international trade i believe it was four days after we filed our initial piece in this case so some of the entries have a lot of liquidated at the at the entered rate but at that point they've all affirmatively liquidated but as as it was recognized in for tw recognize this in two thousand and eleven year for another ford motor co decision there are only two jurisdictional facts here and that is whether the entries were liquidated at the after at the one year mark after the anniversary date of the entries and that's we haven't filed a case we filed protest and they're still being considered ok at the moment have a right to repose that congress has recognized the legislative history of section fifty four that being liquidation is meant to benefit importers by providing i derive a sense of finality in a sense of certainty in our contention obligations to unfortunately i'm looking at the slip opinion yes that's correct around and for purposes of of this case for this motion right now for these appeal the jurisdictional fact patterns and legal issues are identical in every way the fact that we that the entries had not been deemed liquidated within one year and that they had been being liquidated at the time i'm sorry excuse me that customs hadn't liquidated the entries within one year and that customs hadn't liquidated the entries by the time we filed those are the only two jurisdictional facts and we're only looking intersection right now everything else is it is it your view that anytime you dispute the propriety of an extension in within within the four year period that you can come to the court on the right that is a right to extend the need to be the reasons for those extension need to be demonstrated on the merits and for the purposes of these appeals the court must accept everything that we say in our complaint history everything we allege in our complaint is true and we allege that customs did not have the information and work had all the information available to it which is the justification for extension under five zero four b and that must be taken as true for the purpose of this this  of those the final one is that important to proceed under i where there had been no affirmative liquidation and the time for affirmative liquidation of the past so that there still is good law and again a lot of this is a lot of this obscures the point that for the purposes of these appeal all that matters are those too fast that the entry had not been in has not been liquidated affirmatively and at the entry or at the time of filing nor had been at after one year so it's still a good l on that on that issue because the line that for the statement that and a remedy for the same in a residual jurisdiction cannot be invoked where another basis of jurisdiction is available or adequate came from this court decision back in the eighty's but that came in the context of an importers failure to avail itself of already available administrate of remedies remedies for which the predicate existed particularly whether protest deadlines were allowed to  lapse to misrepresent deadlines or failure to participate in ministre to proceedings and it's a very simple hearing for two thousand and twelve explains this even if the holding itself wouldn't the logic is the logic is sound that the had not been liquidated at the time case was filed and therefore there were no other bases of jurisdiction available and additionally with the cards the adequate the adequacy prong of the of that statement four was amended to bring draw back entries into the fold to provide the same right of repose that was already provided to consumption entries and to reconciliation entries so i would argue no your honor that the law has not has not changed on that point and extensions themselves or work in a program because there was there when the predicate didn't exist because they had the information they needed wouldn't that give you all the relief too to which  entitled to in other words wouldn't you have them the liquidation at at the at the original rate rather than at the the new rate that that the government establishes in a us it would give us that we continue to be harmed right now and we we will continue to be harmed by the fact that we don't have the certainty that congress intended to give us that that would require of this sort but that's again that i believe that returns of america when we talk about the anything to do with an extension that's something for the court to decide on a motion for summary judgment or after a trial at this point  but because it's my understanding i've been timely protests and so you know the case is not moot if there hadn't been timely protests and it would be helping folks of what is it your view that customs can do these extensions you know whenever it feels like you know all right so what is the what is the mechanism to challenge customs extentions the mechanism to challenge customs extensions as it's been through a process and that's how the court of international trade and this court have always adjudicated those claims so you've got to wait the whole four years yet and you don't necessarily have to wait all four years because it doesn't necessarily take all four years and you know in this case it might not have taken all four years if the entries hadn't been tied up because of this case there is evidence and i don't want to get too much into the merits but there is evidence just from the complaint that customs was prepared to act before the four years was up but it continued goods were entered declared you know you know i believe that the numbers are confidential but no not at all and that it was much higher so again i mean because it's conceivable that that you know if someone some of the business can't handle the possibility of a substantially higher rate that for years would