[00:00:33] Speaker 01: Well, maybe, but we have a statute. [00:00:38] Speaker 05: I think this week. [00:00:39] Speaker 05: I think it's on the calendar. [00:00:43] Speaker 01: That's what I'm saying. [00:00:45] Speaker 05: I didn't realize there was a case on the calendar. [00:00:49] Speaker 01: I don't think that affects anything. [00:00:51] Speaker 05: Oh, no, no, I'm just saying. [00:00:56] Speaker 01: Okay, next argued case is number 19, 1091, SCAA Steel Vena Corporation against the United States. [00:01:06] Speaker 01: Mr. Vinton. [00:01:16] Speaker 06: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:01:19] Speaker 06: My name is Jeffrey Winton on behalf of Sayesteel Viena Corporation. [00:01:23] Speaker 06: Viena is a Vietnamese producer of various pipe products, including the pipe that goes down into oil wells, which is known as OCGG. [00:01:33] Speaker 06: Commerce has designated Vietnam as a non-market economy, or NME. [00:01:37] Speaker 03: And that means- You argue that Viena's freight forward contract was not an insurance contract. [00:01:45] Speaker 03: And that the commerce erred by undertaking, as you put it, metaphysical inquiries into the nature of services provided by your freight forwarder. [00:01:54] Speaker 03: Can you point to any record evidence outside your freight forwarder contract that indicates it isn't also for insurance? [00:02:02] Speaker 03: Because there's some... [00:02:03] Speaker 06: Your Honor, I would submit, and I will answer your question, but I would submit that's irrelevant because there's no question about what that contract said. [00:02:13] Speaker 06: That contract said the freight forwarder will provide freight and it will be liable for any damages while the merchandise is being transported. [00:02:21] Speaker 06: There's no dispute about that. [00:02:24] Speaker 06: The question then is, given that that's what we bought in Vietnam, what would it cost us to buy that in India? [00:02:31] Speaker 06: That was the only question here. [00:02:32] Speaker 06: It wasn't whether you can call this an insurance contract. [00:02:35] Speaker 06: That's irrelevant under the statute. [00:02:37] Speaker 06: So you fall back on English common law. [00:02:39] Speaker 06: No, actually, it's not just an English common law. [00:02:42] Speaker 06: It's English common law going back 400 years, but it's also Indian law. [00:02:47] Speaker 06: Indian law, which we cited in our brief at page 11, note 12, [00:02:53] Speaker 06: And I would note that Indian law, I had in my mind this old notion that foreign law was a question of fact. [00:03:00] Speaker 06: I don't know where I got that. [00:03:01] Speaker 06: But in fact, under the federal rules of civil procedure, foreign law is a question of law to be determined by the court based on submissions by the parties, but also, if necessary, by the court's own research. [00:03:12] Speaker 06: So our argument here is this was very simple. [00:03:17] Speaker 06: You looked at what we bought in Vietnam. [00:03:19] Speaker 06: trucking, where the trucking company was liable for damage during freight, you said, what would you have to buy in India to get that? [00:03:27] Speaker 06: And US Steel said, well, you'd have to buy a freight contract and an insurance contract. [00:03:32] Speaker 06: And we said, no. [00:03:33] Speaker 06: As a matter of law, in fact, a freight contract in India makes the trucking company liable for any damage during transport. [00:03:41] Speaker 06: They cannot avoid that liability. [00:03:44] Speaker 06: Therefore, if you want to know what would it cost us to get in India trucking [00:03:50] Speaker 06: where the trucking company was liable for damages during freight, all we needed to do was get a trucking contract. [00:03:55] Speaker 06: If you add insurance on top of that, you're double counting, because the trucking company in India is already providing that insurance against lust. [00:04:05] Speaker 06: Whether you want to call it insurance or not doesn't matter. [00:04:08] Speaker 06: This isn't a question of how you interpret the Vietnamese contract. [00:04:13] Speaker 06: Nobody's disputed how you interpret the Vietnamese contract. [00:04:16] Speaker 06: The question was, how do you value those services in India? [00:04:21] Speaker 06: And as we said, that's a question of actually turns out to be a question of foreign law, Indian law, which derives from the common law. [00:04:28] Speaker 06: And I apologize, but it's a little antiquarian. [00:04:31] Speaker 06: I'd love to go back to Kogan and Littleton. [00:04:33] Speaker 06: I apologize, but I had fun doing that. [00:04:37] Speaker 06: So if you don't mind. [00:04:38] Speaker 06: I hope so. [00:04:41] Speaker 06: And so we think Judge Goldberg got hung up on the wrong issue. [00:04:46] Speaker 06: And then commerce, when given the chance, never said that their initial decision was wrong. [00:04:52] Speaker 06: Their initial decision agreed with us. [00:04:53] Speaker 06: They never said that was wrong. [00:04:55] Speaker 06: They just said, OK, yeah, it's an insurance contract. [00:04:57] Speaker 06: And went from there, but never asked, what did we buy in Vietnam? [00:05:02] Speaker 06: What would we have to pay in India to get the same services? [00:05:08] Speaker 06: If I may move on to the next slide. [00:05:10] Speaker 06: Are you straightforward or contracts FOB? [00:05:17] Speaker 06: Now, the free port, so we, Sayovina sells to its US affiliate on, I believe, a FOB Vietnamese port basis. [00:05:32] Speaker 06: The U.S. [00:05:33] Speaker 06: affiliate is responsible for insurance in, I believe, Ocean Free. [00:05:38] Speaker 06: Sayavina is responsible for getting it to the port. [00:05:41] Speaker 06: And so it hires the freight forwarder to take care of transporting it to the port. [00:05:46] Speaker 06: The freight forwarder also takes care of the customs formalities at the port. [00:05:50] Speaker 06: And it's all in a contract. [00:05:54] Speaker 06: one amount fixed fee for all of that. [00:05:57] Speaker 06: But we don't sell to the trade forwarder. [00:06:00] Speaker 06: We sell to SSA, the US affiliate, and that's on an FOB, Vietnamese port basis. [00:06:08] Speaker 06: The next issue we've raised relates to the ratios that commerce used to determine surrogate overhead and general administrative expenses and interest expenses and profit. [00:06:20] Speaker 06: And here, again, I think the court below got the issue wrong. [00:06:28] Speaker 06: And of course, I shouldn't blame the court. [00:06:30] Speaker 06: It's ultimately my fault for not getting them to focus on the right issue. [00:06:35] Speaker 06: You guys still put Eger Dutch. [00:06:39] Speaker 03: Oh, that's back to, yes. [00:06:41] Speaker 03: Sure. [00:06:41] Speaker 