[00:00:30] Speaker 04: I think we're ready. [00:00:31] Speaker 04: Please proceed. [00:00:36] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honor. [00:00:37] Speaker 01: May it please the Court. [00:00:38] Speaker 01: My name is David Craven. [00:00:39] Speaker 01: I'm with Craven Trade Law. [00:00:41] Speaker 01: And I'm here today on behalf of La Molisana SPA in connection with an appeal from the Court of International Trade. [00:00:50] Speaker 01: This is a relatively simple case. [00:00:53] Speaker 01: The question comes down to whether the facts of record [00:01:00] Speaker 01: And the likes support the reclassification of certain shapes as part of the model match. [00:01:14] Speaker 03: On page 17 of the blue brief, you say that commerce's list of positive shapes is essentially immutable. [00:01:22] Speaker 03: But in its redetermination on page 50 of the joint appendix, commerce explains that a respondent can either submit a properly [00:01:30] Speaker 03: Supported request to expand the list or argue that there are compelling reasons to change commerce's methodology Did you ever submit a properly supported request and if so where is it on the record? [00:01:44] Speaker 01: No your honor because that was not at the time I believe the standard before the agency and [00:01:51] Speaker 01: What we did explain is we provided production speeds for a number of our cuts, showing that what the department had characterized as a special cut was, in fact, a standard cut based on throughput. [00:02:08] Speaker 01: And it was relying upon a prior precedent, including language from the courts, which had stated that [00:02:17] Speaker 01: The determination of special versus standard was shorthand for production speed. [00:02:26] Speaker 04: The problem you have in your case is that you were just talking about your own production speed. [00:02:33] Speaker 04: And these categories are established, and they're based on industry standards. [00:02:40] Speaker 04: So I think part of the reason that your request, whatever [00:02:44] Speaker 04: The parameters was rejected is that you weren't claiming that there was a change in a different industry-wide standard speed. [00:02:52] Speaker 04: You were just offering it for your company. [00:02:54] Speaker 04: And Commerce concluded that's not adequate. [00:02:57] Speaker 04: Why are they wrong? [00:02:58] Speaker 01: Well, firstly, it is impossible for a single pasta company to claim a change in industry-wide standard. [00:03:06] Speaker 01: Simply put, we don't have access to the data of our competitors. [00:03:11] Speaker 01: Secondly, when we're dealing with the calculations of costs and the like, costs are not based on the industry standard. [00:03:18] Speaker 01: Costs are based on the standard of the respondent. [00:03:23] Speaker 01: And we're not arguing that profiling is a long cut versus a short cut. [00:03:31] Speaker 01: The simple question is, is it a special cut or is it a standard cut? [00:03:35] Speaker 01: And that is based on our production speeds. [00:03:38] Speaker 02: I would have thought your answer to the question would be, in the fourth administrative review, they looked at individual line speed in classifying, and that this decision is inconsistent with that. [00:03:48] Speaker 02: I would have thought that would have been your argument. [00:03:50] Speaker 02: That is one of our arguments, yes, Your Honor. [00:03:52] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:03:54] Speaker 02: What did Commerce say here about the distinction between this situation and the fourth administrative review situation? [00:04:02] Speaker 01: Ultimately, they said in the fourth administrative review that... No, no, no. [00:04:06] Speaker 02: Not in the... Here, in this case... Yes, Your Honor. [00:04:09] Speaker 02: What did they say was the distinction between this case and the fourth administrative review? [00:04:14] Speaker 01: The distinction was they made a mistake in the fourth administrative review. [00:04:18] Speaker 02: Where do they say that? [00:04:19] Speaker 01: They said that in... It's actually in the brief of the defendant appellee, where they cite to where commerce stated that had they had more time [00:04:32] Speaker 01: And had they noted the difference in, had they noted that we were seeking to reclassify cuts that commerce had classified, they would not have permitted it. [00:04:48] Speaker 01: I'm sorry, just a second. [00:04:49] Speaker 04: I have two red briefs, so which