one on one of the appendix and you look at the significant contract with ford you'll see that what start of the revocation of the ruling was a laboratory report by the customs laboratory which specifically protected the added aluminum the added metal in our technician quote i should disregard ruling and one eight seven six zero one while right in the laboratory report it was also decided that the laboratory report number two zero one two zero one five six will only state that the sample is wholly polyester so basically the customs officials saw the metal in our client's shiny acknowledge the metal in our client char and he said it was demand and it seems he said it was diminished well they didn't consistent customs rulings the harmonized system itself the explanatory notes for the harmonized system and even customs to inform compliance procedures and publications say metalized arm is not required to contain any minimum amount of yarn and very often the amount of yarn metal in a metalized yarn is quite small this is particularly true with regard to best the charm because we've learned how to make it using nano metal part which has a higher surface energy per mass let's go back and talk about the jurisdictional issue absolutely it's seems to be significant also seemed that well if you  determination well there's a couple of reasons first of all your honor our clients farm does not lie in the assessment of higher duties on its customers products our clients farmers or property interests that we had in a favorable ruling that actually favors because in brings it under a class action with a lower duty if you want to believe your only interest in this case is that you say that that classification makes it more difficult for you to sell your and to government because right well yeah we all are our interest is a business interest our client operator under the favorable ruling for two years so your real interest is the classification of the garment not a classification of your right well marketable to some customers because we build a lower duty rate on ours but best he's not making arguments so our interest is in the army who how are you injured with respect to the armed since you've been brought under a duty classification with a duty well that's the important point your honor you have to understand that the harmonized system is no longer used just to determine the classification of imported goods when you get into things like free trade agreements and what have you were concerned not only with the classification of imported goods but often with the classification of the material put those into the imported goods so very often people will ask for a customs ruling to say how do you classify this material that goes into a finished product the person asking for the ruling is not going to import the finished product that they're going to be making of supplying the mature and very often the question of how you classify the material affects whether the duty rate clickable to the finished product and then affects the in this is the government says you have to come in imported garments and get a classification ruling the court officer the problem with that is to add that involves a different party not the ruling holder but somebody else different merchandise not the arm but the garment a different decision rendered by a different customs officer or a court officer and that's exactly the point when we shouldn't be addressing the garmin question is though it agency has a ruling revote loses over two hundred million dollars in business as best he did and is told you don't have standing to challenge that determination the protest mechanism never challenges the record you can find all sorts of text references to that beginning of part one fifty six day of the record and there's the application of the discussion of what nanotech files do they increase anti micro particular function does the metal perform in your product and it does perform in a time microbial function and kay and i'm not asking for this article i'm asking for where in the record it show that you're advocating incorporating nanoparticles in the article for a specific functions and provide specific i don't believe we have that in the record because it's not a condition of classification i mean i'm no no  are very important they change the relationship between the ruling holder and customs they limit the ability of their binding on customs officials throughout the united states somebody who has a ruling and is doing business on the railway has an no we wouldn't be here because if would give if we were only real i question whether you'd be here my question is if you he or in there been no ruling ramifications would there be jurisdiction to determine the classification of  any particular party well it does and i think the court in the international customs products case sort of suggested that in fact i would commend support there is another pending international customs products appeal in the amicus brief in case number fourteen sixteen forty four which speaks to that to some extent the ruling request is favorable to us in that it tells us that our product is deemed defective by customs unmarketable for one of the no longer the support guy at customs there's that person that guy or gal have the ability to make a determination on classification under section one seventy seven point nine eight regulations the ruling good or bad is binding on  yarn and that's the important thing why are you asking me to go to a client to challenge the decisions of a customer support official when it's really not the port officials decision any more it's emanates from the ruling and presuming jurisdiction what exactly was the court's rationale the good of the court's rationale in in the february ruling your honor from what i read in it is that it presumes jurisdiction because it's been a h and it's believed that pesky was that most knowledgeable about its product to know whether or not it had in fact been harmed so the court found your fiction under i for and but this is a problem here is that you have someone who was never intended to import into the united states and is seeking and it's a pretty importation ruling apriori protection ruling was very nature in terms of pace that there will be and importation and there never has been one and in fact your one or two months later there was the big reveal the big reveal was over never intending to import fish or we're we're actually working to get someone else to import something into the united states and bestie in footnote number two he says and the government knows best he is not a producer or importer of apparel but a producer of material your used to make apparel that's keys interest lies not in the payment or refund  said we want a ruling about the upper class isn't a garment and a they'd be able to do that your honor not only were they able to do that they did right they say they saw a ruling on a garment called the johnny collar other textiles so therefore it was polyester in doing that ruling that's when they came across the problem of the national normally cousins believe that it was appropriate to back down to johnny collar rolling is found to be not i mean they have to do him importer if yes your honor