03: Back on insurance, yes. [00:06:45] Speaker 03: Put Eger Dutch dead in. [00:06:48] Speaker 03: You had an opportunity to rebut it. [00:06:52] Speaker 06: Yes and no. [00:06:54] Speaker 06: The way commerce does this, we submit our questionnaire responses. [00:06:59] Speaker 06: 30 days before commerce makes its preliminary determination, everybody puts in their surrogate value information. [00:07:05] Speaker 06: You're then given an opportunity to rebut that information. [00:07:08] Speaker 06: At that time, we said we don't have inland insurance. [00:07:12] Speaker 06: Why? [00:07:13] Speaker 06: Because we don't. [00:07:15] Speaker 06: They put in an illegible document and said this is inland insurance. [00:07:19] Speaker 06: In fact, it was an inland insurance. [00:07:21] Speaker 06: The number they put in was insurance for mushrooms that went [00:07:25] Speaker 06: from wherever you grow mushrooms in India all the way to the United States. [00:07:29] Speaker 06: It was not an inland insurance. [00:07:32] Speaker 06: OK, maybe we should have been psychic and said, aha, somewhere down the road somebody is going to reclassify a simple freight contract as an insurance contract, and then commerce is going to see. [00:07:42] Speaker 06: You're not going to waste any more time on that. [00:07:44] Speaker 06: I see what you're saying. [00:07:46] Speaker 06: OK. [00:07:47] Speaker 06: So on the ratios. [00:07:50] Speaker 06: The court seemed to think the question was, could commerce reasonably say that getting the profit figure correct was more important than getting the other figures overhead in GNA correct? [00:08:03] Speaker 06: And we can argue about that, and I'm not sure that that was right. [00:08:07] Speaker 06: But that's not the issue. [00:08:09] Speaker 06: Commerce said, we have all these financial statements, but the only one that gives us an OCTG profit is this Bouchon. [00:08:16] Speaker 06: And Commerce recognized that Bouchon distorted overhead nest DNA because Bouchon was an integrated producer that started with iron ore and coke and coal and made liquid steel and all that stuff. [00:08:28] Speaker 03: You say in the grayery. [00:08:30] Speaker 03: You say the CIT was, quote, simply wrong when it held you failed to exhaust your arguments concerning Bouchon. [00:08:40] Speaker 03: And then you correct the CIT's characterization of your argument. [00:08:46] Speaker 03: But you don't establish that you raised those arguments before commerce. [00:08:50] Speaker 03: Where did you raise them? [00:08:52] Speaker 06: We absolutely did. [00:08:54] Speaker 06: Give me a record. [00:08:55] Speaker 06: Yeah. [00:08:57] Speaker 06: And you can do it on me. [00:09:00] Speaker 06: OK. [00:09:01] Speaker 06: Let me look it up. [00:09:03] Speaker 06: We absolutely did tell Commerce. [00:09:05] Speaker 06: But also, beyond that, it's great for the judge to say you didn't exhaust record. [00:09:13] Speaker 06: Sorry. [00:09:14] Speaker 06: I should not be angry about this, but I am angry about this. [00:09:17] Speaker 06: And I apologize. [00:09:18] Speaker 06: What happened here was we get into this case. [00:09:21] Speaker 06: Commerce says we're going to use a company called WellSpot as the source of profit. [00:09:25] Speaker 06: And then in the Korean case, they said, well, actually, Welsman doesn't produce OCTG. [00:09:29] Speaker 06: So we say, there's something wrong here. [00:09:31] Speaker 06: It goes back to commerce. [00:09:33] Speaker 06: Commerce issues a draft determination. [00:09:34] Speaker 06: It says, well, actually, we have two Indian producers who make OCTG. [00:09:39] Speaker 06: There's Apollo, and there's Busan. [00:09:42] Speaker 06: That's their draft. [00:09:42] Speaker 06: And we say, well, between those two, you should use Apollo for various reasons, including that OCTG is a small part of Busan's operations, and it's an integrated producer. [00:09:53] Speaker 06: Commerce then sends the remand determination to the court, which says, no, we've decided to use both Apollo and Bouchon. [00:09:59] Speaker 06: And we submit a letter to Commerce saying, well, that's great. [00:10:02] Speaker 06: But in your calculations, you only use Bouchon. [00:10:06] Speaker 06: And Commerce said, oh, gosh, it was a mistake. [00:10:09] Speaker 06: We sent the wrong determination to the court. [00:10:12] Speaker 06: And so they send a new determination to the court. [00:10:15] Speaker 06: Where in this process was I supposed to know that they were going to use Bouchon over Apollo? [00:10:24] Speaker 06: It's great to say I should have been a mind reader on this, but in fact, we addressed commerce's decision. [00:10:31] Speaker 06: They said they were going to use Apollo and Bouchon. [00:10:33] Speaker 06: We said Apollo was better. [00:10:36] Speaker 06: But we did address this. [00:10:39] Speaker 04: Because between Apollo and Bouchon, neither of them is a perfect fit here. [00:10:45] Speaker 04: And so isn't there some degree of discretion allowed to commerce to make the call and say, well, this isn't perfect. [00:10:53] Speaker 04: This isn't perfect. [00:10:54] Speaker 04: But all things considered, we think this is the best way to go. [00:10:58] Speaker 04: Absolutely. [00:11:00] Speaker 04: Call for us to overturn, as it was for the CIT. [00:11:03] Speaker 06: Well, I think that's absolutely right. [00:11:05] Speaker 06: If you had a situation where you had a company that made an OCTG and they had an OCTG profit rate, but everything else was distorted, and you had the companies that didn't make OCTG but got the overhead, you might say, how do I decide between those two? [00:11:19] Speaker 06: That was not the issue before commerce. [00:11:21] Speaker 06: Because Bouchon, if it produced OCTG, and we don't know if it did, if it did, its OCTG production was insignificant. [00:11:29] Speaker 06: You can work through the numbers. [00:11:31] Speaker 06: They're in our brief. [00:11:32] Speaker 06: They're in their financial statements. [00:11:33] Speaker 06: At most, it's 4% that we can't account for. [00:11:37] Speaker 06: And it's much likely less than 4% of Bouchon's total sales were OCTG. [00:11:42] Speaker 06: So you have a company. [00:11:44] Speaker 06: You look at its financial statement, at least 96%, maybe 100% of their sales are not OCTG. [00:11:51] Speaker 06: Their profit is not OCTG. [00:11:54] Speaker 06: And Commerce said, well, if it is OCTG, it's an insignificant part of the profit. [00:11:59] Speaker 06: And Commerce said, we've got to use that. [00:12:02] Speaker 06: Even though we know it distorts everything else, there's a taint of OCTG here. [00:12:07] Speaker 06: There's a whiff of OCTG here. [00:12:09] Speaker 06: That makes it a better