evidence for us the the legal standard follow is whether there's a rational connection between the pacs and the choices made by ok but that's a different set of altogether too and that's another highly deferential i'm just trying to get at you have a legal argument that we get i didn't see one but if you think there's something fairly legal that we're going to reviewed and of tell me otherwise i'll proceed and assume that all of your arguments are either under substantial evidence or arbitrary or so that's correct commerce reason for demanding my product offset was because there was no proof that the by product was generated it was made during the p r war this is actually in the underlying proceeding for american to a product also pointed out that he's distance of  ratio alone does not replace the requirement of showing that the by product must be generated from the production of the goods during the p r war here we don't have any proof that the byproduct was generated during the  sold matched up with what they produced of the subject merchandise however there is no record of what came what was sold of the by product was in fact generate during the p r we don't know whether or not that i product was question is is there substantial evidence to support or to overturn to support commerce is wayne what the inventory records do or do not support right  inventory and and that's the key issue that's one of the key issues that determines whether or not a by product offset can be granted is whether or not the product was generated during the period of review we have no information  if i may move on charlie alternatively if the court determines that a by product offset should still be granted we want to point out that the recalculation in the riemann return meant redetermination by commerce is wrong and needs it for no other reason needs to be remitted to be recalculated did you make that argument to the c i t after event we didn't have the opportunity after the riemann reach redetermination the st time we had the opportunity to even argue it would be here before you  just he just rubber stamp commerces remained determination without any input from the parties that's my recollection we just to follow you you make comments on the remaining determination wasn't following the this may have been a little unusual but it was they look at the various factors and one of them is an arm's length transaction may conclude that this was so what can you point to is the here in terms of that consideration  and politic factors which i'm going to address one by one here so in the last ten years when you departed for the last ten years or us that was which is important here because the past here is that and there's you notice below in this case that if the each of the four determinations by the part of commerce that are on appeal here because each is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise it accords with law we agreed that these are truly facto matters and in that sense there's an historical sales exact track cetera and if that's one of the factors or what it is you should do i'm a little it's i find it a little questionable this arm transaction thing because it seems like yeah maybe it is an arm's like transaction as to how you define that but this seems like a different kind of transaction than anything that had been done historically and is that not an appropriate party's briefing on the quantity issue commerce and looked back at recent sales it did not fail to take account of the fact that the helen's here argue that there are a lot larger sales in the past decade or so and the purchase in this was a single purchaser who was kind of a mom and pop store store operating out of a personal home and this was the only product that he had ever purchased i mean this is quite a new and unusual rate which is an analogous context what was going on here when sales had shut down and it was looking to re enter the market and establish a trade and so commerce and looking at that and all of this evidence was on the record it didn't fail to consider what yo argued but it said in these circumstances it's a commercially reasonable quantity for them to make a single sale in order to establish a rate not a lot of importers are going to want to do you know ten  thousand tonne imports at a four hundred and fifty percent cash positive rate so and there was on top of the fact that they had gone this size sail before in similar circumstances there was additional record evidence that we discussed at page thirty three dollars of our brief from both doubting and it's importer discussing why this size sale was a commercially reasonable sale in the eleven of the record and just to paraphrase what's being said that they're all central saying look in this market under these circumstances it's you know it's not feasible for us to be bringing in large quantities of glycine we want to sell in the united states we want to show that doesn't make them you know instance that's correct judy does not make amino acid but what what congress is looking for in the in choosing a financial statement is a manufacturer who has essentially a comparable or similar process and so looking at the record here comes determine that moody's products and process which are like validating food additives and other chemicals to be added to foods like sui sweeteners to be added to foods and pharmaceuticals are considerably the information about the production process that was listed in the booty financial statement indicating st of all that a large and i think the trial for quarter at least at least a rd of its production  starch and that doesn't involve chemical reactions and we say in response to that and we quoted record evidence to this effect that actually balloting itself said that most of its production was of food grade glycine rather than technical grade complete lysine and  review did something that is consistent with what we're asking for here and the punch line from the headline is that in two separate decisions those determinations were challenge both were remained it and on remand in both cases commerce decided the opposite and did the same thing that it did in this review here so in particular on the on the liquid ammonia issue commerce went back and looked at the record said in fact actually this stuff really is and hydro process is not at all like about ings production process and in that case because it didn't even have something as similar as beauty come or settled on rather than the pharmaceutical companies a producer of your ria which which is you know even further may be different the regulation here requires a come not identical but comparable so could you address the byproduct recalculat short i think you said that you thought i was waved your friend so they didn't have an opportunity to raise which of frankly seems kind of odd to me and i thought that at least at the agency stage you had an opportunity to comment on remaining results even at the trial where to invite further briefing that's correct we disagree with a couple things that helen said in their remarks on that issue dealing with the waiver issue st you know that yes they had opportunities and as far as we're concerned we outlined two or three opportunities the most significant of which are st of all yes of course this trial court there were really there were three men comments briefing before the trial court but even before that before the department of commerce says your honour's well know the way these remains work is that the department of commerce administrative record and so that they had multiple opportunities i mean frankly given the advocacy for the eat and hydrous ammonia it really had an opportunity even in the original proceeding before congress but we don't need to go there this court's decision and now it's collected a number of cases arguments that it's not accurate to say that the evidence supporting the byproduct offset was just sales or inventory out slips in particular commerce that the key evidence on this appears at pages  sales but its production of five products during the period of review and so the claim on this issue is not just that this evidence doesn't exist but that when the trial court cited this evidence it was citing something th congress accepted reasonably is that even though balloting didn't keep production records the production of byproducts as a result of the chemical reactions involved in glycine is a matter of chemical formulas and mathematical determination and so it rather than estimating or speculation it's a matter of math that when you produce glycine here's the amount of byproduct you get balloting provided documentation that ultimately found to fish sufficient to say yes we produce this amount of glycine during the review and yes we also sold off the glycine during the review we i see my time is running short we've cited i think in  significant detail all of the evidence on the by product issue in our brief including you know the inventory out slips in the customer lists and so on and so forth but at the end of the day commerce had become so does evidence and found it reasonable that this this  by product was both produced and sold it had no evidence based on the way everything matched up to suggest that this was somehow taken out from inventory at an earlier period or something like that and that's the type of determination that this  court leaves to the expert factfinder which is commerce mere disagreement with that kind of weighing of the record evidence is not appropriate basis to overturn congress determination and thank you chemical formula and h three for ammonia we provided the purity level which was ninety nine eight percent and these are consistent with an h the court came out with a determination in determining that in fact about being then tongue did use and hide or somalia in the previous review thank you  comparability issue we find that it's unreasonable because there is no rational connection between the facts and the choice of the department in the end shows beauty beauty to be clear is a tapioca starch at a factory two thirds of its production  to that it's not even a chemical the point that the government made was that food grade glycine is not produced from a chemical reaction of course it's pretty much from core reaction there's plenty of information on the record demonstrating it's produced from a chemical reaction between m c a and li used in pharmaceutical products glycine is actually can be used as a pharmaceutical end product and that's on the record as well so as to say that it takes a great stretch of imagination to say that the beauty product which is primarily  at ammonia i just simply want to point out that the only two times that the government has ever verified on site did they found both times that it was obvious ammonia and not ammonia regardless you had an argument that that change even though the byproduct wasn't right is if you had an argument that that change would have required a recalculation of our product why weren't you prepared to exhaust from us because we assume when they change