one are you talking about? [00:04:55] Speaker 02: I was looking for the commerce decision here. [00:05:06] Speaker 01: It's from comment 19 from the issues and decisions memorandum for the fourth administrative review. [00:05:14] Speaker 02: No, no, no. [00:05:15] Speaker 02: I'm not talking about that. [00:05:17] Speaker 02: I'm saying in this case, what did Commerce say about the distinction between this case and the fourth administrative review? [00:05:34] Speaker 01: I do not recall, Your Honor. [00:05:37] Speaker 03: Let me take you back to your answer to my first question, where you said that commerce changed its position. [00:05:50] Speaker 03: And I go to the appendix at page 50, where they disagree with the court that existing shapes were treated as immutable. [00:06:02] Speaker 03: But then they say, [00:06:04] Speaker 03: The list can be, they say we're clarifying, the list can be expanded, but they say if a respondent produces a type of pasta that does not appear among the 256 pasta shapes, the department's questionnaire and instructions allow the respondent to report new pasta shapes with the following evidence, and it was a photograph and so on. [00:06:26] Speaker 03: That didn't, that questionnaire didn't change. [00:06:29] Speaker 03: It had been that way before. [00:06:30] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:06:32] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:06:33] Speaker 01: And we did report, and we do report in administrative reviews, shapes that are not called for by name. [00:06:41] Speaker 01: But that's part of the issue, is that when you use a name, a name does not necessarily mean that the cut is new. [00:06:49] Speaker 01: And in fact, as we noted in our brief, there are some inconsistencies. [00:06:53] Speaker 01: There are cuts that the same die is used. [00:06:57] Speaker 01: And it has different names. [00:06:58] Speaker 01: And Commerce has classified some of the cuts off those dies, specialty cuts. [00:07:03] Speaker 01: And some of those cuts are standard cuts. [00:07:06] Speaker 01: And so therefore, it creates somewhat of a difficulty where the determination is based on the name on the bag, not on the actual product. [00:07:20] Speaker 03: You're assuming that, of course. [00:07:22] Speaker 03: Well, no. [00:07:23] Speaker 03: What record evidence is that it's based solely on the name on the bag as opposed to, [00:07:27] Speaker 03: the run time, the amount produced, and so on. [00:07:30] Speaker 01: But because, for example, the cut on the list, which they said you must use the name on the cut, the cut ruote and the cut rotelli are both on the 256 lists. [00:07:43] Speaker 01: But one of those is a special cut, and one of those is a standard cut. [00:07:46] Speaker 01: And they are identical. [00:07:48] Speaker 01: They are simply different names used for this different cut in different regions of Italy. [00:07:54] Speaker 01: And so that's why we believe that what the department properly should do is what we said, which is use the production throughput speed as a determining factor based on the fact that it's always been the throughput speed which has been, that was ultimately used in the original investigation and the subsequent reviews to differentiate between standard and special. [00:08:22] Speaker 01: issue on classification is, is this a special cut or is this a standard cut? [00:08:27] Speaker 01: All of the other model match criteria, there is no dispute. [00:08:32] Speaker 01: And that's the situation we have here. [00:08:34] Speaker 01: And we believe that the record does not support not allowing a differentiation. [00:08:43] Speaker 03: You had a color, for example, squid ink. [00:08:46] Speaker 03: Sure. [00:08:48] Speaker 03: Does that become a different cut [00:08:50] Speaker 01: Yes, it becomes a different condom. [00:08:53] Speaker 01: There are four criteria that go into the condom. [00:08:57] Speaker 01: The first criteria is shape. [00:08:58] Speaker 01: The second criteria is attitudes. [00:09:05] Speaker 01: The third criteria is wheat type. [00:09:10] Speaker 01: And the fourth criteria is enrichment. [00:09:12] Speaker 01: And so your squid pasta would have a different condom because it would have a different number, just like the [00:09:20] Speaker 01: a high protein product would have a different number than a low protein product. [00:09:25] Speaker 01: And this entire issue relates to the first number and whether it is something is, there's no dispute