the other producer involved in the investigation was soon a very small producer that does not even export according to the united states during the investigation period in the program there is terminations commerce on the prosperity was not calculated from mine dumping margin with sin based upon congress conclusion the white team since should be collapsed in the final determination commerce instead decided instead to collapse prosperity entity would be less than a perceptor approximately one percent because it is such a small part there is such a small company this is the linkage between these two huge companies and this is the only analysis the com that actually is the name point they basically bootstrap their analysis of sin which was a minor player in the market and then collapse the two major players into a combined entity and of course they found this created a close significant potential government for manipulating the prices and production well another thing that the commerce department found and investigated verification was that prosperity that they become a single entity is just that they're treated that way for purposes antidumping why does the fact that the collapse thing occurred with respect to those two  well st of all your your honor point goes to the fact that it does look into the future but secondly what commerce did was they they took prosperity and says we are going to make as a whole last entity altogether and this raises the question how how was prosperity going to manipulate prices and production is in number one once it is that divested itself and number two when once they collapse that whole entity is looked at that's what created the dumping margin in the st place another were instead of just looking at prosperity whole market and an export prices and prosperity  so you are creating an entire new my apologies or our i'm not suggesting that they're not allowed to analyze sin but the question is the kind of the commerce department says we're going to take into account the totality of circumstances and how can you analyze if you're going to take a small slice of the of the enterprise for instance look at the ownership in the case of the ownership prosperity on twenty percent and then and yet when you look at the combined to non speakerphone so that people can hopefully hear a little bit better ok i hear you clearly wonderful thank you good morning my name is kelly slater i am with apple represent plaintiffs appellant yes we enterprise company had like to thank the court for this opportunity sisk uscis taste under these truly extraordinary circumstances i'd like to start with a discussion about the difference between the definition of affiliation on the one hand and a test for collapsing on the other and that's something statute and the department of commerce regulations affiliation is merely one factor in relationships which are static shared officers or employees shared stockholders or shared control over an entity now controls a term that is loosely defined and applied on a case by case basis the collapsing regulations reach much further beyond affiliation they require a finding that operations between companies are actively intertwined actively intertwined such that it would give rise to a significant potential a price or production manipulation such as through the sharing of sales information mutual involvement in production pricing decisions the sharing  an active when there is if there is in fact a sufficiently significant ownership relationship it goes beyond ownership interest collapsing standard if i if i understand it correctly right or it's about active participation across the businesses that is sort of why i couched it in this way static link it just to drive the distinction between the affiliation standard and the collapsing test and those are two different consideration affiliation is maybe sort of a tip off point to collapsing analysis but it is not the final analysis connection active business interactions with the company such that they have the possibility to influence one another as opposed to something on paper that is more static like a family relationship affiliation has my argument or at least if you know our argument is that affiliation is the st step and the collapsing test but commerce is  responsibility of congress this is bound by statute to look further bound by at least their regulations to look further into actual active evidence of intertwined operations like mr cameron was referring to earlier when he talked about verification and how minuscule the actual actively intertwined operations between these companies based on the potential of those companies to control i'm having trouble understanding that if you're interested in the question of control and potential manipulation why wouldn't you consider the relationship between prosperity in the combined s bottom but i don't think i'm sorry i don't think you're answering my question my question is why are you not interested in whether prosperity has the all of the to manipulate price of production potentially with respect to the combined entity as well as looking at the prosperity sin relationship why don't you look at the combined entity because you consider that they should wouldn't you look when you're trying to decide whether prosperity can control and cause manipulation why do you ignore the relationship between then and y p which  by mentioning that i agree with the government the collapsing decisions we're dealing with a concurrent analysis of collapsing three entities now when he complained when the government analyzed the relationships between you fool why and said prosperity engaged in it had very highly intertwined operations in the sense that when one sins operations were down they were able to shift production to teach another words the those two entities or effectively acting as a coordinated unit in terms of their production and this gets to the heart of why collapsing is important for purposes of the dumping calculations when you have and cities that are acting as a coordinated unit it's s market from the facility that has the lowest rate so for example in this case if you were to sign a separate person and prosperity the entities could shift production among them by the u s market from the facility with the lowest rat two other entities then you've already created one tribe parkade entity and other words and this happens frequently where you have for example one respondent with multiple so series analyze the relationship between that responded need subsidiary i don't different when sin is collapsed live with whitey and again all three entities can shift production proves in other words if different margins are being applied to different entities both y p and p t can shift their dumping laws in a void dumping to the maximum extent possible presumably they would that that coordination would take place at level and presumably even you know even if their capacity constraints i could understand that the in the specification of the product in question and quote then the respondent had to resort to some other method to report the you'll strength there were six specifications all six of which were a hefty and industry standards best asians most look to our internal mechanical property could which showed the for the specifications we actually made these two a stronger strength characteristic in other words exceeding eighty thousand p s i and that's how we reported it but the problem is that the questionnaire effect manufacturers internal specification rather the industry standard but this doesn't make any sense because the term specification was already defined up above in the questionnaire again there's a separate field in the in the questionnaire for higher than that but the way commerce required these these products to be coded for and dumping purposes is that you report the minimum specif in other words even in their actual records the actual strength may be significantly higher than a one thousand just it just coded these products into the wrong grouping and so as a result of that it dick the con was incorrect and as a result congress did not have correct cost information for those cons in other words there was a gap course that's that was the you know the trade court ultimately found well no there's no gaffe because prosperity didn't miss report in the st but congress is finding of this reporting clearly is supported by substantial evidence because i  mentioned the questionnaire is clear that you have to report a minimum specified yield strength based on the specification that issue and the specification can mean the industry standard at field two dollars which is the at appendix pa industry standard which they were supposed to use and as i said as a result that was discovered a verification and there was a resulting gap in the record so our position is that there was in this reporting and the congress is finding that there was in this reporting is supported by substantial question because that is not true it doesn't say that the lower court correctly found the instructions do not say that and the lower court gives the entire structure and process but it doesn't require prosperity in our internal code was greater than a t m because it was a more stringent standard and that is exactly what we reported so that is what he understood relation to the wider peace in entity is the regulations don't require you do it and we follow the regulations and you know we do and we don't agree with that your honor we believe as the regulations do require that the app those friends of those are the producers to be there or to be collapsed right it doesn't say some of the producers that are recall that it doesn't say you can an alliance part of the a part of what you're go hi this is kelly slater i think that just made one of the testers at least i'm not quite sure which one but the idea that commerce leapfrog the regulation is particularly interesting and i just want to follow up on that the policy behind commerce of collapsing tast and trade investigations is to prevent the potential manipulation a price and production between affiliates especially if one affiliate receives more advantageous something great over another this policy would not be useful if the affiliates are not found to be dumping one and dumping calculation is done individually for each company and commerce is even be here arguing today thank you thank you many more questions from the pa