transfer question if we have it has exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to fifteen eighteen twenty well because the court doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction in fact you hold that they don't have exclusive jurisdiction over this  not be our client it would be their customer to challenge the assessment of duty it's a challenge to a different decision on a different standard of review a different record of review a different relief all you can get back well that's a very interesting point because if that's what the court is saying and i don't believe you said that the first case what you're saying is that the revocation of the customs ruling under section six twenty five  remedy went under and you said the sole relief that the court of international trade might give in respect to a tie or a classification was under a you did not address the question of whether another four district court might be able to hear this case now this is an administrative procedure act and district court certainly hear this it involves customs duties which is about as federal a question if you can get as the district courts do have exclusive jurisdiction over federal questions except as they may be given to other courts all that this court held last year is that this case could not be cabin watered the case dismissed by the court of international trade telling them this doesn't fall within your subject matter terrorists picture now the question on appeal here what we said was it could if somebody properly fifteen eighty one cases are being filed one has been filed however even if the plaintiff in that case wins it it's not going to reverse this ruling the supreme court spoke to that in the meat case in two thousand  to ruling in one was issued based on that we were able to commercialize our product to customers now when customers revoked that ruling and the record of the prior case reveals that our client suffered two hundred million me would you not if the garment classification ruling went the other way and that rate were reduced from was it thirty two to five point six or something and the current revocation ruling for the yarn remained as is lower rates on both scores you're not hurt by the lower rate in the yarn ruling all by itself at all you're only harm is that you your customers the government people are not going to buy it from you if they have to pay a cent but my client's harm was never the harm of saying the customs duty to my clients harm was the inability to commercialize  products and for that i guess i guess what i'm confused about is why doesn't all of that points to the idea that the only way you're harmed is through a ruling that are meant people can challenge three hundred fifteen a one day here's the problem fifteen eighty one a decisions are not raised to the cut so we could have a client go in with a pair of pants and when government could say we're not applying that to anything else basis for that there have been you know but there have been cases involving products like tomato sauce where we've seen repeated and repeated challenges i mean so you can't guarantee it and the other fact is that our client is entitled to have a ruling which binds customs officers section five zero two the tariff act says that it issued a ruling binds customs officers to follow it we had that protection and then we lost it when the ruling was revoked but the point here same day on one day the government said oh this garment has the best p r that's metalized on it gets lower duty rate and on the same day they issued a decision saying best the artist not metalized on what that meant is when the best key ruling became effect their sixty days after that the garment ruling became ineffective as well became ineffective so that's really the problem i mean problem here and the government has a memo in the record of first case saying oh you know if we lose this case the government could lose up to two billion dollars a year in duty collections they're going to fight hard i mean if we have to fight them piecemeal in a cases we're never going to get anywhere but i mean the point here is that the a gives us a right to judicial review of the revocation of a ruling quite apart from the rights of our individual customers to fight for a customs duty individually on a ship and i don't i don't know as much about how this works is some others here do so let me just ask you this is tell me if there's something off about the question suppose you got the revocation ruling from the yarn classification changed and so at that point if you imported your arms you'd have to pay a certain higher duty to pay a higher duty  with duty at higher rates they have in addition to whatever classification remedy they would have under fifteen eighty one a they would also have the additional grounds of saying that this determination is in con trade ruled in favor of the plaintive and said i'm not going to decide what the classification of the product is i'm just going to decide that you had a ruling the ruling was not followed and on that basis the dubious judgment against you is improper district court they refused they said we're not going to consider that when the man well this is the thing the government says that the court applied the mandate rule but they didn't applied mandate rule the transfer statute says the court has an obligation to consider now on the one hand you might say transfer it just wasn't presented to us and so we didn't really talk about it in eighty eight that's at the spirit on that on the other hand a large part of the spirit of the ruling is there is an exclusive way to get the dispute resolved and it's two fifteen eighty one and where fifty one eighty one eighty applies it is by its terms exclusive so why isn't giving the letter of the ruling dismissed as plain meaning in fact supported by the spirit as i said your honor fifteen eighty when i had this not solved this dispute