court's reversal in hartland two by finding that hartmann to did not govern any of the entries at issue here but instead gave a guarantee to the importer that shielded it from any risk the trial  vindicate the whole process under subsection age the pre importation review process and one review process it was necessary to shield all entries that had been made based on are two possible ways these things can be duty and there's a five thousand percent difference between the two the person doesn't want to start a business when you know on the molasses or whatever and learn that they're on the wrong side of this classification so ruling the the original new york ruling was in error which is why we're here now because it's a reputation rolling and fifty nine one eight in this case provided review of that ruling but it's for that ruling pretty importation and i of a ruling in your favor in essence is the destruction of a business in the united states correct when your business is they're cooked they're finished but that wasn't without hartland also hell ever that's not what the statute says the statute is very specific that it provides a review of the ruling only but what the trial court did was that it took its ruling which was then reverse subsequently in hartland two so it's a non do not know if that is correct in fact members of your adversary brief is that a false number if in our record if you look at a sixty nine and in the appendix it's like our representation because plaintive did not provide any specific and you said a minute ago that's wrong they should have been liquidated the lower right if there were any liquidations or relations yeah right now the problem is you have an injury that was actually liquidated before the mandate at the higher rate ok but and nobody wrote down what they were doing i gather i don't know precisely however it's like if that and certainly we could work on that one of the reasons why we didn't know exactly what was going on at the times because when plaintiff when heartland  vast literature on this case several opinions and judge berkeley has made very very clear throughout that she recognizes and understands what happens in a normal case and what happens in a normal case is exactly what you're arguing and she s saying that subsection age puts the normal process on hold that is what she's saying here are and so and but what i'm saying is that the that fifteen h did not authorize any such extraordinary remedy such as that interrupted a couple years after they got their business going when some competitor and said you know change the ruling secondly there was a two year hiatus between early and wanted her into that creates a problem correct but couldn't you possibly construe these statutes sort of a tweak on the korean national troops there in say in the setting of this pace these injuries that are coming in in this two year no like there's it's not final until it goes through the appeal process harland could have asked for an expedited appeal and then acted it's it because it made entries in reliance on a non final judgment hartnett what it must live with the consequences of and then if you have the numbers up which is what judge particularly good five s there were one thousand two hundred twenty five and trees made in that period following the decision prior to the mandate and then after the mandate issued a further three thousand eight hundred and seventy four entries were liquidated for a total of five thousand and nine and judge garzon i made findings of fact in her in her decision adopting these numbers how do we as the worst case scenario is really a possible slightly better creation aerial is what we were talking about earlier which is to say the entries in the what i'll call no man's land back after the decision before the mandate the ones ruling on the you not me and so my question my question is why not why was it on lawful for the government to liquidate assuming that it did before the mandate issue we could have a situation which involves declar effect of the declaratory order is to invalidate the classification that would support the higher duty then the existing classification during that period following a decision until the mandate is  q classification and that is the only classification to which the duty could be sexed and because that order the revocation ruling did not take effect we say until the mandate issued on december initially in harlem three and then of course attention refocused on it in the decision below which is why in the complaint we spelled out the difference between the pretty and post no i thought your theory was that the ruling had to be applied to introduce that occurred oh that is our that is our case ok but but what we're talking about a different question which is not supposed let's assume hypothetically reject your argument about the entries and we say that under harper the decision of this court has to be retroactive didn't you separately argue that there was something wrong with liquidating the entries before the mandate shifts our argument was the summary judgment papers that i would like to revisit here because i think it's relevant and i think it ties into the historical spec perspective of what happened here this argument you will find in the in the summary judgment papers but i'll restate it here and i'm happy to redirect  attention to it but as judge clement mentioned this case started out with a ruling in arlen's favor it was then it was then attacked by the two trade associations that brought a petition under section fifteen sixteen seeking to have customs essentially vacate the existing ruling in hartmann's favor and it's important to consider just what that fifteen sixteen petiti this court takes effect only after after the decision has been published in other words if a fifteen sixteen challenge is granted throughout the appeal process then entries are affected only after the decision has been published in other words the revocation decision the decision of this of this court if you read fifteen sixteen it's tied into the in the nature of the statutes that the wording is it is a is it is what it is but it that jurisprudence is quite clear that the effect of secretary which is entered for consumption or withdrawn from where hours for consumption after the date of publication in the federal register by the secretary of the court decision shall be subject to approval and classification in accordance with the final to do shall decision in the action in other words you can't reclassify until there's been publication of the decision meaning that the decision can have only prospect of effect not retros active effect and that's not to you why didn't you argue that in your brief here well we have to bring here