is a simple case of statutory construction there are two tariff terms of issue one is heading eighty four forty two which provides for among other items printing plates and it provides for printing plates both by name and by use the second tariff provision at issue is heading thirty seven zero one which provides for photographic plate i plan to focus today on why having eighty four forty two covers the merchan because i believe that the court finds that it covers the merchandise that under general rule of interpretation three has little use for competing tariff provisions having eighty four forty two wins but in order for us to agree with you then we have to want you look at the language of the statute you do not then look for ambiguities in the language of the state but what if we conclude that the two it could fall under either thirty seven i wanted a way for to then we allowed to look at the explanatory now no plates by name and then it provides for plates prepared for printing purposes i printing plates by use congress could not have been any broader in its definition congress did not look at the explanatory  years ago they were carved in wood or in stone then you had the lead and the lead would come in and create the life the printing image and the line of type it was called since he roughly the sixty's but the record is clear on this below it's changed to offset printing you create what's to be printed in a computer the computer then creates that document you take that to a computer to plate setter machine you put a plate in it puts the design on the plate it removes as imported this prints a totally black page and these are used for newspapers so just to get some some idea every page or newspaper uses one of these plates and then there discard the luminous recycled as are imported it would print entirely black so what happens is through here it's a laser parts of this art are sensitised either hard  soft and then can be washed off so only the surface where you want to ensure stick remains the surface below is just as important that's where the water asked us and that's a grain aluminum layer so what  we have we believe is a heading eighty four forty two which which says on its face burning plants there is no exclusion in there no where in the language of the statute does it say sensitized printing plates or exclude ely different than printing what about photo what is printing a photo mechanical process printing is a mechanical process the preparation of the printing plate or the processing of the printing pla if you look at the stat language of the statute and that's that's our point here is we need to focus on the language of the statute when the statute is clear and whether we're dealing with the terror schedule or any law passed by congress extrinsic aides are used when the statute is not clear they are not used when the statute is clear just as in the prior case there is it may be an issue with only if we don't believe there's any issue with printing plates if you we had an expert testify or trial a printing plate as a pr these are sold as printing plates they're used this printing plates they are considered printing plates by the trade only the tariff only customs considers them photographic plates and the only reason customs does that is because  explanatory notes so the issue before the court is whether the expiratory knows something that is created by a body called the world customs organization in europe can be used to change us well if that proposition is believe it does we disagree with that finding a record of international trade we had satisfaction of finding that would be i believe it would be a factual and whether a photographic plate but i believe what the court did once it made that finding its split the words photographic and plate which is improper and i believe that's improper as a matter of law to parse the statute in that effect this court is charged you know both with determining what a statute means and the h t s us is a statute so we're dealing with the construction of statutory la court did in answer to your question was it found the printing plates to be quote sensitize plates then it looked at heading eighty four forty two and said i don't see anything in here for sensitized plates i see prank plates but not sensitised pla yeah the question was if we didn't have the explanatory notes this is a hypothetical world if we didn't have explanatory minutes when you agree with me that eighty four forty two would be an appropriate place to put this answer i wouldn't disagree with you if i didn't have the guidance to go elsewhere there were no other gods for me to be directed by for example case law administrative rulings then what i would probably conclude is you just which again that's getting back to only  exactly what is happening here until interesting not every you know many countries are not following these planetary notes as you're into your budget would you like to save or to use it save it please thank you as well fleas the court from the first to the last analysis of the statutory language a fact must be given to statutory or legislative intent courts and target the statutory language to carry out verbs but it certainly utilized the tool for provided by congress with respect to its analysis of having thirty seven no one and chapter no but let it go back to the point we should come to this question should not come as a surprise to you which is that in the absence of the explanatory note in eighty four forty eight would the government of taken a different position well quite frankly the government took the position that it took in this case whether the explanatory know it existed or not for sure to national import specialist for customs testified under oath that there deposition that if he didn't exist if there were no case law if there were no other sources for them to turn to for sure they would agree with appellant ag in this case but that's not the real world here but the real world you're saying isn't exclusively explanatory notes but that's a big piece of it right that's certainly a part of it disagreement on this but some people think that if the statute is you know unambiguous if the statute is unambiguous that you don't we tried to slave history would you say that that rule applies for instance if eighty four the forty two were clear clear and unambiguous would vacuum i think you read it together with the other relevant here provision that is at issue here and that is having thirty seven a one and chapter thirty seven no two when you read these three provisions together there is clear legislative direction and the direction that is provided is that photographic plates go in chapter thirty seven and all the others that are used for printing purposes go in eight four four two this is why are they not green wire in the photograph because congress said that they are you know might want to find photographic the term photographic in head and chapter thirty seven no two by providing the definition photograph my photograph other than what the typesetters used to do and