[00:00:00] Speaker 03: Our last case this morning is also G. Dillinger-Hutenwerke versus the United States, 2024, 1498. [00:00:10] Speaker 03: Mr. Montalbine? [00:00:12] Speaker 03: Yes, sir, Your Honor. [00:00:16] Speaker 02: Good morning. [00:00:16] Speaker 02: May it please the court. [00:00:17] Speaker 02: My name is Mark Montalbine. [00:00:19] Speaker 02: I'm the counsel for the plaintiff appellant, Dillinger-Hutenwerke. [00:00:24] Speaker 02: We have two issues on appeal today. [00:00:27] Speaker 02: The primary issue and the first issue is the matching of products. [00:00:31] Speaker 02: In a dumping case, this is a settled law. [00:00:33] Speaker 02: You're matching a price of a product in the home market Germany with the price of a product in the United States. [00:00:40] Speaker 02: And the products you're matching have to be identical, because you're just trying to see what is the price discrimination based on the same products. [00:00:49] Speaker 03: Wasn't that issue waived? [00:00:51] Speaker 03: It was raised untimely fashion? [00:00:55] Speaker 02: No, Your Honor. [00:00:56] Speaker 02: It was raised. [00:00:57] Speaker 02: in a timely fashion. [00:01:00] Speaker 02: The question about timeliness is, and when you read the issues and decision memorandum... The timeliness issue exists with respect to the second issue that you're raising. [00:01:13] Speaker 02: There is a question in the first issue, the model match. [00:01:16] Speaker 02: So in the model match, the Department of Commerce will have a comment period where they say, we'll look at these 12 characteristics, and this is what we propose. [00:01:29] Speaker 02: And then everybody has an opportunity to comment during that model match period. [00:01:34] Speaker 02: And then the questionnaire comes out with that model match. [00:01:40] Speaker 02: During the model match period, [00:01:42] Speaker 02: We brought up the issue of steel used for transporting crude oil. [00:01:50] Speaker 02: So there's two types of crude oil, sour and sweet. [00:01:54] Speaker 02: And the sour is very corrosive. [00:01:56] Speaker 02: So with the corrosive, you have to make the steel in a special way. [00:02:00] Speaker 02: You basically have to clean. [00:02:02] Speaker 05: I'm confused. [00:02:03] Speaker 05: You started out talking about the cost shifting between the prime and the non-prime. [00:02:09] Speaker 02: No, sir, Your Honor. [00:02:09] Speaker 02: That's my second issue. [00:02:10] Speaker 05: I'm sorry. [00:02:12] Speaker 05: OK, go ahead. [00:02:13] Speaker 05: I'm sorry. [00:02:15] Speaker 05: I thought you were addressing the prime versus non-prime. [00:02:19] Speaker 05: You're not? [00:02:20] Speaker 05: Yes. [00:02:20] Speaker 05: OK, go ahead. [00:02:21] Speaker 02: That's my second issue. [00:02:22] Speaker 02: The prime and the non-prime was already decided by this court in Dillingham, France. [00:02:26] Speaker 02: So I didn't want to say a lot about that right now. [00:02:29] Speaker 02: I'll move it to the end of my presentation. [00:02:31] Speaker 02: The main thing is the matching. [00:02:34] Speaker 02: So during the model matching period, we discussed information about you have to distinguish between these steels used for what they call sour service. [00:02:45] Speaker 02: And there's two types of steel. [00:02:47] Speaker 02: There's the steel that goes in the pipelines, and there's the steel that goes in the tanks, the pressure vessels that hold it. [00:02:54] Speaker 02: So we gave information. [00:03:02] Speaker 02: a whole presentation on how you clean the steel, how you clean the sulfur and phosphorus out. [00:03:07] Speaker 02: That's costly, the whole process. [00:03:10] Speaker 02: And we specifically focused on the line pipe steel. [00:03:14] Speaker 02: and commerce did not make a distinction for the lime pipe steel between sour service and regular service. [00:03:24] Speaker 04: But what they did do... When did it take so long before you requested a separate product code? [00:03:33] Speaker 02: take a long time. [00:03:34] Speaker 02: We asked for the separate product code on Linepipe immediately in that phase. [00:03:40] Speaker 02: They didn't make a separate one for Linepipe. [00:03:44] Speaker 02: But what they did do, if you look at the model match criteria that came out, what they did do, this is the very first quality code. [00:03:55] Speaker 02: You found it in Appendix 376. [00:03:58] Speaker 02: They said for this quality code, [00:04:00] Speaker 02: you can add new quality codes. [00:04:03] Speaker 02: You're not set by this list. [00:04:05] Speaker 02: It says use additional number codes for each additional quality you propose. [00:04:10] Speaker 02: And all it says is provide a detailed narrative description, explain the differences