as to what's long and what's short. [00:09:34] Speaker 01: There's no dispute as to whether something is a lasagna or a nested. [00:09:38] Speaker 01: The simple question is for long cuts and short cuts, they are subdivided into special cuts and standard cuts. [00:09:46] Speaker 01: And the question is the determining factor, the break point. [00:09:49] Speaker 01: between special and standard. [00:09:51] Speaker 01: And it always has been a 75% throughput speed. [00:09:55] Speaker 01: And that's what we were advocating in this case. [00:09:59] Speaker 01: And I would like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal unless you have anything else you'd like to raise at this time. [00:10:04] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:10:05] Speaker 01: Thank you very much. [00:10:05] Speaker 03: Nothing else? [00:10:08] Speaker 03: You're making me hungry. [00:10:36] Speaker 00: Good morning, Your Honor. [00:10:37] Speaker 00: Elizabeth Speck for the United States. [00:10:39] Speaker 00: We respectfully request that the court sustain the remand redetermination. [00:10:43] Speaker 02: I have a concern here about the consistency of the decision here with the decision in the fourth administrative review. [00:10:49] Speaker 02: And you argue, and the CIT has said, well, we don't need to worry about that because it doesn't amount to a practice. [00:10:56] Speaker 02: And I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding of administrative law. [00:11:00] Speaker 02: If there's an inconsistency in agency decisions, they have to be explained. [00:11:05] Speaker 02: So is there, first of all, an inconsistency between the fourth administrative review and what happened here? [00:11:12] Speaker 02: That's question number one. [00:11:14] Speaker 02: And two, what did Commerce do to explain the inconsistency and why it was not following the fourth administrative review approach? [00:11:23] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:11:24] Speaker 00: The court addressed the Fourth Administrative Review extensively on pages 63 through 68 of the Joint Appendix. [00:11:31] Speaker 02: No, I'm not asking about what the court did. [00:11:33] Speaker 00: No, the Commerce did. [00:11:34] Speaker 00: I'm sorry. [00:11:34] Speaker 00: The Joint Appendix is Commerce's remand reinterpretation. [00:11:37] Speaker 02: OK, so what did it say? [00:11:38] Speaker 00: I think it addressed the entire quote from comment 19 of the Fourth Administrative Review. [00:11:47] Speaker 00: And it explained that when you consider the quote in context, [00:11:52] Speaker 00: that commerce has always required pasta respondents to adhere to the existing shape methodology unless there is a new shape. [00:12:03] Speaker 02: Where in this decision are we looking? [00:12:06] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:12:06] Speaker 00: 63 talks about the Fourth Administrative Review. [00:12:09] Speaker 00: 63? [00:12:09] Speaker 00: 63 through 68 talks about the Fourth Administrative Review. [00:12:15] Speaker 00: It places the quote in context [00:12:18] Speaker 00: It talks about the fact that Commerce has always required them to adhere to the existing shape classification list. [00:12:25] Speaker 00: Page 67 has the entire quote which Commerce believes put its quote in context. [00:12:34] Speaker 00: And then to the extent Commerce said thus in the fourth administrative review of pasta from Italy, the department explained that per its longstanding practice, [00:12:44] Speaker 00: It expects respondent firms to adhere to the shape classifications contained in the appendix to the initial questionnaire, and that deviations from the appendix apply only to pasta shapes that are not contained in the list. [00:12:56] Speaker 02: That sounds as though they're saying that there's no inconsistency here. [00:13:00] Speaker 02: Whereas I read the fourth administrative review, it says [00:13:04] Speaker 02: For those cuts which PAM believed were specialty cuts, yet the department considered a regular cut or vice versa, it provided the line speed data. [00:13:12] Speaker 02: We reviewed this information and accepted the revised shape classification as provided by PAM, which sounds as though they reclassified based on PAM's line speed data, which is exactly what the Commerce refused to do here. [00:13:28] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, Commerce addressed that also on page 68 of the Joint Appendix. [00:13:33] Speaker 00: They said