and with instructions to dismiss first and most fundamentally the court heard two entirely distinct systems for seeking review of anti dumping countervailing duty orders congress could not have been clearer and more thorough when it enacted the nafta implemented legislation in making it clear that the normal injunction in the court of international trade percent to fifty six in fifteen sixteen a c two could not be used for this type in this type of proceeding that suspension of liquidation in a nafta panel proceeding could only apply to administrative review not to challenges to the end original let me answer that to waste treatment first the question is fidel the deed to the statutory scheme that congress and acted and congress could not have been clear that there would be no continuation of suspension of liquidation  this type of circumstance and the comedian parties do not dispute that second if the canadian parties were to obtain the relief that they are seeking here it would be in a much better position than a party who had gone to the port of international trade in was just going to get to that there are two ways to kill now after recognizes that even though the panel decisions are legally binding the parties agree they would be legally binding but that doesn't mean that the decisions are in forcible it me six four three and six four seven and the china penned it section one hundred five of nafta allows a pardon if it feels that another party has not complied with or enforced an after panel decision to seek a special committee to review compliance to see whether the party has complied and if it hasn't then this is worth of millions yes it's part of nafta because now after read the party's sovereigns who entered into nafta recognize their complaint is it if their complaint is that the united states did not comply with the nafta panel decision which is their complaint here then they under section one thousand all five of the nafta all they can seek a special review by a special committee of retired judges justice sandra day o'connor is one of the united states isn't anywhere in court no not in court and that's what so important because congress expressly provided that no court no domestic court can and force or challenge committee under section one thousand and five of nafta and if that committee decides it is true that the party has decided not to comply with the panel's decision let's say the panel is to panels have recently decision made by late experts including the citizens of their own country who get to review their decision and in this case what the court of international trade did was without reviewing  domestic industry and valid determinations of dumping or subsidize a ship in this case it's been conclusively determined that there was no injury to us industry and that there was never that the government was making that this is an attempt to enforce a nafta panel decision that's not the case we are not seeking to enforce nafta here we are seeking to enforce  are under u s law once there is a final negative injury determination and commerce is required to instruct customs to terminate suspension of liquidation and to liquidate all entries with our duties and that's because there is no legal basis to collect judi's when there has been no injury to us industry as i think judge friedman was saying so implementation act requires that those decisions be binding and in fact in this case that i t c took precisely the action that the nafta implementation actor direct act the nafta implementation act is us law and we are seeking to have the department of commerce comply with u s law and i think that becomes very clear and i would urge this court to take a look at  statement of administrative action for the f d a which also applies to nafta and the relevant passage of which appears on pages two thirty two thirty two to thirty three of our joint appendix that explains precisely what congress was doing when in fact did the f d a the f d a implementation act and when it acted the statutory provisions on which the united states relies and the statement  administrative actions says we are required to amend our statutes to provide that part of those who go to nafta panels will receive refunds of cash deposits on the ensure that result no the united states apparently takes the position that rather then complying with its obligations as it said it was doing under the statement of administrative action the united states was actually trying to breach those obligations that can't be tracked the other thing that the united states that can says that can't be correct is that now joe was designed to give us a choice either we are able to choose to have two or three canadian panel members on the nafta panel or we are entitled to get a complete refund of all cash deposits paid pursuant to be validated order now that choice is implausible on its own but the fact is that there is no choice at all because any interested party who took part in a panel proceeding who took part in c proceeding can ensure that review of that proceeding is before and after the panel and we're the united states correct that's what would always happen because domestic producers of course always have an interest in  but the purpose of suspension which is mandated by statute is to ensure that entries are not liquidated until it's been determined according to law what the proper are correct amount of pursuant to an entity dumping the duty order with respect to which liquidation has been suspended and the entity dumping to do order is invalidated the deposits are returned with interest that's exactly what should have happened here but didn't the united states view the suspension of liquidation in this case seems to have had a new purpose and all at a minimum it serves only to give import s the benefit of the rate determined in the administrator for viewing but not to give them the benefit of the total and validation of the work so if they do the margin is reduced from fifteen percent to ten percent through an administrative review as i understand the