whether the sales and cost data good luck to tempted to submit a verification after the regulatory deadline it expired was new factual information and not merely a minor correction of existing record data congress concluded that the late to meditate about good luck mathematical calculation to recalculate which according correct in that into so why yes you know the court was incorrect in that there's no evidence that what actually happened when the court mathematical formula where press the button and it changed all the numbers simply by changing the code good luck actually had to recalculate all of those costs of production so  the court below was wrong in that and there's no evidence and in fact if you look at what one went to when you say recount that mathematical calculation well i mean all dumping margins  well the cascading effect could be several things around or so just because when you change for example change the product code you may not have to change cos as he did in this case all the previous cases that the court below cited actually didn't have any of those other changes it changed it changed margins and changed comparisons but it didn't the respondent in those other cases did not have to resubmit cos as they had  know was there was achieved does it change the structure of the arguments that have been made up to that well it certainly could i mean at the point that the information was submitted by good made it could it could have made significant changes or not just had no way to know the that was all information that was supposed to have been submitted with it questionnaire responses prior to the end yes they could have but we didn't get to see well i'm asking you whether they did or not i mean you tell me they they did not change because commerce did not accept the information so arguments when the information was submitted to commerce the idea being that while the whole basket of information and the argument of the other side is that hates all the same information time the question is before the court as we understand it is was it reasonable for commerce and not an abuse of discretion to determine that it could not know what all the cascading effects  our decision so we weren't substituting our judgment at all we weren't this is not a substantial evidence case instead of substituting our judgment for that of commerce we were actually hold co his own practice commerce abuse distance christian by refusing to accept the minor corrections so that's point one point two are you going to talk about the elephant in the room where where where is the government and the government is not defending the government agreed when the case went back up to the c i c they agree court's point was that it was applying what it identified as the commerce department test it cited two cases that happened prior information was commerce has an exception and it does that exception is not within the regulation itself but it's an exemption for minor factual information and that where small errors are ma y they can be corrected but in this instance the court has the court has essentially swallowed the rule with the exception by by  making that exception in order as we recognize recognize that nobody's perfect and so small clerical errors and things that are easily correctable can be corrected but in this case the the correction there or there are a number of cases when the when the court has has said that the department the department of proper procedure for accepting data should and shouldn't be interfered with such as mid continent p c s vs m o p that you know that the department can set or the court can set aside a proper here the record doesn't say why the government's not here and i'd be speculating to give a reason why they decided not to not to show up but the record does show that the commerce department made  to accept that information it did so under respectful protest and it would be speculation for me to conclude as recent cases in which all that happened was the commerce continued to complyin mathematical process but you could come out at the end with a different result correct well yes the result would be different i mean it just so happens the result would have been zero the st way and it was  product specific basis so you end up with different numbers correct you end up with different final numbers but you know it and just say ok those fine those final number about the cost of production the reconciled to our financial system they were not changed the product stayed the same the cost they descend from each product what change is the final stage of the process when you take the methodology specifically which how to condoms and do that that was something that response provided by commerce great absolutely  commerce groups big individual products into caught on this based on physical characteristics and our mistake was coding the condom so are our products specific or stay the same the course you identical honor i think what's critical here is that the way the court of international trade interpreted what was alleged the practice was that the exception to rules for placing  data on the record was now swallow the rule the rejected data left huge holes in the record for cost of production for thirty seven  regulations for the orderly placing of data on the record and to him for souce time limit what what the court below do and what mr marsh is suggesting is it doesn't matter how much the  cascading effects are it doesn't matter what the missing information is it doesn't matter when it was provided or how much work has to go in to correct it long as that st mistake was a clerical error of some sort that everything deserves to be defend its decision why it was incorrect in this case was incorrect in this case you're actually i understand it was incorrect in this case because  at some point the commerce department has to draw a line where it's just too much information for it to be able to process and the commerce department this case said that there was simply too much information that was missing that would have to be case the record shows that the amount of data that the partment had to correct was properly characterized by the commerce department as being additional factual information that should have been submitted prior and was not doing the good luck and attentiveness and lack of attention to detail and therefore it should its decision should have been up originally and then in the corvette national trade should