in the additional physical characteristics, and explain what number you're giving them. [00:04:22] Speaker 02: So from the very beginning, there was no time limit to that. [00:04:26] Speaker 02: Even after that initial period, they said, for this quality code, you can add new ones. [00:04:32] Speaker 02: And so we added a new one for pressure vessel. [00:04:35] Speaker 02: Pressure vessel was 760. [00:04:37] Speaker 02: We had 759 for this hour service. [00:04:42] Speaker 02: And we did the same with the line pipe. [00:04:46] Speaker 02: And they never said that information was late. [00:04:51] Speaker 02: They never said we didn't propose the right information. [00:04:55] Speaker 02: And you'll see that they never here ask for any sort of information on the difference between prices and costs. [00:05:03] Speaker 02: And the reason why that is, is we've already, with the initial questionnaire, given all the information on prices and costs for every transaction. [00:05:13] Speaker 02: So they know all the prices and costs for every transaction. [00:05:17] Speaker 02: It's just a question of, for this one transaction, whether you treat it with the general pressure vessel code, or whether you give it another code, number for sour service. [00:05:31] Speaker 02: That's the only thing you're talking about. [00:05:33] Speaker 02: Otherwise, there's no information missing from the record. [00:05:37] Speaker 04: With respect to the 759 code. [00:05:39] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:05:40] Speaker 04: OK. [00:05:41] Speaker 04: I understood, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you proposed this code four months after the comment period had closed and 45 days before the preliminary determination. [00:05:53] Speaker 02: Yeah. [00:05:53] Speaker 02: We proposed that one with our supplemental questionnaire response. [00:06:00] Speaker 02: But that was not untimely. [00:06:04] Speaker 02: There wasn't a time period for it. [00:06:06] Speaker 02: And Commerce never said it was untimely. [00:06:08] Speaker 02: All the information is on the record. [00:06:10] Speaker 02: They never rejected any information. [00:06:13] Speaker 02: They never, during the procedure, said that that was untimely. [00:06:17] Speaker 02: And the issue about sour service. [00:06:20] Speaker 04: Unlike other cases that we have where commerce makes repeated requests for missing information and things like that, in this case, they did not. [00:06:31] Speaker 04: make a request for, that you correct this or that they were going to reject that particular product code? [00:06:36] Speaker 02: No. [00:06:37] Speaker 02: The only thing they did, they said was, and this was the stated reason for all the product codes that we added, whether they were added at the very beginning or whether they were added with the next questionnaire response, they said, change them back to the original codes because you added ones that are not in the questionnaire. [00:06:56] Speaker 02: That's the only stated reason they gave. [00:06:58] Speaker 02: When you look back at the preliminary determination, that's the only reason. [00:07:02] Speaker 02: They didn't say it was untimely. [00:07:05] Speaker 02: They just said, it's not in the questionnaire. [00:07:08] Speaker 02: And they didn't take this exact language. [00:07:11] Speaker 02: It said, in the questionnaire, you can add new codes. [00:07:17] Speaker 03: What about for the cost of non-prime plate using sales price? [00:07:23] Speaker 02: Yes, so you're under the non-prime plate using sales price. [00:07:27] Speaker 02: This court has already gone over this in the Dilling or France case. [00:07:33] Speaker 02: And in that case, the court made it clear what the statute says, that costs have to be based on costs because they're supposed to be an independent [00:07:47] Speaker 02: marker or standard to judge whether the sales are below cost or not. [00:07:52] Speaker 02: So if you said, well, we'll set costs at the sales price, and then we'll compare it to the sales price, you get in this circular reasoning. [00:08:00] Speaker 02: And the court in Dilling or France and also in Ipsco said this is circular reasoning, that you have to base the cost of the product on cost. [00:08:09] Speaker 02: And the statute also says exactly what costs are, cost of materials, cost of fabrication, cost of processing. [00:08:16] Speaker 02: So here, it's the same situation the court already had in Dilling or France. [00:08:22] Speaker 02: So to me, that issue is clear from your prior precedent. [00:08:28] Speaker 02: For me, I would like to still talk about the other issue. [00:08:33] Speaker 04: What should happen in that case? [00:08:34] Speaker 04: Are you praying for a remand? [00:08:39] Speaker 04: with the non-prime