three simpson strong tie company versus united states we're ready to proceed whenever you are thank you your honor may it please the court the trial court's judgment should be reverse in multiple respects st and foremost by relying on dictionary definitions rather than the full language of the scope including the consideration of what a new male of two or more pieces is to hold that the products that issue in this case in these cases are unambiguous way outside of the scope of the orders even though the scope language clearly described encompasses nails in a different broader manner their dictionary our common definition would dictate care especially where no language together because of the primary issues that are common across all three cases of the court's reliance on dictionary definitions and because the language of the orders is so similar between the orders  in addition we think that the trial court erred in its consideration of trade usage in all three cases as well as ignoring the case one factors due to its findings the scope orders unambiguously exclude the products at issue i do think that there are slight differences between the cases that might merit bringing up and so i can just highlight those for your honour's right now just the st one is that as your honor pointed out in the was reasonable and should be sustained and that the trial court erred in all of these cases but to the extent that there is some sort of a distinction in your honour's minds there is a slight difference between the nature of the products as far as a couple of them being  cards but again i don't think that that would really should really change the outcome of the case i think the other sort of primary difference in my mind is that it with regard to was actually or rather is actually specifically part of the language of anti dumping duty and countervailing duty orders covering nelson vietnam and was always part of the final language of those orders i think there is a slight difference there between the vietnam orders then with the china order which currently does also specifically include h k s subheading seven thousand nine hundred and seven but my understanding is that it did not anchors so i think that that's an important point that i know we raised in our brief but we did not perhaps highlight as much as merits the clear ok i'm sorry unless you are you done with answering that question i just want to ask you a s do you kind of do that within the context of the imported product at issue in the case like for example here when we look at the language male is constructed of two or more pieces are we supposed to determine what that means like do i need to know what that means for all examples of what all nails with two pieces are or is it really just i need to know enough that i can perform the nd step of whether the  positing is the correct framework which is that the the cornerstone of the of any anti dumping duty or countervailing duty order is as this court has held on many occasions the language of the orders themselves court or commerce were to determine that the term now constructed of two or more pieces had some level of ambiguity then of course it might need to consider the k one factors or potentially industry jargon and i language is the big us whether i have to know the full scope of what that language means like do i need to know for example where there a steel pin with a washer falls within the scope of that language or really am i just looking at what does that language mean in the context of the imported product issue here which is a person in your own r r answer would be the nd that you're really just looking at what the terms are with  right yes your honor in the context of the scope language and the product issue and whether the product that issue fits within the plain language of the orders and here again come much determined that there was this phrase in the scope language a key component a steel mill and i think it's important to highlight here that none of the parties nor the trial court disputes that this component is the steel now the only decision council what do we counsel we what do we review deference language please please try to speak in terms of standards of review that we've actually ever articulated like arbitrary and capricious substantial evidence clear error please try to identify for me an actual standard overview  that is a question of law that's reviewed the no go but as this court held and we're reading in that question of whether a product meets the terms of the scope is a question of fact that  as a unitary article of commerce yes honor i believe that all parties to agree that the anchor should be considered a unitary article of commerce because they are meant to be used together both the body component and the skill the trial court's point in saying that the entire product needs to be and now is that it doesn't take into account how there could be a nail of two or more pieces which again is specifically part of congress scope language and  shaft with a decorative nails had being two parts your honor we're not disputing that that could be an example of a two piece now but i think there's a couple important things to point out in that regard one is that she although it's faced with a two case now would be something like with a decorative head the pages of the record that it cites to don't actually use the terms of two or more pieces or two piece no or anywhere express explicitly on the pages of the record that she cites that those are two piece and and the trial court are or substituting definitions that are not grounded in the scope language in determining what is an l of two or more pieces on the other hand the term nail of two or more pieces which again the court did not even consider is ambiguous then it would turn to things like the i p c c report and the former scope ruling that congress considered in you so i guess what do we what do we reference to figure out if this is ambiguous or not i'll be honest i don't have experience with this concept to piece nails and i'm pretty handy so i've never heard of  so what would be the kind of thing we would reference to ascertain whether that phrases ambiguous or not because it's just used in the order without sort of further explanation or example given what you're on our position  any any explanation for what i understand that one could say a nail in a washer is a two piece meal but one could also say it's a nail in a washer it's not the washer isn't part of the nail and therefore it's not a piece of the nail the understand where i'm going i'm just trying to use sort of plain english to understand this and where do we reference because the two piece meal concept is just it's just confusing for me so what in terms of determining whether it's the answer to that is if this court determines that it is not clear from the language of the order itself and again i would point out here that the vietnam orders to specifically incorporate the seven thousand nine hundred and seven subheading which does include  think anchors so i think that would be language of the order clearly pointing towards the inclusion of those anchors but to the point the to the point that the court determines that it's just not clear from the represent all m j this is a vietnam case we're talking about i hope i'm for the entire panel i think your voice is a little too so could you drop it down a notch it is just better yes a little bit ye s t m specifications that were placed that were in the petition dutch on the record that we cited to and it talks about two distinction i probably should have talked about die st between an anchor and an ale and the judge you know hit on that that when he looked at the definition of man it's like a slender object that you hit on the head many many products and i believe it's a basket provision for articles of sake so maybe there's something else they are but it does a possibility that an article of zinc could be considered to be subject to disorder  article of zinc which is a zinc anchor is not there you know the other reason they probably put it in because then i believe that was because the of the culprit case their decision there and we believe that that was absolutely really decided because when you look at the product what we have is a zinc anchor and this does shake anchor the body that we believe in any stretch of the any evidence or there was absolutely nothing to show that anybody thinks of this is a sink i think or as a two piece nail that they had the opportunity to put in any trade usage they want the only person in pieces as to what what is a nail you have you have to know that and commerce in this determination just they never really rest whether determination that anchors are metals and then from there they started talking about whether they were true peace  scenary definition of the terms but whether the anchors can be considered subject merchandise subject to the orders whether by looking at the plain language of the orders or even if necessary looking at the k one factors and here the trial court clearly erred by relying on dictionary definitions as an interpretive tool but not just relying on them but relying on them to the exclusion of scope language the court held that this is judged i just have a quick question for you on that the dictionary definitions are you saying that a judge cannot look at a dictionary definition to understand a plain meaning of her term when that plain meaning that the judge arrives at is not inconsistent with word or did you find that objectionable your honor no i think as we stated in our briefs we're not stating the a court may never look at dictionary definitions in interpreting an order but rather that the court cannot rely dictionary definitions that render other scope terms mere surplusage or improperly narrow or obviate other parts of the scope and that is exactly what the court did here by stating that anchor simply cannot be nel's within their common dictionary definitions instead of looking st and foremost at the scope language and out what may be considered subject merchandised again this court has held in the meridian case that term should not be rendered