if we're going to apply the mandate will you have to make a contractual examination of what this court did last year and the shiites he refused if new you knew last year or what the court did when you got the role and if you thought that they didn't mean what you wanted why didn't you request a rehearing  transfer she is this court to dismiss saying there's a failure to state a claim then if you use the mandate rules a lower court would say well i'm not going to transfer this because the question of transfer is precluded you don't have a plan to transfer would be to encourage form shopping and relate a geisha which can't be done the only thing that happened here is this court said c i t you don't have jurisdiction over this case under your limited grant of jurisdiction period  that doesn't but that is not the only thing that happened the last line or sentence or something was really meant with an order to dismiss that's right but that does not preclude the lower court when it's dismissed for lack of jurisdiction jurisdiction are we really talking about here we're actually to is talking matter jurisdiction but we're really talking about the c i t would have had jurisdiction had there been a horn so you see really the jurisdiction civilians order had there been had there been a hormone to best ke p in the eagle age restriction could have been away yes your honor because and this goes back to this case is about a your ruling there is absolutely no harm when you reduce the tariff rate if i'm importing in the united states i get a lower rate i'm not harmed so when best he comes to this came to the c i t there was no jurisdiction because it had been harmed in other words there was no article three jurisdictions there was no case or controversy so when this court says to that this is a subject matter had there been a form that would have been exclusively the domain of the c i t but there was a hormone so how could you transfer this to the district of columbia you can't there's no article three standing so inherent in this court's opinion when it says oh there is see the true nature of best his case isn't that it's upset about a reduction in the your duty because it wasn't important anyway that was a pretext that was a pretext because we're going to try to peel back wanted decision from customs this case has always been about the garments and this court said that specifically is that you know this is really easy just bring a fifteen eighteen when any action because if you're really having if you're if you're horm is currently overseas because overseas manufacturers who made things out of your or your your won't get a good duty rate in the united states well until you get into the united states and get the bad duty rate then you bring in fifteen anyone a action this is the sum and substance of the harm the best he's really trying to argue about so there is no standing for bestie in any court in the united states of america because it doesn't have oracle free standing that's where the lack of toward in the earlier ruling that there are twenty fifteen ruling to what passages say there is no article three jurisdiction because in those no case apartment your honor i don't believe this court ever articulated it that way positive on the proposition that if you put the statute fifteen eighty one out of the picture the idea that there would be no  injury in fact traceable to to the ruling that there would be i guess i'm i'm i would pause before i would conclude that there is no article three case or controversy over that if they come in and say i just lost two hundred million dollars in in orders because of this as opposed to that's something that they can get relief or somewhere else or that somebody can get relief work somewhere else but article yes your honor because this isn't that when they complain that they've lost allegedly because there's there these were contemplative according to your opinion before these orders were alleged they were contemplative orders but not that it actually there was never in at thirty two percent so so those those contracts just from the context clues again we don't have anything in the factual record not make one that the case before and not in this case that the reverend contracts there may have been government ruling comes in and you understand that there is no economic irrationality there's a bush trapping effect that's going to occur here because it was never an intention there was never an intention to import your into the united states it was unfair to ask customs to important to see the ruling yes there that there is that because you have to under see a forced one seventy seven point one point two one a person is seeking a pre importation ruling letter it has to be for a specific transaction they have to say they even tell you what ports are going to be bringing in you have to say we're port you in ten now it could happen that you don't do it ok that something could happen you know the world changes and it doesn't come to pass but if you're never going to import you which it appears to be the case here because the record reflects that the best can never had an intention to import yarn into united states best keep always had the intention to sell your arms to foreigners who would make formants that would eventually end up in the united gates that's really what the nub of this case is and therefore the nub of the case is gorman's it's always been warm and it's not the norm so when that your ruling comes out and then it gets revoked and then the duty drops you don't have a and what did they do with that ruling nothing and by the way that ruling was always at thirty two percent the johnnie collar ruling when it was first issued said no it's a good it's not something that would be for a united states has anything to do with overseas contracts those contracts could have continued couldn't they have them maybe you want to import them into a different country not