number. [00:12:11] Speaker 06: And that, to me, [00:12:12] Speaker 06: is an abusive discretion. [00:12:13] Speaker 04: You're saying abuse here arises from the fact that at most, in your view, there's 4% OCTG produced by Bouchon? [00:12:23] Speaker 06: At most. [00:12:23] Speaker 06: And if you go through the categories, and we went through the website and it said, it could be large diameter pipe, it could be small diameter pipe. [00:12:33] Speaker 06: If you go through the categories, those are large diameter pipe is listed as 0.72% of sales. [00:12:38] Speaker 06: Small diameter pipe is presumably less, because it's not even listed. [00:12:42] Speaker 06: So this is tiny. [00:12:43] Speaker 06: And they have other types of pipe. [00:12:45] Speaker 06: So what we have here is a non-OCTG profit for BlueShot. [00:12:50] Speaker 06: But because commerce. [00:12:52] Speaker 06: At 4% is potentially. [00:12:53] Speaker 06: Potentially. [00:12:55] Speaker 06: But if 4% of a company's sales, if you're going to say their overall profit is a reasonable OCTG profit, and that justifies distorting overhead and G&A, I think that's irrational. [00:13:07] Speaker 06: And the judge below never looked at the argument that OCTG was insignificant for Bouchard, which is our main argument. [00:13:16] Speaker 06: I get the discretion. [00:13:18] Speaker 06: And I get why the judge said, [00:13:20] Speaker 06: You know, I complained about the preferences. [00:13:22] Speaker 06: I could see why he said, no, look, commerce has to, you know, it's reasonable to have a preference. [00:13:28] Speaker 06: But the facts in this case, the substantial evidence on the record, when you look at the full record, the incident that shows that Gushan's OCTG production was insignificant, that's the basis for our argument. [00:13:41] Speaker 04: The final issue we have... One question, Mr. Winn, and I'll let you get your final... Of all of these three issues, I don't want to sound crass here, but where does the money lie? [00:13:52] Speaker 04: What's the biggest one in terms of making a difference? [00:13:56] Speaker 06: Well, at this point I'm a little lost. [00:13:59] Speaker 06: We have the mushroom insurance, which is what we call the insurance issue. [00:14:03] Speaker 06: I think we started out at a 23% dumping margin, [00:14:07] Speaker 06: In the original determination, Commerce then changed from WellSpun to Bouchon, and it hit us with the mushroom, and we're now at 72%. [00:14:17] Speaker 06: From my point of view, however, we went into the determination saying, we're not dumping. [00:14:24] Speaker 06: That was our honest belief. [00:14:25] Speaker 06: We're not dumping. [00:14:27] Speaker 06: And to me, what this case is is a lesson in how Commerce says, we can make dumping here. [00:14:32] Speaker 06: We have, through this non-market economy methodology, there's things we can do to make dumping. [00:14:37] Speaker 06: And when we appealed it, I think, frankly, the mushroom insurance, Commerce said, we'll make sure you're dumping. [00:14:43] Speaker 06: Even if you win your other two issues, this insurance will make sure you're dumping. [00:14:46] Speaker 06: Now, I presume bad faith by Commerce, I know you are not permitted to, but I've been doing this for 34 years, and I think I'm probably right. [00:14:56] Speaker 06: In any event, we're here because we think we're not dumping. [00:15:02] Speaker 06: And you think the most important issue for you is the insurance issue. [00:15:06] Speaker 06: Your Honor. [00:15:07] Speaker 06: I would not be here just to win the insurance issue. [00:15:12] Speaker 06: The only reason we're here is because we think we're not dumping. [00:15:15] Speaker 06: And I believe in order to establish we're not dumping, we need to win all three. [00:15:19] Speaker 06: That's my sense of the calculations. [00:15:22] Speaker 03: What I said was I've been doing it for 25 years. [00:15:29] Speaker 03: I defer to your experience. [00:15:30] Speaker 03: No. [00:15:31] Speaker 03: But I have a pretty good idea of the standard of review. [00:15:37] Speaker 06: Well, that's why we're not asking you to make a finding of bad faith. [00:15:40] Speaker 06: I'm asking you to say, commerce's determination that the Bouchon profit was reasonable because it's an OCTG profit is not supported by substantial evidence on the record. [00:15:50] Speaker 06: That is my legal argument on that issue. [00:15:53] Speaker 06: Give it a B and H. Sure. [00:15:56] Speaker 06: On brokerage and hand. [00:15:57] Speaker 06: Frankly, that's what bothers me the most. [00:16:01] Speaker 06: That's where we started out being bothered. [00:16:03] Speaker 04: It gets worse. [00:16:04] Speaker 04: You're not bothered anymore? [00:16:07] Speaker 06: Actually, I've been running out of time. [00:16:09] Speaker 06: But the first thing we did when we appealed this case is said to the judge, Commerce didn't apply Judge Rustani's rulings in CS, LIND, and DAGEN. [00:16:20] Speaker 06: And they were on remand. [00:16:21] Speaker 06: And Commerce had issued a draft remand decision agreeing with her. [00:16:24] Speaker 06: And yet, in our case, they said, well, that's not fine. [00:16:27] Speaker 06: We don't have to follow it. [00:16:28] Speaker 06: I thought this was absurd. [00:16:29] Speaker 06: So I asked the judge for a remand. [00:16:31] Speaker 06: Well, it's absurd as a matter of law and logic. [00:16:36] Speaker 06: Yes. [00:16:37] Speaker 06: I am 100% with you on that. [00:16:39] Speaker 06: And beyond that, there is only one piece of evidence on the record as to how Indian brokerage companies actually charge for these services. [00:16:51] Speaker 06: And that's priceless we submitted from a company called OOCL, something overseas container line, I think. [00:16:58] Speaker 06: And those show that actually these services are charged based on transactions. [00:17:04] Speaker 06: You have documents. [00:17:06] Speaker 03: What strikes me, and I'm going to ask everyone about this, is if you have to fill in a form, and you write the number, and it says times, and you write the number 10, or you write the number 1000, it really isn't that much more work to add to zero. [00:17:26] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:17:27] Speaker 06: Your Honor, with that, I agree with you 100%. [00:17:31] Speaker 06: And beyond that, the record evidence, as Commerce itself admitted, there was no evidence that anyone in India or Vietnam charged for document preparation and customs clearance on a per ton basis. [00:17:43] Speaker 06: The only evidence was the price list we submitted, which showed it was a per transaction. [00:17:48] Speaker 06: So if you want to decide this is a matter of logic or as a matter of substantial evidence, I don't see