they made a mistake, is what they said. [00:13:35] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:13:36] Speaker 03: They said they didn't. [00:13:37] Speaker 03: We missed what you put over on this. [00:13:39] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:13:40] Speaker 00: They said they did. [00:13:40] Speaker 00: Yes, exactly. [00:13:41] Speaker 00: And I think that we... Where does it say that? [00:13:44] Speaker 00: It said, while the department may have ultimately allowed PAM to reclassify certain pasta cuts that were already listed in the shape list, [00:13:52] Speaker 00: that was included in the initial questionnaire, the department explained that it did so only because it failed to recognize in time that PAM had, contrary to the instructions in the initial questionnaire, reclassified those shapes. [00:14:07] Speaker 00: And the Court of International Trade on remand, and this is in the court's decision, page 39 of the appendix, noted that to the extent the language the court just read [00:14:17] Speaker 00: Appears it would be an outlier and inconsistent with every other administrative review We specifically cited the ranchers cattlemen decision which says that an action by an agency Becomes an agency practice when a uniform [00:14:32] Speaker 02: You don't have to show an agency practice to put a burden on the agency to explain the difference. [00:14:40] Speaker 02: And to the extent that that's the approach that's being taken here by the Court of International Trade, in my view, that is not correct. [00:14:48] Speaker 02: The Commerce still has to explain deviations from a prior decision, even if it doesn't amount to a practice. [00:14:55] Speaker 02: And I'm not sure that the explanation here is all that clear. [00:15:01] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, the decision on remand goes into great detail that this is, again, the nature of a model match methodology is that it's based here on the industry standard, and it's supposed to be something that is consistent and predictable from review to review. [00:15:18] Speaker 00: Here, this is, again, a well-tested methodology that, again, as the Court noted, the fourth would be one outlier decision. [00:15:26] Speaker 00: has consistently been based on shape and consistent with commerce's practice that it will only change its model match methodology once established if presented with a compelling reason to do so. [00:15:36] Speaker 00: And shape has never been the sole, pardon me, line speed, has never been the sole characteristic. [00:15:43] Speaker 00: As commerce explained in the 15th administrative review, it's but one of the factors that commerce looks at. [00:15:50] Speaker 02: Do you agree that in the fourth administrative review they did [00:15:54] Speaker 02: allow line speed to govern of the particular producer? [00:15:58] Speaker 00: Your Honor, I think the language is unclear as to what happened in the fourth administrative review. [00:16:03] Speaker 00: But I think it highlights the problems. [00:16:05] Speaker 00: What's unclear about it? [00:16:07] Speaker 02: The part I just read you says you gave us your line speed, and we allowed you to reclassify based on that. [00:16:13] Speaker 00: And commerce is explained on page 68 of the Joint Appendix. [00:16:17] Speaker 02: But I'm going to just start with the fourth administrative review. [00:16:21] Speaker 02: Isn't the fourth administrative review [00:16:23] Speaker 02: inconsistent with what they do here. [00:16:26] Speaker 00: If the court interprets that language to mean it allowed differentiation based on line speed, it would be inconsistent with commerce's longstanding 20-year methodology that it is consistently adhered to. [00:16:37] Speaker 00: And it is based on industry standards, based on the physical characteristics of pasta, which is what is required in the statute. [00:16:44] Speaker 03: Again, I think one- Aren't they implying that in the fourth, that you told us everything else was the same? [00:16:53] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:16:54] Speaker 03: Because that's what the questionnaires do. [00:16:59] Speaker 03: And it turned out it wasn't after the fact. [00:17:02] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:17:02] Speaker 00: And that highlights the danger of allowing deviations in the model match methodology. [00:17:08] Speaker 00: Again, commerce is reliant on what the respondents submit. [00:17:13] Speaker 00: And here, allowing this