plate. [00:08:42] Speaker 04: Let's talk about the second issue. [00:08:44] Speaker 02: Yes, there should be a remand, but with the idea that what we did was exactly what the court said in Dilling or France was acceptable, is we used the average actual price of the prime plate to value the non-prime plate. [00:09:03] Speaker 02: because the non-prime plate has to come from the prime plate. [00:09:07] Speaker 02: All non-prime means is it doesn't meet the standards. [00:09:10] Speaker 02: So we use the actual average cost. [00:09:14] Speaker 02: So they should remand it to use the actual average cost. [00:09:18] Speaker 02: You have to use cost. [00:09:19] Speaker 02: You can't use a sales price. [00:09:21] Speaker 02: So they use the sales price of that plate. [00:09:23] Speaker 02: So it should be remanded and they should determine cost. [00:09:27] Speaker 02: But the other issue is crucial because what eventually happened in this case? [00:09:35] Speaker 02: Commerce rejected both of the new codes. [00:09:39] Speaker 04: This non-prime product, it is sold, right? [00:09:47] Speaker 04: Yes, yes. [00:09:49] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:09:50] Speaker 04: And I'm assuming, though, I don't recall that the commerce accounts for that price in its cost of production [00:09:58] Speaker 04: Does it offset that against what? [00:10:03] Speaker 02: Basically, because no non-prime is sold in the United States, it's not really used in their calculations. [00:10:09] Speaker 02: The way it adversely affected us is they took the cost of non-prime plate, they basically wrote it down to the sales price because you have to sell it at a lower price, and then they put that cost on the prime plate for the home market. [00:10:25] Speaker 02: And that affected our home market sales. [00:10:27] Speaker 02: So I do see now I'm into my rebuttal. [00:10:31] Speaker 04: I'm sorry. [00:10:32] Speaker 04: Is your client able to separate cost of production for non-prime versus prime? [00:10:39] Speaker 02: No, because it's part of the same production process. [00:10:43] Speaker 02: Exactly. [00:10:44] Speaker 04: I understand that, but if it's not exported to the United States, I'm beginning to wonder what's it doing in this investigation. [00:10:52] Speaker 02: It's technically within the scope language, but it really [00:10:57] Speaker 02: Non-prime plate itself doesn't come into the calculations. [00:11:01] Speaker 02: So I will reserve the rest of my time. [00:11:03] Speaker 03: We will save it for you. [00:11:04] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:11:14] Speaker 01: Again, good morning. [00:11:21] Speaker 01: So with the first issue, I think there's [00:11:24] Speaker 01: It's a model match. [00:11:26] Speaker 01: And so an important thing to keep in mind is that in addition to Germany, there are 11 other countries that Commerce was investigating with this. [00:11:32] Speaker 01: And so that's why it was vital to have comments and proposed model match codes during the model match period, which Dillinger just failed to do. [00:11:42] Speaker 01: And indeed, the first time it did propose that code 759 for the Sauer vessel plate was in September 20, 2016. [00:11:54] Speaker 01: And that's at the record 3086 through 87. [00:11:57] Speaker 01: And that's well after it had even proposed the other Sauer code, which was in June. [00:12:05] Speaker 01: And so here, essentially, Dillinger just has, it was late. [00:12:11] Speaker 01: It did not timely propose the code. [00:12:13] Speaker 01: And Commerce was well within its discretion to deny that additional proposed code because it fell outside the time period for even commenting on the proposed model match codes. [00:12:24] Speaker 01: And I think that's undisputed. [00:12:27] Speaker 01: And I would also say, too, that with that, I want to say I heard Mr. Model-Bine mention matching price and all that, except it's well accepted that for the model match, it's all about physical characteristics. [00:12:42] Speaker 01: And so Commerce had also explained that whether something is more expensive to make or not, that's not a physical characteristic. [00:12:50] Speaker 01: And so that's what Commerce was looking for. [00:12:52] Speaker 01: when it comes to the model match criteria. [00:12:57] Speaker 01: And I can move on to the second issue if there are no other questions about model match. [00:13:01] Speaker 01: But when it comes to the prime and non-prime plate, it's undisputed that Dillinger did not track the cost of production for the non-prime plate. [00:13:13] Speaker 05: And as Commerce explains, as one of its examples... In Dillinger, France, we said you can't use sales price as cost, right? [00:13:22] Speaker 01: That is right. [00:13:22] Speaker 05: And that's exactly what Commerce