effectively yes and the reason is because the court failed to follow this court's binding precedent and eugene and american signature and dismissed those or dismiss international trade which is already counterparty standen well you're involved in the other case hardware is involved in the other case since you make a name which is the affiliated importer is in this case but the court of international trade  relief is is uncertain yes so they're trying an irreparable harm here assuming i'm correct that the government as represented unequivocably th and that sumac would be entitled to refunds plus interest on any overpayments that's in their brief also on the record yes assuming that's correct that distinguishes right not exactly because that's their opinion and they don't speak for the court of international trade or th well they they said they wouldn't contest for liquidation but they didn't say they wouldn't contest or appeal the merits and so we could be up here again and you know the timing of these two cases are there on separate tracks there's nothing that binds the timing of this case to the timing of th a discretionary basis appellate judges don't like to throw out over appellate judges don't like to reach issues unless they have to why should i have to deal with this difficult question about you john an american signature now i may never have to as to when the c v t case if it ever if it if it continues or ends in the data is uncertain tell me this yes she knew i seems to say that relief is available under fifteen eighty one it does however undermining a claim to irreparable harm which is defined by seen liquidation miserable which is which is why as long as the government elect their m p s why should i have to resolve what those are presidential  again that the government does not speak for the court for any court and so while they might not contest it the court may disagree but plies to this case there's there's no guarantee and if that court if the if the c i t disagrees what recourse you have appealed to the score ok and then if we disagree what happens i still have an appeal to the supreme court i suppose but but that would all be only on the issue of whether or not you can attempt to get the money back even if you have a clear victory on the merits right suppose i think fifteen sixteen a clearly on a quickly and not in big us lee find your balls in your favor so now that the question we're debating now as i understand it is whether or not you even have an in title meant to relook with ation to a right of the wrong that would be done to a difficult one for which the resolution is not obvious and concluded that the issue is sufficiently complex that we should resolve it only in a setting in which it has been litigated by the parties and decided by the trial court so shinya is not something that the court of should sumac the prevailing merits and we have represented and why are you why is this case here and the reason i say it is fifteen sixteen eight is completely clear and unambiguous they are right or wrong what argument do you have against that in terms of the merits or a correct so i don't understand why this case is here fifteen sixteen a is crystal clear in their favor why are we doing this we disagree with their interpretation of the statute if fifteen sixteen if that part of the framework let's just look at the exact language of fifteen sixteen shall be liquidated according to the determination of the secretary if they are entered one or before the date of publication the federal register worthies before the date of publication in the federal register but yesterday they were filed but what but also the statue needs to be considered with respect to the next  which says that if you look at specifically fifteen sixteen eighty liquidation in accordance with the final decision of the trial court so it goes on to say that the but if there's a really i don't i don't understand that argument there's a really good reason for this to write like we want to hold people to the rate that they have notice of because these notices are private and confidential correct intil they're published in the federal register people are not aware of them except for whoever the thirty or thirty nine days is that right i would just forty nine hundred forty nine ok right because yeah because you were thirty nine hundred late that's right because the ten day so wasn't published for forty nine days so if it wasn't published and the statute on ambiguously says we want to before the date of publication in the federal register i don't understand why we're here you would like the statute to be different but we interpret it as it's right and you may have put policy reasons why it should be different thirteen fifty five and in both of those instances it discusses a failure of an untimely notice and in both instances the failure was analyzed under the rule of prejudicial error which is derivative of the a p a and pursuant to the rule of prejudicial air the on that difference so currently the government is left exposed to that liability should we prevail on the merits and sumac not be able financially to make that we mean we felt that they you suspect or are concerned they wouldn't be able to is there a factual foundation for that assertion soumik did not making representations to the track or that it could not pay these duties and because they could not establish their lack of payment the trial court made a finding that they have not demonstrated a record to harm in the duties in the future i guess my question is do you have any factual found it is just the there's no guarantee anyone no guarantee donald trump will be able to pay that year there's no guarantee anybody will be able to pay is it just sort of one of these throwaway deposit of cash to fight to protect that because every instance we don't know whether an importer and ok so this would be an argument you would make in every single case no matter what that there's no guarantee this person will be able to pay certainly your honor and that's the reason why the statute requires that a always able to pay well yesterday on our yes or no so for the reasons that sue may cannot demonstrate a rebel army both because the government isn't joined and because the trial court does have the authority with respect to the government's perspective for relief this is something that maybe if you see defense you have these companion cases companion orders and you have overlapping periods of review and so when the company is involved in both the antidumping side and the kind of billing duty side  it may appeal both cases and both cases may go on and i found no instance of the court of international trade objecting to or refusing to grant lemaire injunction because of overlapping periods and in fact the department of commerce and public justice have not until this case as far as i know objected for that reason either thank you barbara the commerce and its argument was reluctant to provide a guarantee of