the next argument is in the film number zero seven die one zero zero five zero defeat at say versus united states reviews can apply in this case so it's not a matter of discretion or options available to come or said at least in the view of the decision we're reviewing they said there was no option available because the language of the statute precluded it so quoting broad generalizations out of vermont yankee doesn't respond to the rationale of the court below is a possible way to test whether a future shipment of uranium would fit under the decisions finding no duties applicable  so keen to me you have to address the statute you can't get by by simply arguing about the details of the contracts in those cases  well you say that over and over in your brief is not at all clear to me that it's true that as i understand it you have a year before liquidation to begin with and it can be extended further by the secretary of commerce  and circumstances so why it would be futile if if there's some reason to suspect that a particular shipment represented to have been under a service contract actually haven't been able to finish showing the fraud the fraud statute has no limitation period so i don't see how the government is left in a position where it's huge pile if they're being that i'm just trying to understand the portion of your argument that says it would be futile it would never work it couldn't work with the i don't see why it couldn't ever work because  any progress i'm not getting any traction if i enter a ship load of uranium that's been enriched in france and i'm the importer and i tell customs or commerce or other agents of the government  this was produced under a service contract here's a contract you can see yourself close for zero seven makes it clear that it was for service not good enough so far what's the problem for the government wasn't the real deal the real deal was a secret deal for the sale of physical aid and then the fraud statute would apply when any how could it not be fraud if i imported and i tell the government it's a service contract here's the contract but that's not the contract we actually followed the contract we actually followed not being disclosed to the government later turns out to be a contract for goods that i don't see how can that can be any conclusion except that it's fraud is probably criminal future that wouldn't be legitimate s w you imports or there would be fraud and reason government have to be able to investigate that and make that determination and the only way we can do that is  apartment to be sufficient to enable them to determine at the time of interview whether in fact there was a school and it is a certification that is more treated the transaction as well transaction the original source of the sea is not relevant under the roof these decision once the utility purchases  argument a the one company owns the ring him and it is being richard and sells hearing him to the utilities sort of as a sale and leaseback you hold this while while while we're enriching it with the other hand does the enrichment and then sells it back that's a valid through contract under the n t dumping on your view i have to go through the fact that more closely but it sounds like that was a late transaction where the fee was being sold for the particular enrichment transaction and therefore it would be a sale of goods and services that could be a sale of goods and in fact during the investigation there was a contract where of the c and the and richard and this was were provided things so it sounds like you're saying that the existing certification and other procedures already can discriminate between a legitimate the work unit service v that commerce needs the time in mechanisms to look behind the surface of the transaction to be sure that the terms as set forth in the contract are what exclusion situation where future act is required to determine whether in fact the solution is appropriate indeed in this case for fashion an understand her to be arguing about future events i understood her to be suggesting something about past comment that namely there was actually a sale of a physical object that unless an administrative review is permitted there will be no practical way that commerce could look behind the certification papers to see if fraud listening committed in a way that could idea that certification isn't enough fear and incentives aren't enough that there also needs to be an opportunity to investigate whether the true facts correspond to the contract and the other certification i don't understand what you're asking for some kind of the advisory ruling that if a certain thing happens in the future that the law will be x right i think i think lee i think we have your view of your point in your time has expired will take the appeal under advise