government's position suspension gives the importer the benefit of that but if they do you order is invalidated completely such that there was never any legal basis for judi's in the first place suspension does not give the importer the benefit of that and i submit that that makes no sense and in fact the united states doesn't really even attempt to argue that any of this makes sense it claims that the court should ignore the absurdities that result from its interpretation because they're mandated by the plain text of the statute but in fact  when the f d a implementation act was enacted and when provisions g five b and c were included  the way in which cia review worked was fairly clear  administrator for view there has to be out of work there were two ways to prevent liquidation during c i t review one was the mandatory suspension pursuant to  statute that begins when commerce issues a preliminary or final affirmative determination and continues until the administrative review is completed or until the party the time request an administrative review expires the other way is that the c i t can enjoy and liquidation pending appeal and that achieves the same result it's essentially a court order e let me try to explain that because i do think that's important the united states has framed this as our seeking retroactive review that's actually not in our term we are not general rule that if entries are liquidated during the pendency of panel review there are liquidated in accordance with the determination of the agency that's under review and that makes sense because  this court said until agency determinations are presumptively correct until they're invalidated so if entries are liquidated while an agency determination is in effect liquidated in accordance with that which one could obtain continued suspension appeals of administrative review determinations and scoop determinations that was not random the united states doesn't have an explanation for that but the as a those were the two situations in which one could not otherwise get suspension pursuant to statute and there were needed court ordered suspension in order to preserve one's entries for liquidation in accord a final court decision and that fact the fact that an injunction is a supplement to statutory suspension the fact it continued suspension is a substitute for an injunction and also a supplement to statutory suspension i think makes very clear are that a suspension is a suspension is a suspension and any suspension of liquidation preserves entries for on one thing this is the nafta implementation at only allows for it the suspension of liquidation in two circumstances that the plaintiffs admit are not relevant here unlike the plaintiffs in the which is only a c i t decision that was then there was a settlement so could be appealed but in that case at least there was a suspension of liquidation under siege subsection c the parties had requested a review and then gone to feared they didn't even do that they requested a review and then steve it before commerce so they have not obtained the suspension of liquidation under either of the nafta panel procedures that would allow suspension of  provision in the court of international treaty that allows for liquidation of entries in accordance with a final court decision it specifically says only entries that were suspended pursuant to section fifteen sixteen a seat to which t's form of injunctive relief in this type of case so entries that are suspended for some other reason just a preliminary injunction and or rule sixty five which was the case here this is not a fifteen sixteen c two injunction and in fact in the nafta implementing legislation congress expressly said that section fifteen sixteen a c two cannot be used to suspend liquidation of entries that are the subject of a nafta panel proceeding so congress whether you think it makes sense or not congress do what it was doing and it was completely clear and this is not unusual and in areas where there is concurrent jurisdiction that the rights and remedies and procedures of each are completely different this would be like a government contractor going to go with a big protest getting a pin that's pleasurable to it and then coming to the court of federal claims and seeking just injunctive relief based upon it was not the case that the law is clear the law was in flux however the government's position was clear and congress adopted the government's position in a challenge just to the order if you have not cited and minister of review you could not obtain an injunction you had to seek an administrative review and this court disagreed with that interpretation of section fifteen sixteen two which is not the statute issue here that congress sixpences said that can't apply here this court disagreed with the government's interpretation but congress said and you know that executive branch negotiated out to propose the implementing legislation and wrote the statement of administrative action congress said we're going to keep him out of panels we're going to stay with the government's position that suspension should only be limited to these circumstances and keep it narrower than the court of international trade partners can still go to the court of international trade they want their broader maybe but if they want to buy national panel without article three confirmed judges w said that the normal rule is that entries are liquidated the rate that is applicable when they come in and even if they have raise later determined by a court to be incorrect entries that are not liquidated do not get the distinct ways to obtain suspension and to thereby obtain that prediction accordance with a quarter panel decision but those circumstances immediately don't apply here so the mere fact that the order has been vacated prospectively does not mean that there's any authority in fact the authority is to the opposite the statute says we blocked and put it in our brief and it's identical the heartland says entries are liquidated at the rate at which they are entered unless there's some