lever thought that maybe or maybe keep acting which is brought in the name of the government that maybe that could be brought in the court of claims or whatever they call it that could be brought in the court of international credit even though you have you bring the suit in the name of the government and the name of the individual that maybe it doesn't have to be brought in a district court or could be brought exclusive jurisdiction because even though you're seeking customs duties you have to prove an additional element in our view to recover costs and that in which the claims act and in fact the federal circuit addressed a similar question in the u s versus in which there was a question of whether under twenty eight u s c fifteen twenty two three to recover customs duty because we didn't need to prove anything more there was no negligence gross negligence or fraud requirement but these two to collect the c fifteen now let me ask you this question suppose the company goes ahead and pays the one point nine million dollars at issue in this case can the government turn right around then and bring the case to enforce the had recovered the contract damages under some administrative scheme we would allow an offset but that doesn't mean that the false claims act claim arises under say the contract disputes act because the false claims which provides for the penalties for fraud and gross negligence and negligence could you bring a climbing under fifteen eighty two three to recover customs duties if you were know the right court but i don't underestimate the sequencing under fifteen eighty two three we're talking about the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of international trade ok in action little rises out of the import transaction commenced by the united commenced by the united states to recover customs duties now if you look through the penalties for we've got an action which we say which if it applies to this case is the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of international trade right there with me now now if one goes to fifteen ninety two which is talking about penalties for pr look forget about these others then my question is maybe just what you thought you were answering it talks about what the penalties are for fraud ok now are you saying that  a normal action by the government in forget this case that it's brought under for fraudulent activity where what the government is complaining about is that the duties were not properly paid so they want to recover them there are provisions in this act which allow the government to get more than just just the duties they can get something more than that as laid out in fifteen ninety two correct i hope nobody else has their cell phones turned on the fraudulent conduct ok so the question i was asking earlier is if we're trying to resolve whether you're trying to plead around an exclusive jurisdiction construct here why is it that  this construct doesn't give the government the fraud in for some of the authority that congress thought was appropriate such that we should say well you can also bring it alternatively under a different theory of of liability and therefore not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction is not an exception to the false claims act just you're not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the goods coming in from china versus what we did or otherwise but i don't know of course most no i don't think so and one of the difference is one of the notable differences between the false claims act  the government could not file for the duties under the false claims act if they smuggled a man and made any kind of false record statements to conceal a void or decrease an obligation would you know that you have a view as to whether those actions would bring you under the false claims