just sort of drop to type and you know and line it up and then run it through and then save all the time they went through that type of user guinea time play it would that would not plates which could include and does include printing plates that are unexposed an undeveloped and separate provisions within that chapter it includes those that have been exposed and those that have been developed i would point covers photographic plates and exposed and developed other than motion picture film the very first subheading of that provision in compass is off that reproduction pla the merchandise at issue here are all that printing plates however they come into this country unexposed and undeveloped therefore they're classifiable in heading thirty seven zero one which further to point the court's direction to page three sixty one of the appendix the explanatory notes for having thirty seven zero five now if you read the heading itself it would appear that it includes all offset plates however it does not include those developed plates for printing purposes that are ready for use and it specifically and expressed please point you to heading eight four four two so your hon the answer to your question is that some printing plates are classifiable in heading or in chapter thirty seven and those that are ready for use upon importation all with an eight four four two the trial court correctly construed the tariff language that is that issue here it verbs look to chapter no two of thirty seven it used the definition provide and that's what congress intended to be done here so in our pew a legislative legislative provide it definition cannot be trumped by common meaning for the term printing plate it can't be useful for construing the scope of the heading it's crystal clear they explain atory notes per heading thirty seven zero one include this merchandise explanatory notes or heading it for court to exclude this merchandise one provision exploit the expressway includes the other expressly excludes so the trial court did everything correctly here the only thing that is incorrect about this case is that a in trying to have the or ignore chapter no to which wasn't even really discussed during that opening argument here they focused their attention on a provision in a vacuum and we're requesting that this court do as the can't find one photograph in standard dictionary so there's no plain understanding of the meaning of the term there are out there arguments before the trial court they refer to it as a term of art a term of art can't trump seven the record you had referenced the trout court reliance on captain and crew i believe you're looking at the explanatory notes for chapter thirty yes ma'am  chapter two but that's all sort of irrelevant because it doesn't the level plague and i'm taking you down to the spur sentence under the general comment the photographic plates bouquet of chapter thirty seven are those that are usually now telling me in essence relating back to the definition of photographic accused our position is that the merchandise at issue is class and having thirty seven zero one based upon chapter no thirty seven no two page three five seven your honor deals with the explanatory thirty seven the statutory language appears on page three five one we would argue and do argue that the explanatory notes to the chapter itself in which your honor was just reading from buttress and support the classification that with decision made by customs in this case because it expressly state that the photographic film in plates interests napped or contain emulsions and that they can be used for a variety of purposes including and not limited to a potent mechanical process but these are not as has been stated repeatedly by act in the litigation in this case these are explanatory notes that are contained on page three and i would encourage the court to utilize them as a useful tool or interpret in the statutory provisions at issue in this case when considering whether or not the trial court correctly last like this merchandise which we believe it did and we would request that you affirm the judgment below there is one final point i'd like to make just in the event that it is brought up during the r i just want to point out to the court that michel sleiman which was recently decided basically echoed the sentiments of this court that were expressed in several cases that i have personally handled midwest part b smith and also another case ruby and that is that you don't look towards limiting characteristics of exemplars that are in explanatory notes to limit the terms of the statutory provision however numerous decisions of both this court and the lower court here have found that if there is an express inclusion of merchandise or exclusion of merchandise contained in explanatory notes it is generally an indication of legislative intent to include or not include it within a specific statutory provision so i just wanted to know that the limiting characteristics was where the court did not find an express or a statement but just a few points first on tractor thirty seven i won't dwell on that because it continues to be our position that there can be two there can be three there can be four provisions on a tar that apply to article three directs the courts how to pick among those provisions jiraiya in chapter thirty seven no two discusses photographic if you go through chapter thirty seven you will find there is a provision or two for chemicals use photographic applications or something similar to that we believe that is why this definition is there this is a common definition of photographic as our expert t trial second if you look at what the c i key did in the brother case cited in our brief the c i p faced with a similar situation found that thirty seven o two involve the film excuse me did not cover a product that operated as customs argued on a photographic principle therefore i think it's clear and i think the c i t has is recognize this that not everything is photographic goes traffic thirty seven everything almost in the world is affected by radiation we are affected by radiation pieces of plastic can be edged with radiation that does not make acrylic plastic rip photographic plate domingue back to the explanatory notes again miss walser in her comments extract gave another example of the problem we have here with the explanatory photographic plates are according to customs pretty plates when they're on expose however even though the tar provides for exposed photographic plates these all of a sudden are transformed from photographic plate to a printing plate trial our expert testified that these and the condition is imported are known as printing plates they're ready to be put in the printing process these are sold to the washington post new york times usa today they go right into the printing line for today's newspaper another plate you cannot take one provision of the turf and expanded to cover the universe which is what customs is trying to do here when you have another provision that is more specific statutory construction