information and the one piece of information in the application fees of factual information that turned out to be incorrect for reasons we didn't understand at the commerce department having run a check with the custom initiations now you responded that your response wasn't accurate is that correct well the response we were doing an investigation i mean what we were told was on the aug nineteen fourth of april and they had put out a questionnaire check can you get those documents and put them out of records so congress asked us to supplement they asked us to correct we told them yeah we'll get this where we asked for an extension until august if you look at the regulatory history why the regulations chose to submit a copy of an entry or data for a shipment with your new ship or investigation of the regulatory history they have to notice in common it simply says well that hear now this is to be something you may be a factual dispute in the freezer maybe i just couldn't understand it correctly with the current to what the impact or import of what you did was your position seems to be no the government's concerned with the way that you handled this whole matter that you didn't disclose the earlier shipment and then you disclosed that the earlier shipment was metal racks it was not then disclosed that it was attributable to the triple play and it wasn't until it was you know that well it was there's more to that story as we all understand that someone confidential but with all of that surrounding fact involved instancing government justified maybe in giving you they gave you a chance which they found to be not handled well why couldn't they use this remedy of having given us a chance they in fact voted to initiate a did in fact issue here ok even though the there's no sale is no way to determine export price so i don't know what happened in those answers because we didn't authorize we had no idea it could go through the quest for a four for this review has to kick off the investigation it's not to supply all of the information that's to be used in the course of the review on again this requirement is only an eight of determining whether our application was within one year of our first shipment is correct and it has we were saying oh it's within two months of our first shipment es the date on which subject merchandise first entered order to be drawn from a work out for consumption now where is the where is the harmless error consideration that you want to you want us to continue to consider were is not in the regulations well where you'll find it is you'll find it sixty one federal register seventy three eighteen which is where the regulation was stopped and the commerce department said the only reason we request that document the fight is to make sure that we are within one year so it's not it's not a silly generous requirement and then question becomes as in any don't think proceeding if you make a factual court is whether the record of this proceeding looked at as a whole supports our eligibility which is never a question there's no question that we're eligible she shivers and there's no question that we filed this application within one year and that's the known that right up front they not only initiated this review but they spent five months conducting it they collected all the information and they collected every bit of information at all our sales information was until january two thousand and twelve when we're getting regulations typical a are least in part for the purpose of notifying the public of what's required for them and i agree with you the regulations do but also kind of the consequences of failure to comply or not  so and the government you know isn't a problematic and the government also the other concern i have is rules are rules and they're supposed to be followed consistently and it seems like the government's position in position what are the rules you get two chances and then you're all over or is it a black letter rule well answer the last question first it's true that in the final determination congress is final season for  resending the review was that martin had not ultimately come flying with the regulation but it's also true that commerce in the first instance relied on margins certified statements but acknowledged that there was a little bit more work to be any time produced actual documentation not just statements of counsel but actual documentation to congress would congress have to continue with the review and actually gotten to the merits maybe probably i don't and i can't  the end of the day congress passed to have the documents that it needs is congress's position that if it doesn't have those documents there is a proceed if it doesn't have those documents on august thirty first person a rule that it absolutely w consider their request obviously not because it did continue with this proceeding but was giving marvin the benefit of the doubt really for a couple of months after college was aware of this is that it still had questions did it have to do that no nature of both the two thousand and eleven and two thousand and ten shipment so i'm not sure it would have been entirely reasonable and i think we could have not initiated but we would have had to say we don't believe your certified statement subject to reasonable mom arbitrary and so forth that with the government is asking us to affirm here and i think when you look i mean it is asking the court to affirm the principle that when a party has  produce the predicate rational documentation that's necessary more proceeding commerce that maybe this is overstating it a little bit the commerce really doesn't have the authority to continue with that proceeding if it doesn't have the predicate information and so we're asking the court to uphold the notion and that it's perfectly reasonable for congress to rescind a perceiving when it finally determines that it does not have the right documentation well we supposed to say though that congress has to give someone at least a second chance to do it or that's completely up the commerce whether it wants to try to investigate further or nah well i don't think the court needs to get there because in this in this case of congress gave marvin probably five did it have to not so i don't know whether the court even needs to get there well i'm worried about the next case i mean if the court does what you want and then somebody else comes and then in the next case commerce takes this berm thing and doesn't even give anyone a chance to do it and we're asked to affirm that there's a discrepancy between what commerce acted here and how it happened later and in a less problematic for me at least right well of course it would have to depend on the facts of that case i can imagine a particular factual scenario where congress really could be absolutely positive at the get go we're never going to get the documentation that we need i don't you know because of whatever the initial representation is i understand the court concerned that if you're faced with these particular facts and commerce doesn't behave exactly similarly then that's troublesome i will say that this is this kind of procedure is not unusual commerce and you cited them and i recently found an interview d and later the information it went through several coalition but it was corrected in the end right actually i just i i understand the question but i think again the context is important to congress and the shaded on the representation asked questions but we're going to then go out and make a determination very clearly and then medicine we should give us the authority to rescind you negotiate at any time during the course to review we find out that's that the information was not valid from the very beginning why why should we do that if it appears that the the the regulation and appearance of a set that it should not initiate if it doesn't have the information they had judge i think that's a told the parties in this review we're relying on your certification pattern right now we we have to give you the benefit of doubt because you serve others we ask questions and we will look at that to determine whether or not this was not your for shipment and relying on in protecting these proceedings because again in this instance this is the six month review period to request and they have to be able to capture all of the sales all of the shipments of took place there's a factual issue is whether this was an actual initially think so but in this instance what happened was they asked for they said this is our shipment this is the time period we want this six month review period turns out they had shipments that they should have identified in the one year to reach it with a new certification which we've done here number one what about the government's argument that the reason they need to have corrective relations at the outset has in order to establish here a program to review well it's  issue because two reasons first of all if you look at the rule making we were in the parking to be a non issue the government's got a she questionnaires it's got to it's got to marshal its forces it's got to decide i need the peer review is not a non issue it's an important business but it's the rule making sure the period of review normally will be linked to the anniversary months of the order and the use of normally indicates that the secretary has discretion to use another period appropriate circumstances but one of the grounds are well if you don't have a sale if you have an import that's not pursuant to a shell it might be your first shipment and it might trigger your experience for a new ship or two but if they don't find a sale in the united states they will