responded to also specifically recites as a policy matter that there is only prospect of a fact to any change in classification accomplished by fifteen sixteen action if there is such a  simple and easy solution to your problem with your resume to judge berkeley why does she resists your warm embrace instead jump backwards through twenty five hoops trying to find a way to that age is in fact a special statute that it does substantially materially depart from all preexisting practice imbedded if you will and support a fifteen a one a and that we believe she is entirely correct to conclude that you can't possibly give retroactive the facts to to a judgment that originates with a fifteen a fifteen anyone proceeding but the point the point of my reference to fifteen sixteen t been required to liquidate those entries as made under that ninety or q there was no ability on customs as part to separate the entries from the liquidations which is what this case is all about we say an went to court it said to the current national trade we do not ask you to commit that revocation ruling from taking effect and that is what the effect of harland one is it declared the revocation cannot conclude that there was no right on customs on harlem's park's use music to continue to import because what otherwise would the fifteen anyone judgement think and continue to import their just at risk that they may lose the case that happens all upon the people well not and it does yes but if the whole purpose of fifteen i don't want ages two is to get the safe haven is to preserve the business is to is to not be at risk for as possible with the appeal if you don't expedite the appeal you don't try to get a proper ruling because you want to get the benefit of that decision as long as it isn't reversed i think that's correct i think is the government's obligation to try to stay the effect of that stays of declaratory judgment but what's the effect what's the effect of a fifteen eighty one judgment if the importer cannot rely upon well you know even rely on as much or as an ordinary person can rely on declared her judgment let's say that you want to build one hundred million dollar building someplace and the question is who what's the exact you know the line on the property line and you think you have all the mom property then somebody thought you had so you go get a declar and they're going to be your employees and you get a nice district court judge says yes sir and give me a declaratory judgment these people are going to qualify for for green you're out of your mind of you started your business the next day having those people as your employee when the government said you were going to appeal that but the irreparable harm was the immediate shutdown of the business together with the financial consequences of the extraordinarily high duty but if if the declaratory judgment had no effect then that harlan would have been required to stop  has to be immediately binding we say if the effect is to invalidate the class of the ruling that it but that's a matter of policy where does it say in each the trial court decision is binding if it's it reversed the decision of the court of international trade a sensually by reversing that ruling it it activated for the first time the august thirtieth two thousand and one on that that the issues of the mandate aside but on that that the whether that date or sixty days later with a mandate only then for the first time did that revocation ruling the ruling that impose a higher classification duty have effect and and you stop the hoarding immediately immediately and our point is that when you enter up until that day when the classification of the goods it is at the ninety or q right and you recognize and acknowledge that the third day that this quote activates for the first time the revocation ruling imposing the hi interested domestic parties to challenge the effect of an existing customer that's why the two trade associations here oh so your are human is that we should look at this is though it were just a petition by interested parties to change the thing and and the fifteen sixteen makes room on such a petition prospective on yes we're saying that he understood that this all started as a fifteen sixteen proceeding the employer is given the extraordinary right to prevent a record will harm to go into court to get the declaratory ruling which invalidates the revocation ruling that would impose a higher duty how can you say that that employer should be victimized in contrast to another importer who we're no ordinary fifteen sixteen proceeding would get the benefit of the perspective the whole time saying is that fifteen leave to write a short letter to the to the panel just explaining just how this had been presented to the parties and while obviously it's still open to hartmann as as the apple e to protect the judgments by all of the arguments i support watch maybe even shorter if you can do it well i don't need to be long because the arguments have have already been spelled out i just want to be clear that it is precisely as drugs points out that we raise this by exactly what i was trying to so that's a point well taken your i thank you the other thing that i just wanted and i hate to revisit this but but we have gone through the report  that i that we had run by customs there to our knowledge there are no liquidations prior to the mandate just to clarify for the record there are real equations and we know that because it's over a year you know that the thing really after the members prior to the mandate any liquidations that occurred if if the time had run for the liquidation were liquidated at a lower rate that's what we have that's that that's our record well we got a decision you know let's let's see if we can get some more money in here so they started i guess really quick because that was the end of the time as you as you correctly observe the ninety days now there must have been some entries that of us yes right well right they start entering aug thirtieth the day of the decision hartland to let someone if necessary could devote a few fascinating hours with a pencil piece bite if you will of her meant to only arises after the mandate issues all the injuries that went with it after the mandate you when you get in but anyone there were any ones that  previously asked me to clarify to clarify in the same letter that's what you'd like and that's fine if not that's fine too  well i think if you're going to agree with the other side of the facts are that would be this or that was i guess what you got to the entries yet so we can we can try and do that and as i said before the reason why we couldn't we couldn't specifically tire rethink together was because we didn't have entry numbers if you look