how you can come out. [00:17:56] Speaker 06: I would reserve whatever time I have for rebuttal, but I'm not sure I have any. [00:17:59] Speaker 01: We'll save you rebuttal time. [00:18:01] Speaker 01: Let's hear from the other side. [00:18:03] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:18:08] Speaker 01: Mr. Adelschick. [00:18:09] Speaker 02: Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court. [00:18:12] Speaker 02: Let me start with B and H. Certainly, Your Honor. [00:18:17] Speaker 02: The argument was just made, to your honors, that the only evidence of brokerage and handling charges was the OOCL, or I'll call it UCL, information. [00:18:29] Speaker 02: Commerce found that that data was not contemporaneous on page seven of the final determination. [00:18:36] Speaker 02: I don't have an appendix site for that right now. [00:18:39] Speaker 02: That was not contemporaneous information and instead commerce relied upon the doing business report at appendix 1998 and the GVN data at appendix 1764 There was to be fair record evidence going both ways on the BNH issue and [00:19:02] Speaker 02: And ultimately, what tipped the scales for Commerce on this issue was CIA's own commercial experience of paying B&H costs by weight. [00:19:13] Speaker 02: Commerce looked at the freight forwarding contract at Appendix 705 that CIA submitted on the record. [00:19:21] Speaker 02: So there was some evidence going both ways. [00:19:23] Speaker 02: Commerce tipped the scales in weighing that evidence in accordance with CIA's own commercial experience. [00:19:31] Speaker 02: And that was a rational judgment. [00:19:32] Speaker 03: You say on page 20 of the red book, commerce reasonably determined that B&H costs should be allocated by weight based on substantial record evidence, including the SSB's cost, are or could be allocated by weight. [00:19:50] Speaker 03: Explain how finding facts that are or could be true is substantial evidence, not speculation. [00:19:59] Speaker 02: Well, Your Honor, for example, are you asking about the valuation or the fact that they? [00:20:13] Speaker 02: I don't understand Your Honor's question. [00:20:14] Speaker 02: I'm sorry. [00:20:16] Speaker 03: What I'm asking about is the phrase, are or could be allocated by when? [00:20:22] Speaker 02: Right. [00:20:24] Speaker 02: see his own contract allocated by weight. [00:20:35] Speaker 03: Where's record evidence that directly supports SSV or Indian companies having paid for document or customs procedures by weight? [00:20:45] Speaker 03: For document or customs procedures, not transportation, [00:20:50] Speaker 02: Well, those are a form of brokerage and handling costs. [00:20:55] Speaker 02: So what we're talking about here is an inference that commerce drew from the- Do you think it's unfair inference? [00:21:08] Speaker 02: No, Your Honor, just because it's not an unfair inference. [00:21:16] Speaker 02: If commerce relies upon evidence of brokerage and handling expenses in India, which is a category of expenses that includes the particular type of clearance and documentation [00:21:32] Speaker 03: Expenses that are at issue when you hire a freight company and you say I want to ship 10 tons of something and They charge you by the time and that includes some paperwork. [00:21:44] Speaker 03: Okay, is that different than when you hire a customs clearance company and you say I want to ship 10 tons or I want to ship a thousand tons and the only difference is when they fill in the forms and [00:22:01] Speaker 03: There are two extra zeros, what I posited to your friend. [00:22:07] Speaker 03: I mean, that strikes me as unrealistic. [00:22:13] Speaker 02: Well, Your Honor, it may be imperfect. [00:22:16] Speaker 02: But there were a lot of imperfect issues in this case. [00:22:21] Speaker 02: And it is up to the interested parties to make the record. [00:22:24] Speaker 02: There was no contemporaneous evidence on this record. [00:22:29] Speaker 03: But there was evidence. [00:22:30] Speaker 02: There was non-contemporaneous evidence that- That was the only evidence. [00:22:36] Speaker 02: No, Your Honor. [00:22:36] Speaker 02: The Doing Business Report showed brokerage and handling expenses being allocated by weight at Appendix 1998. [00:22:47] Speaker 02: And there was GVN data, which showed five different categories of B&H expenses. [00:22:54] Speaker 02: And some were charged by weight. [00:22:56] Speaker 02: Some were not charged by weight. [00:22:58] Speaker 02: There was substantial evidence going both ways. [00:23:01] Speaker 01: And ultimately... Substantial evidence that they allocated by weight. [00:23:06] Speaker 01: Or by transaction. [00:23:07] Speaker 01: We're looking for substantial evidence that this is a correct brokerage allocation by commerce. [00:23:18] Speaker 02: There was substantial evidence, that's right, Your Honor, going both ways, that in India you could have brokerage and handling expenses. [00:23:26] Speaker 02: in two different ways. [00:23:27] Speaker 02: It could be by weight or it could be charged by transaction. [00:23:32] Speaker 03: Show me one where it's not involving transportation. [00:23:37] Speaker 03: It's simply involving a expediter at the port who charges by weight. [00:23:48] Speaker 02: Your Honor, we're not talking about charges at the port. [00:23:52] Speaker 01: Document preparation was charged by the weight of the subject matter that was the subject of the documents. [00:24:00] Speaker 01: That's the problem. [00:24:01] Speaker 02: The record evidence was that in India, it's done both ways, Your Honor. [00:24:05] Speaker 03: And Commerce showed me in the record where it's purely document preparation, and it's done by weight. [00:24:14] Speaker 02: Your honor there is no contemporaneous evidence in the record on that issue and so commerce using the best information available No, your honor Document preparation is a form of brokerage and handling expenses and just because they didn't have a granular a granular level of data [00:24:39] Speaker 02: available to commerce. [00:24:41] Speaker 02: They used the best available, which was the more general. [00:24:46] Speaker 03: You know, BAI gives you a lot of leeway. [00:24:49] Speaker 03: As I said to your friend, I've been looking at this stuff for a long time. [00:24:53] Speaker 03: But it doesn't let you just imagine things. [00:24:58] Speaker 02: Well, Your Honor, there's no imagination. [00:25:01] Speaker 02: Commerce went, instead of looking for the data that was not available for the specific kind of B&H costs, commerce went to the more general type of B&H costs, which were on the record, and drew a reasonable inference that that was evidence, contemporaneous evidence, of the cost by weight. [00:25:29] Speaker 02: And Your Honor, you talked about the standard of review a few moments ago. [00:25:36] Speaker 02: The standard of review allows commerce to use, when we're looking for the best available evidence on the record, there was no contemporaneous evidence of the specific category. [00:25:50] Speaker 02: So they went to the more general category. [00:25:52] Speaker 02: And that's an appropriate inference to be drawn. [00:25:55] Speaker 02: from the record evidence. [00:25:56] Speaker 01: I would think the more general category would not be by weight, but by whatever else time involved or the amount of paperwork. [00:26:07] Speaker 02: Well, this record, Your Honor, demonstrated that in the case of India the experience was there was evidence going both ways, Your Honor. [00:26:14] Speaker 02: And there was a broad doing business report that [00:26:21] Speaker 02: reflected broad practice in India, which did indicate charging by weight. [00:26:26] Speaker 03: Let's talk about the common law. [00:26:29] Speaker 02: Sure. [00:26:30] Speaker 02: Your honor, CIA has... Commerce changed its position. [00:26:37] Speaker 02: In response to the Court of International Trades Remand, which said, Commerce, you are assuming [00:26:45] Speaker 02: that indian law provides for something without any evidence go back and look and see is there any record evidence to support uh... whether indian freight contracts include i love this stuff you know because because it's all uh... i referred to as english common law but if you look the common law countries all cite each other you know so you can just rely on american common law and you'll be okay uh... your honor uh... it was [00:27:15] Speaker 02: SIA's argument based on Indian common law is an assumption without evidence. [00:27:23] Speaker 03: SIA had the- Did I leave my bags in the train station baggage depot when the depot master is the Bailey and I recover them and go on my way? [00:27:32] Speaker 03: Do I have to report a separate insurance policy? [00:27:34] Speaker 03: I received his income. [00:27:36] Speaker 02: Your Honor, I have no idea. [00:27:38] Speaker 02: But the point here, Your Honor, is SIA had the burden of making the record of what constitutes [00:27:46] Speaker 02: Indian freight forwarding practice or Indian law. [00:27:49] Speaker 02: They could have submitted a declaration from an Indian lawyer to establish what is Indian law on this subject. [00:27:58] Speaker 02: That's usually how it's done. [00:28:00] Speaker 02: Precisely, Your Honor. [00:28:01] Speaker 02: And CIA did not avail itself of that opportunity, never made the record. [00:28:07] Speaker 02: So when it came time for commerce to make a judgment, they were directed by the Court of International Trade appropriately. [00:28:14] Speaker 02: to rely upon record evidence. [00:28:16] Speaker 02: There was no record evidence of that, no record evidence supporting the assumption. [00:28:21] Speaker 03: But you did have at that point the Indian law cases were submitted to you. [00:28:28] Speaker 02: Your Honor, all we have is in CIA's appellate brief, there's a citation to something that appears to be an Indian case. [00:28:38] Speaker 02: Those weren't raised by law. [00:28:40] Speaker 02: Your honor, I am not aware of commerce addressing that. [00:28:45] Speaker 02: So to my memory, the answer is no. [00:28:48] Speaker 03: I'll ask a friend that. [00:28:49] Speaker 03: But you know, I mean, I agree with you. [00:28:52] Speaker 03: Normally what you get is one of these special master inquiry kind of things. [00:28:57] Speaker 02: Or just a simple declaration from an Indian lawyer saying this is the law. [00:29:01] Speaker 02: And the point is, your honor, [00:29:05] Speaker 02: We just don't know on this record. [00:29:07] Speaker 02: There's no evidence. [00:29:09] Speaker 02: And so there's no evidence of the Indian law. [00:29:12] Speaker 02: There's no evidence of the double counting. [00:29:14] Speaker 02: And as commerce found and the trial court held, there's just no support for this argument. [00:29:21] Speaker 02: Ultimately, under QBD food, it was CIA's burden to establish that it wasn't established here. [00:29:29] Speaker 02: It's an issue of the burden. [00:29:31] Speaker 02: And if I could just very briefly address the financial question. [00:29:37] Speaker 02: Can I ask one question? [00:29:37] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:29:39] Speaker 04: Let me see if we can turn the hands of time back to the B&H issue for a second. [00:29:44] Speaker 04: What's the government's view of those two decisions by Judge Rustani? [00:29:49] Speaker 04: I guess it's CS Wind and DuPont. [00:29:52] Speaker 04: Is it DuPont? [00:29:53] Speaker 04: What's the other one? [00:29:54] Speaker 01: I think so. [00:29:56] Speaker 04: Yeah, those two cases. [00:29:58] Speaker 04: They seem to me to be fairly persuasive. [00:30:02] Speaker 04: I realize they don't bind us in any way. [00:30:05] Speaker 04: But what is the government's view of those two cases on that issue? [00:30:09] Speaker 04: And you did abide by them. [00:30:12] Speaker 02: Your Honor, with respect to the B&H issue, I believe it's record specific. [00:30:22] Speaker 02: And it turns upon what was the best available evidence on this particular record. [00:30:29] Speaker 02: So I can't comment on those other two cases because they involve different records. [00:30:34] Speaker 02: But here, there was a mixed record of evidence going both ways on the best available contemporaneous evidence, which was a B&H cost in India. [00:30:46] Speaker 04: So you're saying you don't have a problem with those cases on their records, but here we have a different record. [00:30:52] Speaker 02: Your Honor, the question of whether those cases appropriately followed the standard of review and afforded the proper deference to commerce is probably for another day, Your Honor. [00:31:07] Speaker 02: But I would just say that this court should follow the standard of review. [00:31:12] Speaker 02: And this administrative record demonstrates that the commerce reasonably relied upon the best available record evidence that it had available [00:31:22] Speaker 02: that was contemporaneous, and commerce made a reasonable judgment in that regard. [00:31:30] Speaker 02: May I briefly comment on the financial statement issue? [00:31:34] Speaker 01: Yes, but do be brief. [00:31:38] Speaker 02: With respect to the choice of Bouchon versus Wellspun or Apollo, there was no evidence on the administrative record that either Wellspun or Apollo made OCTG during the relevant time. [00:31:50] Speaker 02: Commerce has a well-established preference for using identical merchandise when selecting financial statements that's in the regulation. [00:31:57] Speaker 