the u s you're getting down a road of a lot of specific factual findings that the  g because fundamentally there's no harm to ask you which would be article three standing or whether it's because people they don't want to they don't want to minute thirty three percent they don't want them in thirty two percent would we if we want to consider in the first instance the propriety of transfer do we have to conclude that there would be no article three jurisdiction in the district court or is there a broader basis upon which we can say that that justice doesn't support the transfer yes your honor that there are two i believe the article three is is more than sufficient but there's also what has been articulated in the opinion of this court before investigating which is really in the nature of the case that you're bringing the esky is the garment case that's what you really complaining about the someone doesn't want to bring garments into the us you're trying to kind of you know factually somebody else's rights that could best key important gorman and bring this case yes of course they could they could import one garment and bring it bring this case themselves if they so choose chose  classification but what you have here is you know there are times when something will be heard and this is that type of the case the your revocation ruling you got your proper sixteen twenty five see you had you know to come in and that was proper so we didn't have an improper process that was designed when there's going to be a revocation of a ruling that you receive so customs went through the proper process so now the outcome is hey you benefited from it even if the process was slightly if it were slightly imperfect which there's nothing in the record that it was but even if if there were ok a few benefits you have no harm see that's the problem for bessie and again it goes back to fifteen eighteen when i say so your honor you ask is there another way we can come at this  don't need to transfer we ask who is fundamentally the nature of this case is a fifteen eighty one a action on a garment that is the true fundamental nature because no one's importing best he joined into the united states and this case was predicated on the revocation of the former ruling which is a very narrow area and that that narrow area rendered no harm to best people in fact it was a benefit to the ski when it reduced the rate of duty on the arm the other  court that found the lack of jurisdiction therefore it's only this court that could actually say the transfer is required or or or should be considered the trial court can't do it the trial courts hands are tied because it was not the court under sixteen thirty one if you read sixteen thirty one the plain language is the court that concludes that there is no jurisdiction so shall consider whether or not to transfer the trial court here could have been the court that decided there was no jurisdiction it was on the and we're under thank you for giving me two minutes i'm going to use them to make two points first we have article three standing we have injury in fact we lost over two hundred million dollars in business out of the chute now that is exactly the kind of a imposes a higher than injury in fact requirement this is theirs and told his own of interest requirement which has had different names but it basically says is this statu one that is supposed to protect you even if you have injury in fact so why would that not be a that is to say translate everything that we said in the last opinion in to and all this discussion here says you're harm is only interactive comes from government rulings that belongs to somebody else extensively litigated below your honor of the son of interest test plies when you're not the person who was the recipient of the administrative action but you are approved for use from pesticides and then the e p a says it's no longer approved for use and pesticides now with the government say oh mr component maker you can't bring a case against e p a you don't have any standing you don't have any declaratory relief which we get under the a p a not money relief which to see i take it but here's the second point this is really important suppose the duty rate in this ruling had been higher res miss farrow would have been here arguing the same thing she would have said oh you can't bring a case to challenge the rule and all you could do is bring cases when you pay the higher duty and try to get your money back during a fifteen eighty one a case so whether the duty rank went higher or lower is really not material to what the government's what the government is saying is that they're saying a customs ruling revocation is not traditionally reviewable under the a p a on its own merits now that's the case they're going to write section five zero two the tariff act right out of the act rulings are no longer binding they mean nothing we can delegate from them they're going to write section six twenty five c out of the act that's where this case comes from revocation of a custom is really if i could never and for section five zero two and i've never in four sections six twenty five then you have just announced a range of non reviewable administrative actions of which there are hundred ninety thousand out there right now i think if this case is transferred to the district court they will have to make a little determinations about plausibility they'll have to make the original determinations about whether we have an injury in fact that's what this court should do i don't know what the district court will do but i do know that this court probably doesn't want to hold that a whole range of questions larger as prudence is not judicially reviewable so always at the point of saying that's a false analogy if you and you said don't transfer your show you know it isn't and then took off and someone finish that sentence and that is if you want to make a correct analogy you would say