percentage was unreasonably high or something of that sort were in europe that the commerce department had he used the average of all the sales for the period  commerce brought into the record the transaction margin data set the u s sales from the fourth p u r our position is that congress should have brought into the record in addition the home market sales and the cost data bases from the fourth people who are to give us an opportunity to determine whether that will subset of sales with high margins were normal in quantity and then when there this comes up in a pond you say oh gee now we're going to get the information but we don't want to give her your first asked first couple times and then the excuse seems to be well we weren't quite aware of that where we are today i wasn't aware of that or something like that actually sent the case back and said if you want to use this margin you have to corroborate it and the cooperation the commerce used consisted of the fourth review to reviews or earlier the fourth review the two years so it's ok last three we're not we're not complaining that they shouldn't use the fourth review what we're saying is if you're going to use the data from a prior view for corroboration you have to give us an opportunity to confront that doubt why because in top shape the data are acknowledged that knowledge to consist of sales that were normal  value and normal in type and also in mittal steel which is the other places that is floating around the c r t case in that case congress did exactly the same thing but they brought him into the who are for the fourth review for the review those don't live in the commerce department is our coffers they went to their archives and they brought into this record the fourth review transaction margin data set research a lawyer can't sign something and later on say oh i forgot about those other sales to the charity or those gifts to the charity and i forgot about those government sales because i thought maybe they were here the lawyer sign and under these databases are good or these that are bases are not good they are not the sales are somehow not representative because for whatever reason and touch and agreed that the se will select that corroborated the forty five percent it's no longer a question of what happened in our six review databases we were bad we failed to give the data ok we had knowledge of and what commerce did was they selected  one forty nine and i said i could tell because that transaction margin data set includes the normal value i can tell that these normal values are those are nobody a half a percent worth or your sales are are over forty five min forty nine percent those are the represent real sales and we're nothing further to talk about if you're point in that he been and i'm not saying that the u s sales per se were aberrational i am saying that the margins were aberrational because the normal value was operational but they didn't give me the ability to test the normal value because they wouldn't put the database in the record as they did in mittal if the trinity you don't have it yourself and i couldn't put it in the record if i did to put the cost underlying cost database or any other further data on the record it was sufficient that they had transaction specific margins based on pan's actual sales data and fail the dumping margin when one person is commerce allowed to take the ninety nine percent dumping margaret and say that's what we're going to use this adverse fact available even though it's only one of a thousand depends on and if you're saying that one sales ninety nine percent and the other is for work one percent well that would be that would be certainly considered by commerce to be more aberration the respondents actual sales who is to tell that during this period of your view that because i can feel to cooperate we have no idea they didn't submit we have no idea what the normal value of  what you're saying that information on one sale versus nine hundred ninety nine sales is not enough information that you might need to know whether or not the other side of giving you other information might need to know how big was that one sale in terms of total percent you might need other information is that what you're telling us or are you actually saying that once they are always enough was clearly within the range it was it was several times below the highest transaction specific margins and was clearly within the range of panics actual sales data and was adequately cro that one wind sail that actually is you that's correct your honor but what happened in touch ham was that the crowd ration was based upon one sale that happened to represent point zero four percent of the database in this case it's point five percent which is several times because now they're trying to argue that these things are are wrong or outside of the ordinary course of trade if they truly believe that those morons were not valid then they should have appealed at that time the purpose of the court opinions then there must be proper a ship to make still have to show some fair kind of like a prosecutor have to seek justice depends where you have to try to protect its client isn't there a little bit of that in these cases there have to be some show of cooperation yes your honor there has to be some sort of cooperate corroboration but it has to also take into the fact that in the prior reviews perhaps the reason their normal values were more in line with what they what was real what their normal values would have been in this case and so the reason they don't submit data is because they think that they're going to get lower margins they had those actual margins in the fourth review they were based on actual sales and they were based on actual comparisons of u s sales to actual values the commerce department cannot just pull a number out of the air say a triple margin or double percent margin something along those lines it has to be based on an actual sale and that's what they did it only means one thing your honor if it was one sale that was an actual sale during that time it was never challenged by the responded over then yes it could be based on one sale your honor no matter how many other sales that other market there were yes your honor because it could be that that one sale is representative of the actual dumping that would have been taking place in the six in the clear that the intent of why someone may not provide information is not really relevant it's just whether they caught it in your assumption that the reason i'm not cooperating in the current review period it because i know the market will be even higher than any prior review period and so i'm trying to get the benefit of the earlier markings because i know the true morgan now would be even higher and that's the whole reason i don't cooperate i'm just saying we'll there might available the reason if as long as if if the respondent doesn't cooperate to the best of its ability either because they've lost records or because they're trying to angle for a higher for it they're trying to go for a lower margin the respondent right and so the reason that they cooperate or don't cooperate isn't it really isn't that important in terms of deciding whether you're going to go  your yes your honor that would be a conclusion whether congress gets to use this safety net provision the only question is are they doing it in wildly disproportionate fashion yes that that's true but know i mean that i mean one sale because that one box could reflect the dumping margin in the subsequent period the volume of sales actually really has nothing to do with the dumping margin  and they'd say persil number one of the hundred equal sales were slapping you with a pig percent margin well the other sales were slack and you were the one percent margin now later or i don't cooperate in some period review if i understand you correctly you're saying congress can go back and carry picked the one fifty percent sale and ignore were the other ninety nine very low percentage sales because it could be that in the period where i didn't cooperate i'm actually dumping at a level of fifty percent yes or no there is no limit as long as one sale in the past they can be stuck with that no evidence year you were talking about how you calculated dumping more and it has to do with the comparison of the us price and the whole market price and yes there might have been one sale but that doesn't make that you pick one out of a hundred and it would be ok ninety nine well for one thing in this case your honor they picked a mortgage and that was based on an earlier in the morning that we're talking about is not based on the seven hundred sales like i know you understand that there was a much higher number much higher margin than the forty five percent so all that they were using those seventeen or whatever sales for was to corroborate the forty five percent margin so they didn't cherry pick just the highest number they didn't and what is it what happened when no one one with no you have a lot more than one here yes your honor we there certainly are more than one and also just to remember that the forty five percent wasn't based on the sales the forty five percent dumping margin that was used was not based on the sales that took place in the fourth period they were just used to cooperate that rate of the forty five percent sales and again forty five percent rate that was used as adverse effects available was not based on the dumping margins at that occurred in the fourth review period the fourth review period rates were only used to corroborate the  euro so i mean that just to keep in mind that we're you know this is the whole picture here and not just they are i mean i think my personal view is that commerce could pick one margin but that's not what happened here in any event and it was only anything down in the fourth preview at that time and having not taking it now it's too early to remove it all well i'm frankly the collateral stock will issue an administrative procedures has not been briefed by either of the parties to review that they had no material impact on the margins so why go to court but when they be part of the basis for a decision rather than just an outlier in a twenty thousand wrote database then you're talking about a different kettle of fish