02: And ultimately, before Commerce, CIA conceded that OCTG did constitute a portion [00:32:05] Speaker 02: of Bouchon's sales. [00:32:06] Speaker 02: That's an appendix 2760. [00:32:09] Speaker 02: But they just argued. [00:32:10] Speaker 03: They can see it's something like 0.29% or something like that? [00:32:14] Speaker 02: No, Your Honor. [00:32:15] Speaker 02: They conceded that it was up to 10%. [00:32:18] Speaker 02: They've argued here, and they argued in the Court of International Trade, that it was a tiny, insignificant, perhaps. [00:32:24] Speaker 02: Where's the up to 10% in the record? [00:32:26] Speaker 02: That appendix 2760, Your Honor. [00:32:29] Speaker 02: 2760, OK. [00:32:32] Speaker 02: So SIA argued that it was [00:32:36] Speaker 02: No more than 10%. [00:32:37] Speaker 02: But they conceded it was a portion. [00:32:39] Speaker 02: They just argued, oh, less than 10%. [00:32:41] Speaker 02: That's a tiny portion. [00:32:42] Speaker 02: So commerce. [00:32:43] Speaker 02: Well, that's not conceding up to 10%. [00:32:48] Speaker 02: Well, the argument said that it was a tiny portion up to 10%. [00:32:53] Speaker 02: I believe they quoted this excerpt from the record in their reply brief. [00:32:59] Speaker 02: So ultimately, commerce did not agree. [00:33:04] Speaker 02: concluded that some OCTG was better than no OCTG. [00:33:12] Speaker 02: And there were a number of imperfect options available on this record. [00:33:17] Speaker 02: Commerce ultimately made a rational judgment call, and the court should not second-guess it under the deferential standard of review. [00:33:24] Speaker 03: 2760? [00:33:27] Speaker 02: I believe so, Your Honor. [00:33:29] Speaker 03: I'm not finding it. [00:33:38] Speaker 02: Let's see. [00:33:39] Speaker 02: Here it is. [00:33:39] Speaker 02: Here it is. [00:33:42] Speaker 02: It's also quoted in full on page 18 of the CIA's reply brief, if that helps. [00:33:59] Speaker 02: They say that the Bouchon financials [00:34:06] Speaker 02: demonstrate that pipe production as a whole, including OCTG production, constitutes a tiny portion of Bouchon's overall operations with sales representing less than 10%. [00:34:21] Speaker 02: I don't see that on 2760. [00:34:23] Speaker 03: What I see is together the sales of these pipe products represented only 8.7% of Bouchon's total sales. [00:34:36] Speaker 03: are precision and large diameter taken together. [00:34:42] Speaker 03: Maybe it's, you know, I know how you guys are. [00:34:44] Speaker 03: I think it could be the next page. [00:34:46] Speaker 03: Yeah. [00:34:51] Speaker 02: If there's nothing further, because commerce calculated surrogate value based on reasonable judgments and record evidence, the best available record evidence available, the court should affirm. [00:35:01] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:35:02] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:35:04] Speaker 01: We'll hear from Mr. Bullion. [00:35:09] Speaker 01: Whatever you do, you have to tell us what we've already covered. [00:35:14] Speaker 00: I do want to answer some of the court's questions on record evidence, though. [00:35:19] Speaker 00: I think, Judge Walke, you had raised that it's somewhat illogical for a company to contract somebody to have somebody fill out a form based upon tonnage. [00:35:31] Speaker 00: And I would just point, Your Honor, to SSB's freight forwarding contract, which does contract for that. [00:35:38] Speaker 00: So show me the page. [00:35:39] Speaker 00: Sure, so if you look at appendix 704 and 705, and of course this is business proprietary in total except for some of the portions that were made public in the underlying opinion, but there you can see that the [00:36:01] Speaker 00: Contract if you look at the prices charged which include What we're talking about here are prices on a? [00:36:11] Speaker 00: Weight basis and so that's a piece of record evidence and the other piece that Mr.. Edelschick had pointed out and I just want to make sure that we have the [00:36:20] Speaker 00: the precise citation to the record is the GVN submission, which shows what Indian companies' experience was. [00:36:29] Speaker 00: And this is Appendix 1764. [00:36:32] Speaker 00: And this shows that agency charges were on a per metric ton basis. [00:36:41] Speaker 03: Wait a minute. [00:36:43] Speaker 03: Back up. [00:36:44] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:36:45] Speaker 03: 705. [00:36:45] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:36:45] Speaker 03: Arranging and finishing customs declaration. [00:36:47] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:36:49] Speaker 03: Transportation cargo. [00:36:51] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:36:51] Speaker 03: This is a transportation contract, isn't it? [00:36:53] Speaker 00: But it includes what we're talking about, Your Honor. [00:36:56] Speaker 00: Oh, give me a break. [00:36:57] Speaker 00: Give me a break. [00:36:58] Speaker 00: Your Honor, this was the record evidence that was before Commerce. [00:37:00] Speaker 00: And so when Judge Goldberg said... No. [00:37:03] Speaker 00: When Judge Goldberg said... Don't interrupt me, Counsel. [00:37:05] Speaker 00: I'm sorry, Your Honor. [00:37:07] Speaker 03: This is what I raised with your friend from the government. [00:37:13] Speaker 03: This is transportation. [00:37:15] Speaker 03: Sure, sure, they do it by the time. [00:37:18] Speaker 03: Show me one [00:37:19] Speaker 00: where it's not transportation. [00:37:22] Speaker 00: And I was getting to that, Your Honor. [00:37:24] Speaker 00: I'm sorry. [00:37:26] Speaker 00: So 1764. [00:37:26] Speaker 04: What is that, 1764? [00:37:27] Speaker 00: 1764, Judge Shaw. [00:37:30] Speaker 00: This is a submission made in oil country to viewer goods from India. [00:37:37] Speaker 00: So same product. [00:37:39] Speaker 00: producer was in India. [00:37:42] Speaker 00: And here you have a question that was being posed by Commerce and they were asking, you know, can you explain what all these expenses are in your brokerage and handling that you've reported to us? [00:37:55] Speaker 00: And there, GVN states, we provide you with a few expenses. [00:38:00] Speaker 00: And here's the total expenses on the invoice. [00:38:02] Speaker 00: And here you can see agency charges, which are on a per metric ton basis. [00:38:08] Speaker 00: So I'm sorry, Your Honor, it's on Appendix 1764. [00:38:12] Speaker 00: Right in the middle of the page, there's the A through E sequential. [00:38:18] Speaker 00: A says agency charges, rupees per metric ton. [00:38:24] Speaker 00: And so, Your Honor, I'm submitting to you that there is a piece of record evidence which suggests that... What does B