did here. [00:13:25] Speaker 01: And in Dillinger, France, it was looking at the cost of production. [00:13:28] Speaker 01: And then on remand in Dillinger, France, the case for that, after remand, and the site for that is 651 FCEP third 1294. [00:13:40] Speaker 01: Similar to what happened here for Dillinger, Germany, [00:13:43] Speaker 01: Commerce had reopened the record in each of these proceedings and actually invited Dillinger to put information on the record as to what the cost of production is for the non-prime plate. [00:13:55] Speaker 01: And Dillinger said, we don't have that information. [00:13:57] Speaker 01: We don't track that information. [00:13:59] Speaker 01: And so therefore, kind of similar to the case we just had, Commerce determined that there's information that's missing from the record. [00:14:07] Speaker 01: Specifically, what's missing is the cost of production for the production of non-prime plate. [00:14:13] Speaker 05: But what they're saying here is that it's the same cost of production for prime and non-prime. [00:14:19] Speaker 05: There's no separation. [00:14:20] Speaker 05: It's the same cost. [00:14:21] Speaker 01: Well, so that is what they're saying. [00:14:24] Speaker 01: And Commerce disputed that. [00:14:25] Speaker 01: Commerce said, actually, our understanding is if you're trying to produce 100 prime plates, but you only end up with 98. [00:14:33] Speaker 01: And so two are non-prime plate. [00:14:36] Speaker 01: The cost of production for the prime plate is all 100 of those plates. [00:14:42] Speaker 01: And so Commerce was, again, invited Dillinger to put on the record. [00:14:46] Speaker 05: OK, but that's the position that Commerce took in Dillinger, France, and that we rejected. [00:14:51] Speaker 01: But Your Honor, in Dillinger, France, I think a big distinction is that Commerce was trying to track the cost of production. [00:14:59] Speaker 01: This court did say that you have to [00:15:02] Speaker 01: circular reasoning that you have to have the cost of production. [00:15:07] Speaker 01: But similar to Dillinger-France, as what happened here, commerce and Dillinger said, we don't track the cost of production. [00:15:14] Speaker 01: Our alternative commerce to you is that because we don't track the non-prime plate cost of production, Dillinger's alternative, both in this case and on remand in Dillinger-France, was we propose instead [00:15:27] Speaker 01: that for the non-prime plate will just use the average total cost of all production. [00:15:35] Speaker 01: But Commerce said, well, hold on a second, in your books and records. [00:15:38] Speaker 01: So again, we're in the universe again where there's missing information, and Commerce is trying to figure out the best information to plug in for that missing information. [00:15:45] Speaker 01: And here, Commerce said, well, in your own books and records, you record [00:15:52] Speaker 01: the non-prime played at its likely selling cost. [00:15:55] Speaker 05: Which was the same as in Dillinger, France. [00:15:57] Speaker 05: And we said that was irrelevant. [00:15:59] Speaker 01: But Your Honor, the distinction again. [00:16:00] Speaker 05: Isn't that true that the same thing was true in Dillinger, France? [00:16:03] Speaker 01: But in Dillinger, France, it isn't. [00:16:08] Speaker 01: And the reason why is because Dillinger, France, there had not been [00:16:12] Speaker 01: We're in a different universe. [00:16:13] Speaker 01: Dillinger France was 16. [00:16:14] Speaker 05: In Dillinger France, commerce relied on the fact that in their own books and records, they listed cost at sales price. [00:16:20] Speaker 01: And we rejected that. [00:16:22] Speaker 01: That's right. [00:16:22] Speaker 01: And before the cost of production, that's pursuant to 1677b. [00:16:25] Speaker 01: Except now we're in a different, not different universe. [00:16:29] Speaker 01: We're in a different section of the statute where now we're in 1677e, where there's missing information. [00:16:35] Speaker 01: And so again, the missing information is what is the cost of production for that non-prime place. [00:16:39] Speaker 01: And when we're in that 1677E section of the statute, that's when Commerce is looking at, well, what's information that we can use to plug the missing data? [00:16:50] Speaker 01: And again, the proposal from Dillinger was the average cost of all production, whereas Commerce said, well, but hold on. [00:17:00] Speaker 01: So again, we're missing information here. [00:17:03] Speaker 01: And so this is how it is distinguishable from this court's opinion in Dillinger, France, where [00:17:08] Speaker 01: For this missing information, Commerce determined that the likely selling cost, which is how Dillinger reported itself, would be the best