consistent, it's more administrable and yields more consistent results [00:17:20] Speaker 00: when commerce has this established shape-based methodology and doesn't allow company-specific deviations based on line speeds. [00:17:29] Speaker 03: It's essentially... What about your friend's argument that the shapes are precisely the same, the post is precisely the same, only the name varies, and yet they're classified differently? [00:17:42] Speaker 00: Your Honor, to the extent that's... I guess he... I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the question. [00:17:49] Speaker 03: Well, you heard what your opposing counsel said, that a particular rollatini-type shape is named one thing in one region of Italy and one thing in another, but they're produced on the same line with the same ingredients, with the same equipment, and with the same speed. [00:18:11] Speaker 03: And yet, one's classified as specialty and one's not. [00:18:16] Speaker 03: Is that true? [00:18:17] Speaker 03: And if so, why? [00:18:19] Speaker 00: Your Honor, to the extent it's, again, this is the methodology was established in accordance with industry standards as agreed to by the Italian pasta makers and the domestic pasta industry. [00:18:31] Speaker 00: Again, line speed is one factor. [00:18:34] Speaker 00: But even for the specialty shapes, which are in fact some that are relevant to this review, line speed is a factor in distinguishing between short and long cuts. [00:18:45] Speaker 00: But other shapes of pasta, such as soupettes, lasagna, [00:18:48] Speaker 00: Nestled or coil pasta are produced on separate lines and are classified based on the unique nature of their shape. [00:18:54] Speaker 03: You're not answering my question Yes, sir. [00:18:58] Speaker 00: I think it we It's not once a shape is classified it is based on the shape and not the line speed so initially as commerce explained in the 15th administrative review line speed was it was initially a factor in determining between distinguishing between short and long cuts and [00:19:16] Speaker 00: But once there's an established shape, it is based on the shape classification list in Appendix 3. [00:19:23] Speaker 03: Is there anywhere in the record, and I'll ask your opposing counsel this question when it comes back, where the example he posits is shown us in the record. [00:19:34] Speaker 03: That is exactly the same thing is given two different names and classified different names. [00:19:40] Speaker 00: I think the examples that what my opposing counsel is suggesting is that it suggests that there is leeway for a respondent to reclassify a shape. [00:19:51] Speaker 00: If they produce a shape that is on the list, then they are required to adhere to commerce's methodology. [00:19:57] Speaker 00: And again, it's in. [00:19:58] Speaker 02: Was this inconsistency already raised before? [00:20:01] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:20:03] Speaker 02: I'm sorry, which? [00:20:04] Speaker 02: The one we've just been talking about. [00:20:07] Speaker 02: In other words, that commerce has given [00:20:09] Speaker 02: different names to the same thing and classified them inconsistently. [00:20:15] Speaker 00: I believe that opposing counsel raised the example below but I think commerce's position is that to the extent that the that they're arguing that again the shape classification list doesn't [00:20:28] Speaker 00: give the leeway to the respondent if it produces a sheet based on the list. [00:20:33] Speaker 02: Are they saying that the pasta shapes that are involved here receive different classifications that are inconsistent with each other? [00:20:46] Speaker 00: No, Your Honor. [00:20:47] Speaker 00: The pasta shapes on this list are all pasta shapes that appear in appendix three of the. [00:20:53] Speaker 00: No, no. [00:20:54] Speaker 02: I'm asking, did they argue below? [00:20:58] Speaker 02: that the argument about inconsistency is relevant to the shapes involved here? [00:21:06] Speaker 00: No, Your Honor. [00:21:06] Speaker 00: I don't believe to their specific shapes. [00:21:08] Speaker 00: I believe the wagon wheel example was raised below, but that would not be relevant to one of their specific shapes. [00:21:14] Speaker 00: I believe, I'm not sure if I'm in defendant intervener's time. [00:21:18] Speaker 04: No, you're still on your own, but feel free to conclude. [00:21:21] Speaker 00: If the court has no further questions, we respectfully request that the court