be enough time to put an importer out of business right which seen it happen before wells during that time they wouldn't be paying the additional weight and they haven't they would know that ever that the threat of every additional important has that rate hanging over that's correct but liquidate entries and then by statute it gives it an additional three years in the four years actually in the statute it's not in the regulation is in the statute and that's the scheme that congress that with an appropriate period of time to give customs the ability to do it it needed to do times customs and bokes of the right to extend and the not from statistical numbers i did just ask this question of customs and was advised that it happens very infrequently and less than five percent but you know that's it four years happens and presently or any any extensions and even you can kind of tell based upon the number of cases that exist that it doesn't happen all that much because there's only a handful of cases in this court and maybe maybe double that number and in the court of international day i'd like to talk to a little bit about ford if ford has three holding the first holding is ford reversed the court of international trade dismissal of claims the consent posts complaint activity and really that's the bulk of the decision court of internationalists court reversed the court of international trade prudential decision that there was no case or controversy because in this court review board had actually not conceded that certain extensions the rest of the case has nothing to do with these entries there is no specific holding about the court's jurisdiction over those entries because it didn't really have to address it because it wasn't before the court the court of international trade had exercised jurisdiction no one really challenged it really all the court was talking about was the prudential dismissal then the court no fewer than four times stated that the most important thing about the case is that ford alleged and the court found that no extensions had been issued and i want to be careful about what i say because the merits of ford are currently on me man so i don't want to and i want to be clear that it was the courts that that found that the allegation was that no extensions had been made and it was the court this court that found that to be a very meaningful distinction and it talks about that distinction on page thirteen twenty seven where it says that section fifteen fourteen a states that the actions of c b p in any entry of final unless protease protested it makes no indorsement of the administrative protest system for importers frankly before florida we would have argued that there is no distinction and probably we did argue that there isn't a distinction in ford but now that this decision exists and the courts and the distinction meaningful i think the distinction that makes sense to me is that say and you're supposed to use a in our kitchens if something's on a bill right so that's true in this particular case if customs is a four years goes by and customs just fails to two to liquidate at the end of the four years and then the entries truly do being liquidate at four years because it hasn't done anything that is a failure to act such that a party might have an i claim because something ha gone wrong so it is what it's one way in which i and kickin so that's the way i think of the distinction but but under your theory though it really could be true that customs could extend every single liquidation for four years with no explanation regardless of the facts and circumstances and it could only be challenged at the end of the four years that's true i mean and worst case scenario that could happen and you know it has i don't think it's happened quite that badly but there's certainly been a couple of cases where the court reporter has found that there has been an undue delay that the four years has gone by and such as didn't do enough during the four years yes because happened but i mean again that's what the statute provides for and  that they make here and then if they lose and customs continues and maybe issues a second extension and then two year to day one and the same thing happens and then you have an agency that is completely cancelled and unable to do what the statu ok ok for these reasons we respectfully request that the court of international trade judgment these t asked why there is a different speed why this could be distinguished from ford the opinion below tried to draw a distinction and putting council distinction between a failure to act period within the one year or the argument that your honor or the question your honor asked earlier about whether any or the concern that you expressed whether any with or just any party can come in and begin to you know and hamstring customs in customs is not simply entitled to an extension customs need to give us a reason why the importer reason why it needs fixed and liquidation on the entry and that they give you a reason then and we yes your honor they did and well disputed whether they did it was a very it was some reason in the notice the notice only said customs extension reason one or something similar to that we know that in our brief but that really didn't want to explain i mean reason lon that as of assert as of a date certain customs had unlawfully failed either time to liquidate the entries at issue or to extend the time for liquidation and that board was stuffed in title to declaratory judgment liquidation as a matter of law that's that fact pattern that jurisdictional fact pattern is what gave ford in that case why four was able to invoke its residual jurisdiction ports residual jurisdiction over every single time the jurisdictional facts are exactly the same here and the law of the circuit and as a port