information to use. [00:17:19] Speaker 01: And if there are no further questions? [00:17:22] Speaker 04: I see that in the statement of administrative action, it says that Commerce should base its decisions on that which is most probative on the issue under consideration. [00:17:47] Speaker 04: of consideration. [00:17:49] Speaker 01: And I can understand that concern, Your Honor. [00:17:51] Speaker 04: It's contrary to what I understand of most of a dumping realm. [00:18:01] Speaker 01: Well, but I think, again, how this is distinguishable is that for cost of production, so 1677B, you are wanting to get an accurate cost of production. [00:18:14] Speaker 01: But here we are in the missing information realm. [00:18:17] Speaker 01: And so it really was Dillinger would prefer that Commerce use its approach, which was the average total cost for this missing information. [00:18:30] Speaker 01: But Commerce determined that, again, that the likely selling price, because that's how Dillinger itself recorded the cost of non-prime plate, because it did not track its actual production cost, was the better information to use. [00:18:45] Speaker 01: And I think Commerce does have [00:18:46] Speaker 01: discretion to determine that that is better information to use in this instance because that information was missing. [00:18:52] Speaker 01: And again, Commerce had reopened the record on remand and invited Dillinger to put any information on the record, but it does not track this information. [00:19:02] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:19:31] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:19:32] Speaker 00: May it please the Court? [00:19:33] Speaker 00: I would like to make a few points on both of the issues that have been raised today. [00:19:37] Speaker 00: First, with respect to the model match, there has been some discussion regarding the timing. [00:19:41] Speaker 00: But I think it's helpful to lay it out a little more clearly, because it does help put this issue in focus. [00:19:47] Speaker 00: So as has been discussed, Dillinger did not raise the issue of the sour service pressure vessel plate until their first supplemental questionnaire. [00:19:54] Speaker 00: This was 110 days after the deadline to submit comments on model match. [00:19:59] Speaker 00: and only 45 days before the preliminary determination. [00:20:03] Speaker 00: So this was significantly late in the proceeding and raised significant concerns for Commerce regarding how to handle this and what the implications were. [00:20:10] Speaker 00: And in particular, I think it's helpful to look at Commerce's decision memorandum. [00:20:14] Speaker 00: And this is appendix page 5958 in footnote 236, where they note, they recognize Dillinger saying, we might raise other issues later. [00:20:24] Speaker 00: They said that in their model match comments. [00:20:27] Speaker 00: But then the department goes on to say, it is not clear why Dillinger would have needed to perform additional analysis unless it wanted further time to estimate the margin impact of such a proposal. [00:20:38] Speaker 00: As noted above, Dillinger only discussed pricing data associated with proposed product characteristic changes in the context of the overall impact on Dillinger's weighted average margin. [00:20:48] Speaker 00: So commerce had concerns both in terms of the timing, how close this was raised to the preliminary determination, but also why Dillinger had sat on this information [00:20:57] Speaker 00: and not raised it earlier. [00:20:59] Speaker 00: Relatedly, Council for Dillinger notes that Commerce provided in the initial questionnaire the opportunity for parties to propose additional quality codes, but that was the initial questionnaire. [00:21:10] Speaker 00: Dillinger did not propose this in response to the initial questionnaire. [00:21:13] Speaker 00: They proposed it for the first time in response to the supplemental questionnaire that did not provide the same instructions. [00:21:20] Speaker 00: Finally, on this point, [00:21:22] Speaker 00: an issue was raised as to whether or not commerce had the obligation to request clarification or additional information that may be missing. [00:21:30] Speaker 00: But this is not simply an issue where there was a deficiency in what they proposed, and commerce did have that. [00:21:36] Speaker 04: So was the information untimely because it was provided in the first supplemental questionnaire? [00:21:42] Speaker 00: Correct, Your Honor. [00:21:43] Speaker 00: Well, there was not a specific [00:21:45] Speaker 00: you know, statute of regulations saying this is the exact deadline, you have to do it. [00:21:48] Speaker 04: How can it be untimely if they respond to a questionnaire? [00:21:52] Speaker 04: I mean... Well, with respect to