say? [00:38:31] Speaker 00: B has shipping bill, and this is what Mr. Edelschick was saying. [00:38:33] Speaker 03: And how much is it? [00:38:35] Speaker 00: And that is on a per shipping bill basis. [00:38:36] Speaker 00: What Mr. Edelschick is saying is that a portion of the record... What does E say? [00:38:41] Speaker 00: Agency charges. [00:38:42] Speaker 00: E. I'm sorry, E is bill of lading charges. [00:38:45] Speaker 00: That's one type of document production. [00:38:47] Speaker 00: But agency charges were on a per metric ton basis. [00:38:50] Speaker 00: And so all I'm suggesting to Your Honor is that there is a mixed record here. [00:38:54] Speaker 00: And what Commerce was doing was they were saying SSV's contract includes both and it's on a per ton basis. [00:39:01] Speaker 00: GVN's experience in the surrogate country, it's on a per ton basis and a per shipping bill basis. [00:39:08] Speaker 00: But then we have the surrogate value from the surrogate country, which is on a per time basis for everything. [00:39:13] Speaker 00: And so that matches up really nicely with what we have with assets. [00:39:17] Speaker 00: Let me ask you this about your client. [00:39:18] Speaker 03: Does US Steel routinely book separately inland insurance on shipments within the United States? [00:39:26] Speaker 00: US Steel will absolutely insure its shipments on freight. [00:39:32] Speaker 00: Because there is no guarantee that that trucking company has enough to support a loss or damage. [00:39:38] Speaker 00: And so just like we would with our health insurance, there may be things that we add to it to say, hey, that health insurance over there doesn't necessarily cover us for what we'd like over here. [00:39:48] Speaker 00: Right? [00:39:49] Speaker 00: That's right. [00:39:50] Speaker 00: And so to your honor, what I'm suggesting is that [00:39:53] Speaker 00: Had we had a full record developed here, maybe there would be a clear point that commerce can say absolutely with certainty. [00:40:03] Speaker 00: Here we've got a mixed question. [00:40:04] Speaker 00: And this, I would submit to you, is not the type of case that this court normally weighs in and says, no, no, no, commerce. [00:40:12] Speaker 00: We're second guessing you on this one. [00:40:14] Speaker 00: They usually get a lot of leeway. [00:40:15] Speaker 00: They do, under the standard of review. [00:40:17] Speaker 00: And this court has said, and we raised in our reply brief, that you've made it clear over the last 30 years of this court that is a high standard on substantial evidence. [00:40:29] Speaker 00: And this is the question before this court. [00:40:31] Speaker 00: So I wanted to raise that. [00:40:32] Speaker 00: It's not British common law. [00:40:34] Speaker 04: That's right, your honor. [00:40:41] Speaker 00: So unclear, right? [00:40:43] Speaker 00: And I think that this is where, again, it's mixed as between which components, if a particular company would invoice you, they might invoice you on a per ton basis, which may [00:40:53] Speaker 00: To your honor's point, you said it defies logic, but it may not, because as tonnage increases, maybe the value also increases. [00:41:01] Speaker 00: And so maybe there's an element of value associated with the shipment that the company who's doing the work will say, hey, we want to get this right because there's a lot of value here, and so we're going to do it on a per ton basis. [00:41:13] Speaker 00: Whereas maybe, to your honor's point, with a shipping bill, we just fill out another zero, [00:41:18] Speaker 00: That they may say, well, you know, we don't necessarily need to do that because it's one piece of paper for each shipment. [00:41:25] Speaker 00: And so it may not be on a Fertan basis. [00:41:26] Speaker 03: Which is why we do comparables in a market economy where somebody else will come in and say, well, I won't charge you that. [00:41:34] Speaker 00: Right. [00:41:35] Speaker 00: But I think what happened here was that commerce sees the GVN experience. [00:41:38] Speaker 00: It's both. [00:41:40] Speaker 00: Commerce sees the Doing Business in India report. [00:41:42] Speaker 00: It's weight-based. [00:41:43] Speaker 00: And commerce looks at SSV's contract and sees weight-based. [00:41:46] Speaker 00: And so they're saying, [00:41:47] Speaker 00: That's their experience. [00:41:49] Speaker 00: We need a surrogate, weight-based. [00:41:51] Speaker 00: And oh, by the way, we have this other point for you, Judge Goldberg, and we have this other point for you, Your Honors, on this court. [00:41:57] Speaker 00: And that's the substantial evidence issue here. [00:41:59] Speaker 00: And again, Your Honor, had Mr. Winton provided sufficient information to show the insurance aspect in India that nobody gets insurance for trucking expenses, then that would be a different question, right? [00:42:13] Speaker 00: And then commerce might not have the substantial evidence at that point. [00:42:16] Speaker 00: So thank you, Your Honors. [00:42:17] Speaker 00: I really appreciate the opportunity. [00:42:19] Speaker 01: Any more questions? [00:42:20] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:42:20] Speaker 00: I've had enough fun. [00:42:22] Speaker 01: Is that fun? [00:42:24] Speaker 01: Yes, you have your rebuttal time, Mr. Winton. [00:42:27] Speaker 06: Thank you. [00:42:28] Speaker 06: Let's have some more fun, though. [00:42:31] Speaker 06: I love this book. [00:42:34] Speaker 06: Let me begin by talking about brokerage and handling. [00:42:38] Speaker 06: Commerce wants you to think of brokerage and handling as one thing. [00:42:41] Speaker 06: But in fact, the doing business report that they relied on did not have one thing. [00:42:44] Speaker 06: It had three things. [00:42:46] Speaker 06: One was document preparation. [00:42:47] Speaker 06: One was customs clearance. [00:42:49] Speaker 06: The third was something called port and terminal handling. [00:42:52] Speaker 06: And you might imagine that if you're moving OCTG around a port, the cost for that would vary by time. [00:43:00] Speaker 06: And you'd get charged by that by time. [00:43:01] Speaker 06: And we have not objected to allocating those costs by time. [00:43:06] Speaker 06: We're saying there were three items. [00:43:08] Speaker 06: document preparation, customs clearance should be allocated based on transactions, whereas moving it around the port should be based on times. [00:43:18] Speaker 06: The Council for the government said that the doing business report shows that the costs were allocated by weight. [00:43:23] Speaker 06: That is absolutely untrue. [00:43:25] Speaker 06: The doing business report had a sample shipment, one container, 10 tons of textiles and spices with a value of $20,000. [00:43:34] Speaker 