to dividing two by one instead of one by two during the section one twenty nine percent to zero brought that era to the agencies attention i will congress initially responded that there was a reasonable basis to investigate the error further and that its goal is to ensure that its calculations accurately reflect its methodological choices the until ultimately concluded that it had no authority whatsoever to correct its own mathematical error why didn't you challenge to under sixteen seventy three d an integral part of that section one hundred nine determination and it's that determination that isn't crap is challenge here for you in the knowledge that you had an earlier opportunity where it would have been appropriate to challenge it correct well we we well during the original investigation we'd we timely notify congress that it had made a calculated calculation error in its calculation of dollars done for the eighty eight eighty four cells and we knew that congress had made a calculation error because the total sales value that it disclosed it to you but you didn't challenge it under sixteen seventy three d which would have been appropriate you could have done that i'm not saying you had to but we had the opportunity to challenge it that correct well we did noti did we did raise a calculation error with respect to eighty four sales during the original investigation and again we knew that congress had made an error because parts that the total sales value that congress disclosed was more than twice the verified total for the eighty four cells you mentioned it and commerce close regional determination and had been closed for nine years and you didn't appeal and you could have at that point raised this says the important issue and you could have independently appeal on this nine years earlier correct what we did we did challenge the the met the calculation error in an appeal what was not immediately apparent at the time was that was the source of the error congress's transposition error was not immediately apparent because while congress disclosed the figure that it had calculated for the average unit value didn't disclose its calculations so at that ever reason you went on to settle rather than appeal that issue well it was stipulated to nine proceeding we wanted to proceed through that particular aspect well it's important to remember that the section one twenty nine determination is a new determination and it applies on a prospective basis only so it authority whatsoever to undisturbed that's why commerce isn't messing with that because it wouldn't be a matter of just fixing needs to transpose numbers but a matter of going over line by line every aspect of the determination which is quite extensive well iran are we the only or that is probably there are good reasons why why the clerical errors but not necessary methodological errors should be corrected a clip a mathematical error in the determination renders that determination plainly an accurate such that the failure to correct would put a court in the position of knowingly affirming a determination with errors the same as not nestle so necessarily true for methodological error which this court has explained is an error in judgment and therefore may be a close call but differently where a computational errors made it's made in other aspects of also if congress determines that under one twenty nine we only have the authority when we reopen to focus on this little piece of the puzzle we can't fix the edges even if there are mathematical errors in how is that an reasonable interpretation of one twenty nine i realize it's unreasonable because any time you look at a mathematical error that's plain on its face and i don't imagine they're going to stand up and say there is no mathematical error i imagine are likely to acknowledge the mathematical error but you know how is it unreasonable for them to say yes there's a mathematical error but under our interpretation one twenty nine we don't reopen the entire calculation we're only permitted to make adjustments in the a mathematical error i've certainly discussed it with commerce lately that is as you say there probably is that is not an official determination that congress has made that unofficial speculation and based on until it's time for a look at the signed off by the assistant attorney general you can't think two plus two position here and this gets to the tension between finality and accuracy commerces position here is that when you have a section one twenty one to terminate and that has a very limited purpose to impose a very limited calculation change and that only and that's based upon consultations among the political branches of the united states when you have that determination and when you have a clerical error allegation that was made essentially in  upon which the the plaintiff did not prevail so essentially when you have a final and binding determination from the department of commerce that the court of international trade has ruled upon and there was an obvious error at that point which could have been determined by either side if in fact it was due diligence that was conducted but then when the term in the proceed on that basis and it became hundred nine they allege that a different thing was wrong with it they lost that on the merits they didn't even lose it as a matter of a clerical error allegation it was it was raised before commerce is a clerical error allegation congress said no this is a methodological choice  by the time it got to the ca t as far as i can tell from the record it was raised as a substantive question and the trade court addressed it as such and affirms and sustained the department of commerce t commerce from correcting an error and i think that's the reverse the other side of the coin from what we're saying which is that the and what commerce said in its one twenty nine determination which is there is nothing in the statute that requires commerce to correct it which is all that this court and the court of international trade have ever said about congress's ministerial error statute and regulation which is that as long as parties don't comply with it commerce is not required to consider allegations that are late and in this case very very early well council so in my understanding the government's position to be that in a future one twenty nine action the government would be free to correct clerical errors if it so chose even if they are outside the scope like in this case i would say the scope of zero way and say they're outside the scope of the searing determination is the government's position that it has not taken a position visa be what it's entitle to do in one twenty nine but rather only taking a position as to what it will do in this case where is the government because that to me seems less entitle to share from their friends because it doesn't seem like it's related to the