me and i don't know i'm looking at j three paragraph four is it says it continues to say the provisions of this order shall not apply and this is the new language that was added to stand alone products for modification provides is that if there were standalone transducers that are imported but not for the purpose of sale after deportation as standalone products but the for the purpose of kidding with the other products those are covered by the sorter that's what i read to be the limits of the modification and i frankly don't see unless you can tell me otherwise what's the problem with that oh  so and that issue hasn't been resolved it has not yet been resolved so how is it that this provision bars you from importing the redesigned only in bars you from or in the redesign if it's covered with these amendments to the with these changes made as a result of the modification and look at the modification order and it talks about amendment to paragraph three so is that what you're talking about paragraph three and then it talks about amendment to paragraph four and it shows the red line of those paragraphs correction so which paragraph are you say coughed out from the scope of the order and after the modification that was not able to do but that's true but that has nothing to do with the design of wrong we all acknowledge the modification did something and what it did was cut off what was imported as a standalone transducer and then after importation this kid with the other stuff but it had that has nothing to do with the whether the order the import the redesigned transducers yes or certify that when combined with the head unit that this is not infringing are they entitled to import that i not that is not quite as simple as that the commission explained even in its original violation opinion and that is at page eight forty seven that we are certification that the product is not infringed is enough you have to have some sort of ruling on that is not enough there's not enough unless you can save had a one transducers even though they were going to be kitted later and and and now even though they say they're redesigned and not infringing they're not allowed to import them unless they come up with a ruling that they're not infring and now i understand that i'm not a nobody seems to be much objecting to that the question is about the redesign transducers and and the apparently this were some change as to whether is by contrast the order does apply to components like the transducer when the components are will be imported or sold after importation as part on the right by transducer the other is that we are going to be selling this transducer as a scam along to our customers and not kidding curt right correct so they could say either one of those right the former and th newer one that's allowed in the modification would be the change would be that it would create choir that they have to establish that the transit is standalone transducer is not going to be kitted afterwards so that's the change well it's not a cha always the case ok well that's the clarification or the case ok but with respect to that whether or not redesigned your design products get it that's what you're telling us it's always been the same d s yes that's always been the  device and custom says you can't bring this in because it's encouraging they can file a protest and who bears the burden of showing that they're redesigned devices infringing if there is a customer's protest the importer day electronics and the courts commission exclusion orders appropriately placed the risk of unfairness associated with the order of one potential importers rather than american manufacturers and the court further recognize that commissioner media orders therefore when we decrease the number to forward just to try to keep the other side may please the court you want to make clear that the original limited exclusion order issued at the end of two thousand and fifteen at that time placed the burden on government as the importer to seek approval of any redesigns that original order did that and that's the way it's been this way for mission practice has worked since at least one thousand nine hundred one in the seal their case also more recently reiterated i hyundai case where this court has said what we could do is the i d c could exclude all products and put the burden on the importer or the i t c could allow the shipments and require the complainant to file another complain and the commission has chosen to put the burden on the m pour to seek approval to reduce this longstanding practice yes ma'am it's that's the way and spend and garments briefs makes clear and it's from acquiring that it's not challenging the commission's general practice  and moreover ermine is not challenging the general practice that this is how the commission operates the issue garment is raising is whether the modified or somehow affected a change that resulted  clarify that because what garmin did was they stopped importing complete kits that have the transistor in the box they said what we'll do is we'll pretend that all these transducers are standalone products for individual  and then we'll import won't tell customers are all that and then once they get past customs and yet you know well i think your characterization may be a bit unfair because if they were going to represent they're not representing us they were doing it because it wasn't components it does with printing products we know you have a component being imported as part of an infringing product paragraph one plainly said that because they talked with customs and got customs to it to not believe that and we went to the commission and said this is a loophole that garmin is exploiting and needs to be closed if they're importing transducers to be kitted that's a component of an infringing product and under paragraph one had lips but only if it's infringing the exclusion  only excludes things that are infringing how can how can you say the the burden shifts to the importer to to say that it's not infringing the questions whether the order covers it doesn't cover it if it's not the idea that if the government has a product that's redesigned it still has to take affirmative steps to go and get a ruling on that because that's not really it is an issue  simply this is a symbol of a product imported and reassemble it so components are always as long as you're infringing they're always included a link or subject with that to the scope of the exclusion order