06: It doesn't tell you how it would go up. [00:43:36] Speaker 06: If it were 20 tons or a hundred tons or a thousand times, it simply is irrelevant. [00:43:40] Speaker 06: But it does break the item down into three pieces, and we're talking about how you allocate the first two. [00:43:47] Speaker 06: Council said that the GVN lists five things, some of which are allocated based on transactions. [00:43:54] Speaker 06: So some are allocated based on weight, but we don't know what those are. [00:43:57] Speaker 06: In fact, Commerce itself said, [00:43:59] Speaker 06: We agree with SSV that there's no record evidence as to GVN items, agency charges, and other charges various expenses may have been. [00:44:07] Speaker 06: It could have been moving things around the port. [00:44:08] Speaker 06: We don't know. [00:44:10] Speaker 06: But we do know that the only evidence on the record about how things are charged for document preparation and customs clearance is it's per transaction, not per weight. [00:44:20] Speaker 06: The government wants to say, well, it's not contemporaneous because our price list was after [00:44:24] Speaker 06: the investigation period, but it's record evidence. [00:44:26] Speaker 06: And it's the only record evidence. [00:44:27] Speaker 06: It doesn't cease to be record evidence. [00:44:29] Speaker 06: If you had contemporaneous evidence. [00:44:31] Speaker 06: Did you put in evidence of Indian law below and in some other way? [00:44:36] Speaker 06: We argued this before commerce. [00:44:38] Speaker 06: Again, this issue kind of blindsided us. [00:44:41] Speaker 06: We couldn't believe Judge Goldberg was going to remand on this. [00:44:44] Speaker 06: Commerce had agreed with us. [00:44:45] Speaker 06: It came up. [00:44:46] Speaker 06: We addressed this in our comments on commerce's draft remand determination. [00:44:49] Speaker 06: It doesn't appear to be. [00:44:51] Speaker 06: on the record in the appendix. [00:44:53] Speaker 06: We can supplement that if you'd like. [00:44:55] Speaker 06: But in our June 23, 2017 comments on remand at page four, we laid out the Indian law. [00:45:03] Speaker 06: I remind you as well, foreign law is not a question of fact. [00:45:08] Speaker 06: It is not a question of evidence. [00:45:10] Speaker 06: Under the federal rules of civil procedure, it's a question of law to be determined by the court. [00:45:15] Speaker 06: And while we all have ideas about bringing masters [00:45:20] Speaker 06: That's not necessary. [00:45:21] Speaker 06: Under the federal rules of civil procedure, it's not necessary. [00:45:24] Speaker 06: Under the court of international trade rules, it's not necessary. [00:45:27] Speaker 06: Also add, again, the government wants to blame us for not creating a record. [00:45:31] Speaker 06: But they didn't open the record on this issue. [00:45:34] Speaker 06: They didn't say to us, when the judge remanded and said, where's the evidence on the record? [00:45:40] Speaker 06: They didn't say, hey, guys, give us evidence on the record. [00:45:43] Speaker 06: We could submit legal arguments. [00:45:45] Speaker 06: Commerce is very strict about if we submit anything, textbooks, anything, they say that's new factual information. [00:45:53] Speaker 06: We're not going to accept it. [00:45:54] Speaker 06: So we could only cite legal materials, which we did, which they ignored. [00:46:03] Speaker 06: The last issue on the profit. [00:46:07] Speaker 06: When we submitted our comments to Commerce, we looked at it. [00:46:10] Speaker 06: We said, there's this precision. [00:46:12] Speaker 06: Just all tubes altogether was 10%. [00:46:16] Speaker 06: That's a small portion. [00:46:17] Speaker 06: And that's what we told Commerce. [00:46:19] Speaker 06: Commerce didn't say 10% is enough. [00:46:22] Speaker 06: Then when we looked at it further, we said, actually, we look at the website information, which was on the record. [00:46:28] Speaker 06: And it says precision tubes doesn't include OCTG. [00:46:31] Speaker 06: OCTG is in another category. [00:46:33] Speaker 06: So when we refined it, we get even smaller numbers. [00:46:36] Speaker 06: Whether you say it's 10% OCTG or 4% OCTG or 0% OCTG, when you're saying that we have Bhushan's overall profit, its overall profit number, which is 90% or 96% or 100% not OCTG, and you should use that number, even though you know it distorts everything else because we need an OCTG number, I think you're crazy about it. [00:47:02] Speaker 06: I do. [00:47:03] Speaker 06: It's not a reasonable approach. [00:47:06] Speaker 06: Commerce, we heard, has a preference for using profit for the identical merchandise. [00:47:10] Speaker 06: That's absolutely true. [00:47:11] Speaker 06: They also have a longstanding preference for using profit for companies with the same production process, right? [00:47:18] Speaker 06: If you followed that preference, you would say, we don't use Bouchon. [00:47:21] Speaker 06: If you followed the preference for using the same product, you really don't use Bouchon. [00:47:27] Speaker 06: But if Bouchon actually had a profit number for OCTG, then you'd have to say, which of these preferences do we favor here? [00:47:34] Speaker 06: But our argument, and the [00:47:36] Speaker 06: Judge Below said, if you're asking me to say which of these preferences should we favor, that's Commerce's business. [00:47:41] Speaker 06: I'm not getting involved in that. [00:47:43] Speaker 06: But what we're saying is the latter preference for using an OCTG profit doesn't come into play here, because the Bouchon profit in any reasonable sense is not an OCTG profit. [00:47:55] Speaker 06: And so Commerce chose to use its discretion [00:47:59] Speaker 06: to distort overhead, to distort SG&A, to distort interest expenses in order not to have an OCTG profit. [00:48:07] Speaker 06: I don't see the logic of that. [00:48:10] Speaker 06: Unless there are any other questions, I appreciate your time. [00:48:24] Speaker 06: Before I sit down, do you want us to submit on the [00:48:27] Speaker 06: Record, where we addressed the Indian law before commerce, I don't believe it's in the appendix. [00:48:33] Speaker 06: It wouldn't hurt if it's in the record. [00:48:36] Speaker 06: It's not in the appendix, but it is in the record. [00:48:40] Speaker 01: Do you have a question for Mr. Adelson? [00:48:42] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:48:42] Speaker 01: Mr. Adelson, we have a question for you. [00:48:44] Speaker 01: Would you approach the podium so that we get it on the microphone? [00:48:48] Speaker 03: I have a factual question. [00:48:51] Speaker 03: Was your friend correct that the INA could not submit [00:48:57] Speaker 03: the case. [00:48:59] Speaker 02: They never asked.