mandate that exhaustion of administrative front because it's not an absolute requirement rather it's left to the discretion of the court we understand there's a strong interest in normally requiring exhaustion but the lower court still abuse that discretion by treating this discretionary ducting purposely discretionary doctoring as an inflexible black letter law rather than following the intention of considering the full circumstances and the reason if you don't file if you don't rage at a particular issue in a case where you then you can't raise it on appeal well that's the basic principle behind exhaustion but in this case there d was no case we filed at all that's correct so you have  trade cases involve legal questions in some sense and it has to be connected in some way that it's a legal question that be passed on by commerce or it is futile for commerce to pass on otherwise that legal question doctrine would swallow up huge swaths of the exhaust and honoring it isn't i mean the fundamental basis i don't you know you have a very hard case the fundamental basis is the agency should get to decide the issue in the st instance and i don't see any reason why you shouldn't have presented your arguments here to the agency so the reason that we look to pure law here and say that this is it should be a very narrow application here that we do have a very narrow allocation this is not a case like a methodological question anti dumping are circuit value decision where we're applying a lot of facts and mix issues of law and methodology we have a very small set of fa mean that was different because it was an entire case prove it was an aspect of the case brief where they just herman's that they could still bring an issue that was not raised because it was a pure question of law and here i mean we c complaint right not on those issues i mean they had one issue that wasn't raised but as one issue alone that was a problem in this case and again i mean we keep trying to bring back the fact that the reason we require exaction which you keep bringing up judge shoes and we grieve is that we want the agency to consider it and the point is that the decisions you did consider this when they updated it not consider a plain a if a they did they looked at weathers and see had filed the new sales and they did and looked at the contradict contrary information later and said that's grounds for a f a so our question before the court below the merits that we didn't get to was whether that is that's legal so congress did consider that fact and that's why we're looking at the pure how we rule for you here without basically you know if it's rating the exhaust requirement we i mean this again when i was auction when the court determines that exemption is not required it's a very on the one side we have the agency making the decision the st place which we are i would argue to have made the decision the st place on clear facts that everyone knows on the other side we're also looking at the unjustness on the other that which is what you were just starting to get two million dollars instead of seven hundred million dollars so this small area that happened early on in the case is resulting in a grave injustice and that needs to still be considered in the institutional interest that congress has in the reading of  and you know maybe it was an oversight when you said we didn't have any sales and we did but you know there's there's other explanations not so banal for you know not reporting sales and so is that the commerce when they get a no sales or cation anti dumping or countervailing commerce never takes that base value it is normal can congress practice in all their cases to put the c b p doubt on the record and examine is that true they don't just rescind  review based on that certification they always go through the process which is why we characterize it as a harmless error because one the error was corrected early on in two that's never the basis of loan of a no sale so if occasion it was never going to review was never going to be rescinded error alone it would have been empty and that c b p doubt as well so that's a normal procedure that congress goes through and no sales and again looking at whether they got to consider this issue they did consider those two facts that there was no sales and then that this was corrected later and determined that that alone was enough for anything and that's a legal question in a very narrow legal question that they've already examined i'm not doubting that this would be a much not like they can do it consider per methodology that they didn't can or a survey value this was absolutely considered with the facts clear and undisputed so the agency did get to exercise its an expertise and then on the other side to weigh the fact that this fifteen million dollars are owed for what we characterize again as a harmless error and another consideration we thought should have been considered as the fact that they had now for counsel with us throughout the review leading to this in this understanding that those didn't believe that it had to the futility exception which is the exact reason and rationale that this court has previously rejected many times this court has clearly stated that even though and i st decisions may have been likely a party is not excused of their exhaustion requirements and that's what song she put forth to the trial court here and she has put forth nothing to this court that explains how the trial court abused its discretion in she argues not only the f a question but also that it should be given in all others rate and also that the court erred and concluding that the submission was untimely so zhan she raises far more issues at the trial court than were ever considered by commerce at the administrative level and as your honour's noted because commerce didn't have the st opportunity to speak on these issues it would be improper for the trial court to now hear the issues in the st instance without two under the circumstances part and that's where we get to the abuse of discretion here is that to be only the lower court only view those two narrow exceptions with also having mistaken backs when it reviewed this one with supplemental brief we could never have raise additional information in a case brief and to miss understanding really what was that issue with a if a here and if a decisions are usually a huge factual consideration here it's not it's a very narrow consideration so we'd say both of those issues were a misunderstanding in discussing those exceptions but the bigger issue throughout our briefing is the fact that it's under the circumstances of whether this should be required and that's what was not considered was the breath of the circumstances here counsel to the d o j raised that there were things that the congress did not get to consider but when we did not appeal the untimely submission of their explanation we did not raise that as an issue that they should have accepted it we're not bringing that before the agency we're also not bringing that level of a if they rate itself the only issue on the merits that we're bringing before the court is whether it's appropriate to apply and say when a company filed or no sales certification that was subsequently corrected and that issue was addressed by the agency and so now we find ourselves in an area of pure luck with that question and so we would ask that this court should find that the lower court abused his discretion