affirm the Court of International Trades decision. [00:21:27] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:21:36] Speaker 05: May please the court. [00:21:38] Speaker 05: If I may, I'd like to start with Judge Dike's question about the fourth administrative review, which I agree is probably the one shred of evidence on this record that could support appellant's position. [00:21:49] Speaker 05: But I'll tell you why that's different. [00:21:50] Speaker 05: This court in Piscara, Maris, Australis, [00:21:55] Speaker 05: Studied the statute at the statutory provision at issue here 19 16 77 16 the definition of the foreign like product and that Statute says that commerce has to base the matching criteria on physical characteristics of merchandise being compared Production speed is not a physical characteristic shape is why did commerce use that in the first four segments of this now a 23 year old proceeding [00:22:20] Speaker 05: Commerce used that to inform the shape criteria. [00:22:23] Speaker 05: Both specialty cuts and regular cuts can be produced on the same line, and the only way you can distinguish those costs is by throughput rate. [00:22:30] Speaker 05: If you have a throughput rate of less than 75%, you necessarily have a specialty shape with its attendant higher costs and prices. [00:22:40] Speaker 05: So, commerce has always sought to distinguish those and separate those out. [00:22:44] Speaker 05: In the fourth administrative review, commerce did a poor job [00:22:49] Speaker 05: of trying to backfill once they realized Respondent had changed the coding. [00:22:56] Speaker 05: And sometimes Respondents change the coding without telling Commerce and it only comes up in the final stage. [00:23:01] Speaker 05: In that case, they got it wrong, but they've gotten it right in the other 18 segments that preceded this case. [00:23:09] Speaker 05: And they continue to get it right. [00:23:13] Speaker 02: Do they say clearly here that they got it wrong in the fourth administrative review? [00:23:17] Speaker 05: No, they kind of do. [00:23:19] Speaker 05: In the language you just read from the remand, they say, we realized too late. [00:23:24] Speaker 05: And what they were trying to do was summarize their position from appendix three of their dumping questionnaire, which goes out to every respondent in every case that's at page 227 of our appendix. [00:23:34] Speaker 05: And it says right there, you must classify your shapes in accordance with this appendix unless two things happen, new standards or the shapes not on there. [00:23:44] Speaker 05: If you look at that list on page 227, there's four asterisks on that list. [00:23:47] Speaker 05: Those are new shapes that have been added over the course of this proceeding. [00:23:51] Speaker 05: A single respondent came forward and said, hey, the shape's not on the list. [00:23:55] Speaker 05: And they satisfied the evidentiary burden, which appellant did not hear, of providing pictures, providing the name, providing the line speed, and more importantly, providing the rated capacity for the line it's produced on. [00:24:07] Speaker 05: so commerce could determine whether it was above or below that 75% threshold. [00:24:11] Speaker 05: None of that was done in this case. [00:24:14] Speaker 05: More to the point, there have been five appeals challenging commerce's shape of classification in this case. [00:24:20] Speaker 05: It has always been upheld as reasonable. [00:24:23] Speaker 05: This court has found in Maris Australis and Coyo Seco that substantial deference, considerable deference, is owed to commerce's interpretation of its product matching criteria. [00:24:33] Speaker 05: in the trial court has found three times that the shape classification in this case is reasonable. [00:24:40] Speaker 05: And Judge Rastani in the Produti case actually dismissed the argument that production speed is a characteristic on which they're basing their matching criteria. [00:24:51] Speaker 05: You asked Judge Wallach to ask if there's anywhere on the record where there's two identical shapes classified differently. [00:24:57] Speaker 05: I'm not aware of that, and that's not on this record. [00:24:59] Speaker 05: If there was, it would be incumbent upon [00:25:01] Speaker 05: Party to come forward and suggest a change to the matching criteria. [00:25:05] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:25:06] Speaker 03: Thank you very much So mr. Craven, where is it in the record? [00:25:17] Speaker 