they would have to do and importation and their ability to bring in a sample to get a johnnie collar ruling suggests that it would be pretty easy to bring in a sample as an importa age because selmer hadn't been the person seeking the johnny collar ruling so you could conceivably bring it under age if the johnnie collar were causing irreparable harm i mean there are a lot of them but only if you're the person who actually sought the ruling initially but  he preempted everyone else because they're the ones on the main and there is going to have priority anymore yet you get in a bit under the structure of how congress perceives the jurisdictional contracts with the court of international trade you always want something to come in under an a in the idea or section is narrow it's something that you don't want to reach if you're able to reach it another way and the reason being is the situation we're here today you're forced to look at it from an administrative records court you know if we're talking about jarvis clark in a pure classification context fifteen eighty one a case under george clark the court is going to compile as much information as possible because it wants to get the right decision as  to show that somewhere in the background they have some harm they might be able to get the court to expedite it or not i mean this case came in august of twenty thirteen it's now the summer of two thousand and fourteen so in it took time it took time to work through and the only result even if this court were to get to find you were sick and were to get into the marriage and somehow find the trial court or misunderstood the standard of review which it clearly did not the next thing it would happen would be  sense side and we would start all over were the your honor i'm not entirely sure why they didn't proceed under and but i do know that the johnnie collar ruling found the presence of point zero zero two percent of metal in the fabric that was in the chinese collar ruling whereas in the your ruling it was found to be point seven percent and i don't know whether the fabrication of gorman's using best cheese point seven percent yorn whether that somehow does something to the arm and destroys them the metal life aspect of it and then the garment that has a point zero zero zero zero two percent which is medically to one hundred one hundred thousand what's your response to the claim that the elavil are without the customs customs person well judge judge musgrave addressed this issue and he said he found it really really difficult to believe that three people who work for customs would conspire together so he he's pretty much left that off even that just on mario is just not possible what we have here is in the in  consult with domestic producers sort of on an ex parte basis while they are considering these rulings if that's performance then that's exactly the do it all the time because they're gathering understand it's the expert in this field it has a duty to understand what is the area that is working and that's not a reason to have x party contacts and might be a reason yes the domestic industries to comment in the open rules we would see that but the customs is gathering information when editions its ruling letter there are no surprises there is an open comment period and it gathered information during that it become a period but it also has it also has to cons period there were to come to seven different parties the comment if esky being one and the ruling the ruling letter itself explains there's nothing about ex parte communications that is supporting that customer looking party communications right i believe that there were i believe companies reached out to the domestic industry yes i scenery recall about eighteen or nineteen years ago asking the position that seems to me highly questionable that is the suggestion that in reviewing the ruling if you we do an arbitrary and capricious they says rather than determining whether the ruling  came to the right conclusion as to the classification i don't understand them i mean the question is whether the the determination that this came under one heading rather than another is a legal question and the question is whether customers go or didn't get it right but that legal question is not before the court procedurally that's a different question right of it but even this court in looking at this case this court is called to look at what the trial court did and whether or not otherwise contrary to law can see that you have to get you know is it that the classification of the other side once if you don't do it that way it's contrary to law if that were the case then just as you were deference on the factual aspect the legal question well there can be never and to the agency where the facts come in to the extent we're looking at this to see whether or not it's otherwise contrary to law this is not a full blown litigation where the court is is going through all the information possible this is a circumscribed universe and so the court what is looking at it looking to see whether or not contrary to law that arbitrary capricious standard plays into that to see factions want to part by you want the manufacturers overseas do not care how that yarn has been classified they only are concerned with a garment which is why bestie brought in a sample giant collar and that's how this whole this and how this whole matter got started in also drop it to the lower level and say i may not find you worthy of being intervener but surely i would like to hear from you as an amicus and so best he would have an opportunity to be heard and to make sure that the court had a full solid amount of information you tell us what the problem would exist for you going under a yes there's a problem with going under a because a never results in a determination as to whether the ruling that we're challenging is correct  it results in a determination of the correctness of the decision of a court official why isn't that's sufficient well in this case support officials do it well the problem is that decision never directly challenges the ruling and whether the ruling is pursuing for the a p a standards it never gets there what the government is asking you to do is they're saying congress set up sixteen twenty five they told the holders a ruling like that's good you have a right not to have your ruling changed on you without prior notice opportunity to comment and publish determinations on a record we've had that fear the government is asking you to hold that the decision from that process is not t and the fact of you know not not from you and not from from is well why would we bother to compile a record in front of customs if it's never going to be looked at if it's never going to be reviewed when you get into a fifteen eighty one a decision the section notes highbridge if you get down to two of options most of which seem absolutely logical rational but was doesn't say pick the one that the administrator customs  says general little three c picked the one last numerical order there is no discretion in the statute so you can decide the classification issue on this record or on another record it's going to be the same it's going to be the same facts and it's going to be the same standard