reason... Why have supplemental questionnaires if you're not going to use the data that a party responds to? [00:22:01] Speaker 00: Of course, Your Honor. [00:22:02] Speaker 00: The information that Dillinger proposed here was not in response to a question. [00:22:05] Speaker 00: This was not Commerce saying, do you have any other quality code you would like to propose? [00:22:10] Speaker 00: And Commerce said, and Dillinger said, yes, here they are. [00:22:13] Speaker 00: The question in which Dillinger provided this information was in response to a question that said, for everything that you reported as code 771, which was the transport plate issue, re-report that as 770. [00:22:25] Speaker 00: So this question did not open the door for Dillinger or request or provide any ability for Dillinger to now propose a new quality code, which is what they did here. [00:22:35] Speaker 00: So this was not in response to [00:22:37] Speaker 00: It was in response to a question commerce posed, but it was not responsive to commerce's question and was therefore untimely. [00:22:45] Speaker 03: What about the use of sales price? [00:22:48] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:22:49] Speaker 00: So on the non-prime issue, [00:22:51] Speaker 00: There are a few things I want to talk about, namely with respect to Dilling or France, which has obviously been discussed at length already. [00:22:58] Speaker 00: And I know this has been discussed, but just to lay it out a bit more clearly, in Dilling or France, the court was looking at the proper development of cost of production pursuant to 1967B. [00:23:10] Speaker 00: I'm sorry, 1677B, excuse me. [00:23:13] Speaker 00: Here, for the case before the court here, we are operating under a different statute, 1677E. [00:23:19] Speaker 00: So whether or not commerce's approach was consistent with... Well, it's still cost of production, right? [00:23:26] Speaker 00: Yes and no. [00:23:26] Speaker 00: Commerce is filling in a gap with cost of production. [00:23:29] Speaker 05: So we don't have... It's the same cost of production question. [00:23:33] Speaker 05: It is the same cost... And the question is whether you can use sales price when we said you couldn't use sales price. [00:23:39] Speaker 00: Correct, Your Honor. [00:23:39] Speaker 00: So the question here is commerce does not have actual sales price. [00:23:43] Speaker 00: So commerce... I'm sorry, does that not have actual cost price? [00:23:46] Speaker 00: Commerce does not have the information [00:23:48] Speaker 00: that would allow it to calculate cost of production consistent with 1677B, which is why we're in eWorld. [00:23:55] Speaker 00: And I think what's helpful, because we did discuss the subsequent proceedings in Dillinger-France, which is it went back down to the CIT, and as was discussed, Commerce reopened the record, requested the Dillinger-France provide this information. [00:24:07] Speaker 00: They could not do so, so Commerce applied facts available and took the same approach they took here. [00:24:12] Speaker 00: And before the lower court, this was looked at because the issue had been raised of, is this consistent? [00:24:18] Speaker 00: with the going of France decision. [00:24:20] Speaker 05: And Judge Katzman... Well, they provided cost of production information. [00:24:23] Speaker 05: They said it's the same for prime and non-prime plate. [00:24:26] Speaker 05: And what we have is Commerce disagrees with that and says it's not the same cost of production for prime and non-prime plate really seeming to want to undo our decision in Dellinger, France. [00:24:39] Speaker 00: I think this gets to exactly what cost of production we're looking at. [00:24:43] Speaker 00: So what Commerce needs under 1677B [00:24:46] Speaker 00: is cost of production for specific products, the control number of specific products. [00:24:50] Speaker 00: And everybody agrees we don't have that. [00:24:52] Speaker 00: So on a product-specific basis, there's going to be differences in cost of production from product to product. [00:24:59] Speaker 00: And I don't think that would be disputed. [00:25:01] Speaker 00: And so we cannot get to those specific costs because we do not have the information with regard to the non-prime that allows for a determination of what those specific product costs are. [00:25:11] Speaker 00: And so that's where I think there's a difference between saying, well, you might start out [00:25:16] Speaker 00: with the same costs, but we don't know how that filters through to the specific products. [00:25:20] Speaker 00: And I see I'm running out of time. [00:25:21] Speaker 00: So if I may just very briefly direct the court to the lower court's decision in Deling, France, their discussion of NANYA, the Federal Circuit's decision in