03: Oh, sorry, which question your honor shapes? [00:25:20] Speaker ?: Oh [00:25:20] Speaker 03: Identical shapes. [00:25:22] Speaker 03: Identical pasta. [00:25:25] Speaker 01: It was raised, it's an appendix, our citations, appendix pages 231 and 232. [00:25:33] Speaker 02: But does that relate to the shapes that are involved here or just some other shapes? [00:25:37] Speaker 01: No, Your Honor, it was raised, it was raised in the original... No, no, does it relate to the shapes that we're talking about here? [00:25:46] Speaker 02: In this particular... Wait, wait, wait. [00:25:48] Speaker 02: Does it relate to the shapes that are involved here or to some other shapes that are not involved? [00:25:53] Speaker 01: It relates to shapes that are not specifically involved in this case. [00:25:56] Speaker 02: So what do we care? [00:25:58] Speaker 02: We're not here to fix every problem in the world. [00:26:03] Speaker 02: We're only here to address the problem that you raise. [00:26:06] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:26:07] Speaker 01: And this is to show, though, that the list is, in fact, should be subject to some alteration. [00:26:13] Speaker 03: I'm shaking my head no. [00:26:14] Speaker 03: And I'm shaking my head no because you're not answering my question. [00:26:17] Speaker 03: Yes, Your Honor. [00:26:18] Speaker 03: What you said was that a bag of pasta [00:26:23] Speaker 03: produced on a line with one name on it and a bag of pasta produced on the same line with a different name on it were treated differently. [00:26:32] Speaker 03: 230 and 231 are a list of names of pasta. [00:26:39] Speaker 03: That doesn't answer my question. [00:26:41] Speaker 03: Is there anything in the record that shows what you factually stated? [00:26:49] Speaker ?: It is. [00:26:51] Speaker 01: It's in the questionnaire responses, Your Honor, but I do not have a specific citation. [00:26:55] Speaker 01: We produced only one name of that particular product. [00:27:00] Speaker 01: The citation was to show that these products have the same product with different names. [00:27:11] Speaker 03: Well, if you can't cite me to the record, it doesn't do anything. [00:27:14] Speaker 01: I would also like to call to the Court's attention [00:27:17] Speaker 01: a statement out of the administrative decision for the fourth review, specifically issue 18 in the IND memo, where the commerce said, however we understand there may be discrepancies between the shape categories, lists we provide respondents in the questionnaire, and their own production, which would result in different classifications of certain cuts. [00:27:42] Speaker 01: And and where are you okay? [00:27:46] Speaker 01: I am at the issues and decisions memorandum at issue 18 of the fourth administrative review What page in the record are you at? [00:27:58] Speaker 01: As I think I know what they said after that, but I want to look I Do not see a record citation here your honor never mind [00:28:10] Speaker 03: And I also would note that in the 15th administrative review, I say never mind, because if you can't cite us to the record, I'm not even going to listen. [00:28:19] Speaker 01: It's in the issues and decisions memorandum. [00:28:21] Speaker 01: So it is part of the administrative determinations that the court has before it. [00:28:55] Speaker 01: In the 15th administrative review, the question before it was whether there was a third type of superspecialty versus specialty. [00:29:07] Speaker 01: And the court turned down the request for a modification of the shape line, stating that based on the throughput of the post-it issue, we can classify them as special short or specialty long because the line speed or the throughput rates [00:29:24] Speaker 01: are 75% or less than the corresponding line of speed. [00:29:27] Speaker 01: Where is it? [00:29:28] Speaker 01: This is, again, this is the issues and decisions memorandum accompanying Federal Register 78, FedReg 9364. [00:29:36] Speaker 01: Issues and decisions memorandum, I do not believe, are part of the administrative record. [00:29:49] Speaker 01: And so it is not just the fourth administrative review where [00:29:53] Speaker 01: The department has, in fact, distinguished using the 75% basis for determining classification. [00:30:03] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:30:04] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:30:05] Speaker 04: The next case for argument is 191044, Flores versus Wilkins.