not legal or we haven't i received a refund not ok and you have not received the letter and the now no it's suspended it is allowed it was approved as and in fact we received even though it's not necessary w we have in a word no you don't have a deal out of a protest nor have you gotten your money no but what i do have is i have an allowance of protest which is a statutory action and section five fifty eight it says the customs shall review dispute there are at all if you're claiming that it was allowed it has been allowed and a fact yet you haven't gotten a response that's correct and you could get a letter tomorrow from customs saying tonight no i could not and the reason for that a section five hundred fifteen deaves the tariff act which was an act of back in ninety three prior to that the decision on a protest was final customs had no power to change an approval or denial suspension is simply not a statutory regulatory term if let's suppose it was suspended beetles because everybody yourself included were waiting on the outcome of another case the government elected not to wait and that's their prerogative it's not the first protest had been allowed for the next wage that's wage pending that's why it was suspended because there was another case and everyone was waiting to see how the case came out in order to make a decision on your case well you don't have to where because the fact of the matter is i'm saying that that's what happened in this case well in this case there was a case on related issues we asked as an convenience that the government postpone its protest decision but in this case it is still there so it's pending you ask the government to suspend its protests a decision waiting for the outcome of the other case the other case has already been decided well but you have not received any no this or any decision as to how that outcome affects your case it doesn't i mean it's so you're in limbo right now no i don't think i'm in limbo i think what we have is a situation where customs are exercised its power to allow protest and then simply said we're not paying it if they have paid if they paid tomorrow you don't have a case i would hope this court would order them to do that that you'd have to do it under now the statute not fifteen eighty one i don't know why i would protest and all i want your honor correct so you you waited to see let's let's wait let's let's put this on hold let's see what's going to happen with the test be suspended until we received or they received the outcome of the other they apparently did not they without waiting for the outcome of their fish the problem we authorized and board specialist allowed just progress which is within his that the stature is authority in one circumstance but silent in another circumstance doesn't mean that the second circumstance is is not within the agency's authority so because in two hundred years of course i'm sure it's prudent the laws very clear fifteen fifteen days shows you allow or deny when you make a decision to allow it then says they're after you refund any money is found to be d authority to reconsider the approval of a process grant approach they have never done it in over two hundred years ah well as in any american medical case which we cited the courts have held that an that didn't exist isn't it clear that he didn't he would have the authority to reconsider where the money was paid i don't believe so and the problem well because what happens if the refund dissipate if you take the i for not accepting my hypothetical my hypothetical before the refund is paid wouldn't they have the authority to reconsider there's nothing in the statute suggesting that and they have not reconsider here which is important a your honor payment is a ministerial act it's a fine it's a statutory requirement once the protest has been allowed so if the agency make the mistake in choosing to it's your view that having checked that box that's that's it there's no more discretion no more evaluation a calculation of whatever refund according that process protests must be done and then that there must be fine actually i think there has to be with you yes your honor i think there has to be a finality of administrative action i think there has to be  a few years ago in the contrie karishma the court held the customs has unlimited time to consider protests i think judge wright and his dissent noted that they've got all the time they want to get it right now in this case they have not proven they have not alleged any mistake nobody ever said that the import specialist got it wrong nor is it before this court any record on which they could you could conclude that the import specialist got it wrong because what we have is an allowance from protest all i'm asking for into the administrative procedure act is that you compel the ministerial act which follows which is to refund the money what the government is asking you to do is to say well they get a second chance and if that was a possibility speaking to your hypothetical judge i think why would the government when they approve a protest might sit on it for a long time and say we're not going to pay the money challenge the challenger the the dead now well no that's exactly what's happened here they improved but they didn't there has been no denial aren't there is still do not if they use human denial that's a different case but they haven't right it's a your honor you break the system in our precedent or want time has been that you cannot use residual jurisdiction of the cia to in order to appeal a protest in the well that's not what we're doing we're not appealing to protest all we're saying is that the protest was allowed in the record shows that this is an action to compel agency to agency action unreasonably to later on lawfully denied under the administrati this court has consistently held that you can bring an i q restriction case rather than the a p which is exactly what we've done here it's no different than many other i cases you're not one we're not we're not asking for the protest decision to be t so it to me it sounds like there has to be a calculation done before the shell of the refund it came in well this this protest said all the money comes back and the import specialist agreed with that so they don't really have to recalculate it right  said that relinquishing was an essential part of the process it's not you can have a lot of protests like an exclusion protest with no relinquished even want to protest results in a refund the money you don't need relinquish in the swisher case in this court some years import specialist of a review team you know parts nationalists reviews the protest and if the import specialist believes it should be allowed or approved it makes a recommendation and the recommendation is supposed to go to the supervisory and part specialist along with a supervisory import specialist needed to also approve it not just import specialist clause yes and then in addition to that another mistake occurred which was this for one of our before any real equivocation i so in terms of like the facts that we were allowed to show we're confined to the administrative record so the emails are all we can rely on but yes there is a handbook out there this was brought under fifteen eighty one and a lot of the fact of protests from the time it enters customs receives it until the end and different available on law it is it is if you search the internet it is available on the it's not up disseminated by custom but it is out there portions required to give back interest so there would be some sort of computation of the do anything and interest and if there's anything else owed on on the money the other thing i wanted to mention was that  a you know a concrete decision they have an amount and if they want to challenge all of all of the reasons for customs decisionmaking to do that then you're saying if customs realizes that they made some kind of a state after they have done that we liquidation different they would be a different posture i think if we did that right here on the record and if we denied it they would have to actually go ahead and prove the merits right now we're not here on the merits so would be a sort of a different person eating that are you saying th wouldn't be able to raise their allowance or they can raise the allowance argument but the whole it would be to know how so we would be able to look at they if they want to raise the amount argument they could but we would actually look at the substance of the protest and this cap and  they should receive their money to prove it at the trial court if under fifteen eighty one day here it is there's really no there's been no decision as to whether they're entitled to the money this is sort of a mistake that's being for lack just no final decision on the protest the protest remains suspended and we reached that conclusion necessarily because we determined that whatever was argued as being an allowance was never really an allowance or the customs borders permitted to reconsider that allowance and then put protest into suspension and so therefore there was no jurisdiction we would have necessarily reached a conclusion be raised and and that in a case in an action two points briefly first of all there seems to be a supposition other something wrong with this allowance on the merits there's not and the court with all respect goes on allowed to assume that there are those if in a lot of protests there are loud protest occur in this country every day and because they are allowed instead of denied they never come before the court and that is also why the c i c had i jurisdiction here because i was dealing with that allowed protests now judge read it as correct where he i filed a new protest my first ground would be that the second issue that is invalid because the first decision this allowance governs very important you can't assume there's anything wrong with what import specialist will want it nor can you assume that the pleasure way it makes it neither more nor less likely that this decision was correct this is rendered as just not traditionally reviewable and that's important my second point is during her admit that the protest was allowed using the statutory language now they talk about a form the form uses the word approved instead of allowed but earlier this year in addition protests this court was called upon to interpret foreign language that didn't match the statutory choice that was language that said reject it it's not protest people and the government took the position oh that means the protest is still pending this court said no it means that protest was  denied so you breached statutory meaning into that box on the form and it's the protests form stands now the only box that doesn't have statutory matches that approved box and i think this court has to hold that