this afternoon and one case will be submitted on the briefs the first case for argument today will be number two thousand and seven one zero nine fo might not be the best person that you but how many of these kinds of pre nine hundred ninety three cases are there out there this doesn't strike me as an extraordinary period to go by this is  mac it seems to be very close to this case you don't really distinguishes i understand an american per mac except to suggest that  statement that the lifting of the suspension of liquidation is triggering event right that meant that the for purposes of the plot of having a holding in america permit one party was trying to gain the benefit of the that was for interest that one and that's not the same factual setting the legal setting for that matter that we have here i mean it is a different statute and a different provision but yet one in travel all the the interest really could not be determined until liquidation which which is why i believe the court held there that the liquidation was a triggering event and we don't have the same circumstances here well in traveling all they and that's also the case in any hands i don't think so there well in our case but the statute at issue and in traveling all talked about interest in the interest calculation being dependent upon liquidation whereas here the statute talks about the lifting of suspension and notice there of as the triggering events to the customers look at it in terms of there are consequences to customs if customs under the new statute doesn't pass within six months that has a consequence yes and it has a consequence t customs in that the duty is deemed liquidated yes whereas there's a different set of circumstances that surrounds the statute issue and travel well what we would argue is that both revolve liquidation and that in that her case there has been sufficient sufficient activity post nine hundred ninety three to bring that stache to bear on her case we have they can change the classification they can review the entries and even make a determination of the goods as described may not even be subject to take up a few days so that that is the final act which is a ultimatum words throughout the hour or appreciate that if you read through the decision it talks about the importance of liquidation and how that is the final reckoning of duties so that's what we're asking this court to recognize in this case you get a different result right and so it would seem to me that your argument core is that we've got a bad christian in our law he started off earlier by where's the money been all this time you i i take it you didn't have a chunk of money on deposit right so so this is all that you've basically been  zeroed out with regard to your your obligations until after the liquidation until after the liquidation you know and this is when the liquidation occurs and assuming that it's that hurts you in the sense that you are subject to interest for a period that nothing was going on in the agency and you're having to pay accumulating interest or are you getting free ride for that but the issue is one of business certainty and i understand that there's to me perhaps to most businesses if it's month cash on the barrelhead it matters more than a little business uncertainty i mean if you had the ultimately out of out of funds for two thousand two thousand what they did there was no interest and they were really only paying as you know twenty cents on the dollar of what they would have paid if they had paid back on day one because they had  long period of time you don't have to pay money and then you finally pay the money but you don't have to pay any interest for the time period preceding that if you had to pay the money early or you would have been out of pocket the money if i have a million dollars th i'm able to enjoy the years for ten years and then i have to pay a million dollars i should have been able to make a million over during the ten years and the millions who would be free to get to that to this in the business yes but you know if you statutes permitted it appears isn't that what you're really saying well in fairness yes i mean it could but that's not argue it argument is that we don't have to go to retroactive application a lot of questions and we'll hear from this weekend thank you thank you period here and this case has been pending for so long it makes jarndyce and jarndyce look like it was on the rocket docket i mean this is this is crazy yes it was an extreme amount of time now i don't know well what's the reason being are there more of these little surprises waiting for us i don't know the answer to that to do i don't know whether there's any more out there because just the agency no i mean is this a situation where there's a large quickly however they've been invented it they didn't make it retroactive so i think congress is telling us we don't like the delay it's not appropriate but it's just you know this is going to stop the nine hundred ninety three and i think that's the problem that  retroactive and i think zimbabweans argument really loses sight of land which tells us how you know something's retroactive the supreme court in that case and i don't think mr walsh is is tackling the  retroactivity issue if i understand his argument correctly it's more going to the trigger i think he says it's not retroactive because he says you look at triggers you start searching after nine hundred ninety three right the problem is language doesn't say that removal so languorous is very on point here it tells you exactly the type of conduct to look at when you look at fifty four you can tell what those ads are and they occur before ninety ninety three while liquidation act well trigger ok i thought you were saying that you look all the way back to the first event that gave rise to initial liability which removal is the triggering event because that is what starts this series of events that leads to liquidation  trading and see just a meeting list because those cases analyze how you define deal with liquidation and these are if you bought by blocking argument it would mean those cases meeting because there'd be no legal consequence past what they're finding that let me make sure i understand exactly what your argument is here with respect to the trigger let's assume that lifting a suspension and notice are two hundred ninety three and so it was that was the statutory trickery that leads to the analysis on the retroactivity so one of there was a later communication that told customers you know start liquid so it's like those it's like those final results went into a vacuum they didn't they didn't have consequences in a practical sense of the words in terms of anyone in the agency actually taking action working the letter i mean that's that's what's wrong with american crew yes is it doesn't focus on the first act with legal consequences to the purdey in question right right either interest a cruise on these funds that are subject to the as yet unlikely dated but liquidation that suspension has been lifted during the period between letter was nine hundred eighty we thank both council cases submitted