was in there if however the court deemed that it was necessary to actually send that that it could presume that that was all the could not be separately identified and excluded so what color said is that if we issue an order because this is prior to or if we usually work there will be no duties on just a trip we have removed it from the case that exclude the product by may not by taking specific transactions or information out but rather they determine that a product as is defined was simply not subject was not was not willing to be subject to the duties so there's nothing that has to be added back in a calmer side from an american standpoint it's simply a legal decision was this product part of the group or was it not and they can properly excluded it in our view and we're simply here of investigations there are for hundreds or thousands of various products and not all of those products are individually calculated as having margins so there is a general determination of the scope that is subject to do well that's correct that they ate a decision a legal decision that this brought to fight a certain way was different and therefore not subject to the you were not part of  the group that it should not be subject to the duties ourselves of the case were we get back to the sixty back to congress is that in fact that decision was wrong whether or not they have the ability to calculate additional rather a number although we're trying to figure out what something is there but it's not they're not quite in stand th substantially different from the right remainder of that group that it should not be being within the scope we challenge that there are a lot of substantive reasons why that product is very similar to other products in this continuing their information regarding analysis for every so sit here it kind of product within the scope of investigation there's a very specific analysis of products are insured for example are identified by size and there's a wide range of sizes they're also can be appealed it can be without table that can have spices and the like each one of those suck editorials is a specific product that gets mashed for comparison in it but it's not the case that in every analysis there is a separate margin calculation for every product that is subject eventually to duties every pretty view from the other side  fully prepared to go back to the trial before and if you fit the merits of the sco determination which was issued after numerous rounds of questionnaires and comments from the parties and after a tremendous amount of notice and comment the part commerce determined to exclude a specifically defined product the scope of its investigation you have a rather unusual case of it where the government agreed to those yes it is a rather unusual case however the statute says what it says and under the trial court's reading of its jurisdictional statute there could really never be a challenge to our final determination that excludes  comments from the various parties concerning these products and a number of importers and foreign producers commented on the plaintiffs filed comments in opposition part of the congress weighed the record evidence and as it as it to british shrimp i believe which is a product that the petitioners did not within the scope of the antidumping duty or there are a number of products that the petitioners asked to have placed within the order in the nerve products not with you were and that's because that's because companies who seek the protection of a dumping duty blog don't always want every product that they sell cover because some companies produce domestically an does the court have the authority to exclude this product or to order cause that congress to the many orders there's agreement that it doesn't have that authority the next question is beyond that if you do reach the merits judge stance of the city was still correct in order every in every case a petition to get to order because they have an affirmative reforms first this case is fundamentally about jurisdiction first and foremost that is the whole point here we agree with the goal words of rue that there is a multi step process here  that's what the statute requires going back and forth between various agencies that were different decisions over say is that the court here has misinterpreted the statute to require a jurisdictional element that is not in the statu that is again that is the ultimate goal if we had not put into play in our case before the c n n team the fact that orders or what we ultimately saw then if we had been successful on the substantive case with cars that would be the end of it because we had not sought the complete relief the over the change of the work is all we had said is congress was wrong please ask them to fix it stop then we would have had no basis to ask for the ultimate relief which is by statute go back to the i p c getting them to issue a determination and then requested that congress issue a new war so by definition we have to really is sort of a red herring here our brief and it makes very clear page seventy nine but we requested first in the first instance the change in the determinations in our complaint a rule fifty six point two motion jurisdiction of the c n n team and if we are successful there may be the opportunity to go to the at and see if we're not successful that is the end of the story but we have to start with the initial jurisdictional question which we believe