NANYA, which was dealing with adverse facts available, not facts available. [00:25:34] Speaker 00: But the court did note that the Federal Circuit concluded, quote, the statute simply does not require commerce to select facts that align with the standards articulated in other statutes and regulations. [00:25:45] Speaker 00: And the lower court in Dillinger, France, had pointed to that as to why there was no conflict with the Federal Circuit's decision in Dillinger. [00:25:52] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:25:53] Speaker 03: Thank you, counsel. [00:25:55] Speaker 03: Mr. Montalbine has four-plus minutes. [00:25:59] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:26:00] Speaker 02: So back to the sour service plate. [00:26:03] Speaker 02: So with the sour service plate issue, we're just talking about the form of the plate, whether you're talking at line pipe, [00:26:11] Speaker 02: whether you're talking press or vessel, it's the exact same plate. [00:26:15] Speaker 02: What's eventually happened is commerce on remand has conceded on lime pie plate, yes, we will have two numbers. [00:26:23] Speaker 02: Even though in the beginning, in their original investigation, they rejected both of them. [00:26:29] Speaker 02: They later on said that this case is just like the bowler case. [00:26:35] Speaker 02: And therefore, we will recognize this extra number for the lime pie plate. [00:26:41] Speaker 02: Well, why doesn't that transfer to the pressure vessel plate? [00:26:45] Speaker 02: The only reason is the timing of the case. [00:26:49] Speaker 02: The judge in the lower court reached a decision on the first issue with pressure vessel plate without discussing Bowler. [00:26:59] Speaker 02: And bowler is a case about Austrian plate. [00:27:02] Speaker 02: So it's the same group of cases. [00:27:04] Speaker 02: And in the bowler case, the responded in that case. [00:27:09] Speaker 02: And this was after the model match criteria period. [00:27:13] Speaker 02: It was after the first initial questionnaire was into the supplementals said, you should add a whole new field for grade. [00:27:22] Speaker 02: And the court said, yes, this is really important. [00:27:25] Speaker 02: You can't treat this as untimely because you have to have accurate calculations. [00:27:32] Speaker 02: And Judge Gordon, even though we raised it in our reply brief in his first decision, [00:27:38] Speaker 02: on the pressure vessel just decided in favor of the department without discussing Bowler. [00:27:46] Speaker 02: Two years later, when he got to the discussion of, or the decision on the lime pipe plate, [00:27:54] Speaker 02: He remanded it so that commerce could talk about how bowler affects his case. [00:28:02] Speaker 02: And in that situation, the department said, yes, we find that this case is analysis to bowler. [00:28:09] Speaker 02: And all the information on the record shows that sour service plate is different from regular service plate. [00:28:17] Speaker 02: And they accepted this separate code for the lime pipe. [00:28:23] Speaker 02: And in our response to their draft determination, we said, well, the same thing should apply to the pressure vessel plate. [00:28:32] Speaker 02: And their only statement was, well, the court already decided that issue, so we don't discuss it here. [00:28:43] Speaker 02: So now we have a great inconsistency where sour service plate is the same, whether you put it in pressure vessel. [00:28:52] Speaker 02: But we have one where we have a separate code for live pipe. [00:28:56] Speaker 02: We don't have a separate code for pressure vessel. [00:28:59] Speaker 02: And in Bowler, they added a whole new field after all the questionnaires were already done, even into October. [00:29:08] Speaker 02: And I'll also say, with the timing, counsel for the government was incorrect about the date of our supplemental questionnaire response. [00:29:17] Speaker 02: That was in August, not September. [00:29:20] Speaker 02: After our supplemental response was filed, the Department of Commerce extended the prelim determination date all the way to November. [00:29:31] Speaker 02: They never said that our information was untimely, and they never rejected it. [00:29:37] Speaker 02: It's still all on the record. [00:29:39] Speaker 02: So this is a situation where the information's on the record. [00:29:45] Speaker 02: It's analogous to the situation with line pipe plate. [00:29:49] Speaker 02: And we would ask that the court would remand us so that commerce could look at the Bowler case and how the Bowler case applies to this case, just like they did with the lime pipe plea. [00:30:04] Speaker 03: Thank you to all counsel. [00:30:05] Speaker 03: The case is submitted. [00:30:07] Speaker 03: That concludes today's argument.