interpretation of the statute or is the government's position that under one twenty nine its interpretation is it's only permitted to work on and correct the portion that relates to in this case zero what is in contrast with the i think it's probably somewhere in between and i'll explain what i mean by that and this is a relatively new issue what happens when there is a section one twenty nine determination and then there's an allegation of clerical error so commerce is addressed in this case and it's the court can see from that section one twenty nine to terminations had addressed it in a previous determinations it is quite possible that depending on the kind of determination the answer could be different so for example and and the court's decision to trade quite referenced an older section one twenty nine determination regarding tubular goods from mexico where commerce wasn't looking at such a narrow issue congress was actually giving additional reasons are bases for an entire sense that determination that's a very different kind of  which as been pointed to zero in fact or if in fact that's the limit of the provision and that's the way that's absolutely true and it has been consistent and the example where it wasn't being confusing the example that i was giving earlier involved a section one twenty nine to terminations the scope of which was simply much larger than the scope that we have here so it could potentially intel looking at other aspects of the previous determination where here you have the police the political determination to implement a very narrow change and that's based upon  interpretation that in one twenty nine actions it cannot correct clerical errors outside of the disputed issue i don't know that is not what commerce articulated in  one twenty nine to terminate what commerce his position as is that it is not required to correct clerical errors and that at this point it interprets the statue to mean that section one twenty nine to mean that that the section one  perceiving should be limited to the issues that were raised before the deputy oh i don't think commerce could is a good deal those are two different things though so commerce interprets the one twenty nine statute to say that if you should be limited to the issues before the deputy oh is that what i just understood you just inherently would come or said i mean congress is interpret it the scope of its own proceeding and as such it has determined that in this instance where does not require it to correct clerical errors what then is the standard of review we apply to the decision of commerce simply not to correct clerical error in this case it's not chevron deference because we've already said we agree  doesn't have to under the statute but what authority does congress have to choose whether it's going to correct a mathematical error well i think there's a couple of answers the first the first answer is that certainly in the interpretation of the statute deference the question as to whether commerce has complied with its own regulation and abused its discretion under its own regulation and potentially a separate question but obviously this court has held in an eps go that if a party waits forty four months and doesn't make a clerical error allegation there at a time then certainly nine years they're out of time so even if the standard is an abuse of discretion i don't as all i was alluding to is that when commerce applies it's its own regulation regarding correction of clerical errors the court has always treated that on an on a case by case basis so i think i see two separate issues before the court and would thank you may please the court i'm all i would i'd like to address if i could three three principle issues on the first is the issue of the clerical error and i would like to make the point that this is definitely not a question  whether two plus two equals four this issue of the clerical error is much more complicated than that because the issue is what is the average unit value that congress would use in the calculation in its adverse facts available call what isn't crap wants you to do is to force commerce use a very low average unit value in the adverse inference call maybe i'm confused i'm no mathematician but switching the numerator and denominator seems pretty straight poorly as far as errors go yes your honor but the result is a value that comes out of that equation sadly what happened was that yes if even if we the commerce department acknowledged that there were this transposition it's the result that is at issue because we would strongly contest if congress decided to transpose those two values and use that as the average unit value that value was the value that was used to make the adverse inference call against his'n krupp in calculating the margin that some crops failure to submit the data so that has much more long ranging implications than simply transposing two numbers when they if they really do that calculation the entire adverse inference calculation starts to unwind because that that average in a value for the very basis for the adverse inference cough and in fact ten years ago in this matter was exactly before that i mean it was done incorrectly based on mathematical error it should be unwound well then but then your honor it would just be a matter of changing two lines of programming then congress would have to evaluate was that the correct average unit value we should be using to make the adverse inference call about his and prop so my point here is that this isn't simply a matter of correcting the area error error and plugging it into the formula then you have to evaluate is that what's being calculated as an average unit value correct supposedly that transposition of the error to create a lower average unit value it would then have to decide it would have to decide whether that average unit value was sufficiently adverse to account for the fact point i'd like to make is that all the parties agreed to dismiss that appeal to some prop appealed to their alleged error we appealed our ears we went to the court we won our issue on a reman but we all agreed to dismiss the principles of finality and judicial stoppel should preclude his and proper raising this again ten years later in a matter that will become much more complicated if this if this has to be remanded for the correction of this  dumping margin two point one one percent and that is what is subject to judicial review and that error is a part is an integral part i don't think that can be disputed you can't get to that number with the area of the correction of the number of results in a dummy margin that's far  than two percent connor's concluded that it had no authority whatsoever to try to correct that error that's what it stated and it's in the final results for the section one twenty one determination that said that it had the limited purpose of a section one