injustice that had been committed so your view is that that is not to be considered or is secondary or that the court has no authority and is not quite following your what the court so the government through is that there is no way in which for instance to avoid the bankruptcy and the other asserted that the court is powerless or that this is the wrong court prove everything they now you know you're raising a very important question of the role of the judiciary with respect to regulations and procedures in the interest a lot of cases and everybody is not why do we have the laws administered by a bunch of bureaucrats rather than judges who are sworn to uphold the constitution and the prin i'm i'm really trying to explore the government's position when in fact it's clear to go to a court that there is injustice and the government's position is never mind show branches responsibility to interpret any problems that arise from the execution of the law by the executive branch that is the heart of this case what the problem is the trial court said i think the result is the current here is unfair and i'm going to look beyond what congress and binding precedents from high court said because i think the result is unfair and irreversible and understand your analogy if the person if the employer won't help themselves they do the wrong thing that can't complain later they don't have any recovery then you have to do the right thing to get where you need to be the that i have to spend a bunch of not because they were nice really i don't recall the trial court saying they didn't care about the law i recall them saying that the law and powered the court to provide s protest has changed by statute and it is wasn't entirely clear to me the permanence of that statute to this case could you lay out what the timing would have been as applied here and would be to presumably you could get a determination that would be binding for all of them and i would assume assume assuming that the parties are willing to exceed to the notion that they're all the same product  here and so forth did you were you in a position to make any kind of representation as to any period less than the thirty day period that would be applicable in this case either cut and cut was involved  destroy i find that declaration president in the case before this court this morning because the essence of this case is whether the statute that congress enacted to protect employees with advanced rulings recalled accountability as to urgency the court below in findings of fact that can be reversed only and clear made to keep factual determinations first that after looking at the record in this case after having to hearing specifically interstitial the court concluded that it would take a minimum of five months from the finding of the case and a fifty one day this case to a hearing on the merits that that does so the court's saying by saying five months for the segment from filing to hear it that would take a minimum of six seven perhaps longer months before my client could get a resolution of these issues before the court you talking about five months in the court of international trade that's correct now explain to me what why this case is before judge carm that's correct under as yes ultimately determined why would the period c twenty six forty eight that calls for the court to render a decision on the record may be before the court by contrast section fifty eight when i case takes the court into jurisdiction provision twenty six forty the which in turn leads to various standards a review set out in the administrative procedure record of five u s c seven zero six what that means is that as distinct from fifty eight when i case where the court focuses on the agency ages one two four seven four eight and one two five three that describes to the frustration vote this court and the lower court what happened when in response to representations made to the court in a natural three by the government saying don't universal and other cases that are so much relied on by the government and a forward with in advance ruling that advance ruling means we have certain protections under section sixteen twenty five c those protections include that we get a notice we have an opportunity for comment and we had a brief period of sixty days if there's going to be eradication a modification of that now because congress enacted this administrative process for the modification of robot or read a page in advance ruling it's there is a risk in this instance i would say that screening iris knowing what this record suggests that the government is going to want to come in and say never mind the record that was established person with sixty twenty five sea property we want to make a new record position a new unit that is to be tossed aside after a modification relocation has occurred in the living record on which congress intended the agency to be required to be held accountable to rest its determination of the revocation or modification that record this pos the side instead the government has the opportunity to put before the court elements and arguments that were never before the agency then we basically undermine the integrity of the sixteen twenty five c but that's a question of the substantive law sixteen twenty five season rather than the procedure that's employed between a and my point lately is that this decision about determination and instead has the opportunity to supplement or substitute wholesale that record for a new record maybe for pork then what is left of the senator why should they even care what record it established under sixty twenty  twenty five c isn't that something that judge carmen would say at the outset of the government's effort to make a new record it would seem to me that's the point at which the sixteen twenty five c problem gets results i don't twenty five c requires that something be resolved through the administrative process that you use thereby because of the record before the court requirement you their bike get to change that requirement simply because there's a provision that says a record it's made before the court the record mean klute the question of whether the ministry or process has been carried out in the correct way don't you think i see what i'm stand your honor but you have to understand also i hope that in the importers posture we can take risk like that we are out of business from the time that notice of action arrived that morning of april twenty eighth two thousand and five until we can get a resolution saying is never mind the three hundred pages of ministry records showing that this determination by the government was made at the highest levels of headquarters never mind all the e mail traffic the internal memory and other notes and back and forth while they had to determine whether to avoid the standard under sixteen twenty five city just consider this an ordinary notice of action well that kind of argument wouldn't fool a younger over in kansas and i'm sure it did substance not the form is what's crucial here and here the process let me if i may touch briefly on the issue of the government doesn't press deference and there's good reason for that no deference it writes the word decision completely out of the regulations so there is no regulation to defer to here there's also no skidmore difference because there is no general policy guidance or other statements articulate even anything with respect to this interpretation what the government has done however arguing that protest review decisions were not included in the word decision and sixty twenty five sea now they come before the court and argue the protest of your decisions are the only decisions under sixteen twenty five states and that's  of litigation posturing that this court and skinner and the supreme court and other cases that we cite as set is deserving absolutely no difference that's what we have here the court can decide as the court only in closing suggest that the combination of the manifest inadequacy of fifty eight wanted and the manifest in compatibility of the customs actions with respect to six hundred twenty five s thank you very much for the time just a couple of points i'd like to address with regard to prospective relieve the travelers said the complaint didn't seek it so it couldn't give it so that's not a factor that was appropriate to look at here  s record very similar to what we have here because whether it was revoked or night goes back to the administrative record if the plane did come sit under in a case and says i want to try the correct classification of my good quickly counsel step that the government was trying to avoid the administrative record that is a gross misstatement in this training rather when put into chronological order which i apologize for it not being due to the present time of the