congress has provided interested parties with a remedy and that is to request a scope ruling from the u s department of commerce if the interested party disagrees with the outcome of that scope ruling that have right before the trial court under the paragraph  one it should of request to scope ruling from the department of commerce at the outset of the dispute and it to the extent it had a disagreement with the outcome of that proceeding it could have proceeded to the trial court under some paragraph siop jurisdictional statute alternatively it could have jurisdiction under fifteen eighteen when i and that is the first reason why we think the trial court's decision to be overturned the second reason the trial court's decision should be overturned was the contested determination that was under review in this case duties it continued the conversation with sun cream all we have been to the time that the trial court enjoin the government from taking any action on these entries the record i can and i can give you several examples where in fact customs was actually should be subject to the scope of an order the statutory remedy is to go request the ruling from commerce but if that what if that all or that customs let out it was that itself and proper or providers there's certainly instances where that mate that engage in that type of analysis as some premiss had asked the agency to do it would need to ascertain the meaning of then film photovoltaic products that's the that's the product that's identified by the exclusion so in order to entertain the at the requiring cash deposits then the interested parties the importers have every incentive never to request a scope ruling from the department of commerce because they can then bring their merchandise into the united states during that entire period without any sense of protection to the public fisc that would normally understand rick they were hired to get that scope ruling and then pursue judicial review through the means of that soap ruling if they were dissatisfied and if the sandvik court that would protect the department of commerce a statutory role and the court from engaging in what could be an unnecessary extension of their resources at the importer may well find their remedy entirely in the administrative procedure but beyond that judge kaleeba law indicated that it was her view that the domestic industry could take up the importers role here and ask for scope rulings whenever there was a dispute over a product that the domestic industry and if there isn't a very poor position to do that we have domestic industry members do not have access to import paperwork we do not know what customs conversations are with importers over the various products that might be coming through the border we don't know what's going on it is only when an importer brings a scope ruling to the department of commerce that the domestic often have fairly good information on the foreign producers that maybe export ingrid's to the united states very little information on who the importer might be and without that information practically speaking it would be very difficult to bring a scope rule and procedure  for commerce because it wouldn't be clear who was the relevant parties that would be involved there so our point is merely that the judge kelly's opinion stands to negatively affect you seek a scope well in from the option because we believed that customs would agree with us and even if there was a scope ruling we our product would be found to be outside the scope and therefore why should a small company a startup company put in hundreds of thousands everything that customs did that we believe exceeded their authority prior to the date of initiation and that scoping pouri we completely ag knowledge that at this point with the sco rolling against us commerce had customs to engage in this and you participated in this whole procedure that you now claim it was an illegal procedure no your honor customs forced it they filed a notice of action saying you if you want these  products to be released you have to pay these deposits you have to change your and treats you over three instead of zero one and we are and again this is the normal dialogue and this is the way the process should work there should be a dialogue with customs please allow us to provide  information to you to show you why you know we are within this explosion this this is just the way the process occurs and it is usually the most cost effective for the government and for the parties because you know usually you can you can provide the congress to get that scope rolling so we did use the right administrative remedy for that but what we're trying to do now is you know there has to be some some foundries on customs authority at the border when you're dealing with an an  just to touch on whether there was actually finally agency action here to trigger stiction it's our position that when customs decided that the product had to be changed from an o on entry to zero three means subject to the antidumping encountered really duty orders that then that then changed customs rule entirely to a ministerial role customs has no authority at that point no discretion no decision making authority as to how it will eventually liquidate those entries that have to follow the rules that congress issues so in that case we believe we did have finally agency action the final agency action was if you want these products to come into the u you must enter at zero three you must deposit millions of dollars of duties and therefore that was final know your honor not if it did it wasn't violent till mid november and so this is all happening between mid april when you know the back and forth is going with customs that and i would like to also add you know i jurisdiction is available when the other remedies are manifestly inadequate in this case we did have a company that relied very heavily on this particular product which it certainly in good faith believed was outside the scope again i point to our industry certification that it film product that that the exclusion standards and therefore the company really had all of the tapes in the basket of this product so as as it was being required to pay the deposits which of course it was paying because it needed to bring the goods in in order to satisfy at the murs the company became you know in financial distress which was one of the reasons why the court eventually traded his shoe a temporary restraining order and ultimately pulling nearing junction to stop the collection of cash deposits liquidation was still suspended and that was something we agreed with sure let's continue suspension liquidation but please don't make the company pay these burdensome cash deposits because we think customs has acted outside the scope of its authority well if the court doesn't have any further questions i think that covers everything i want to play i think your honor the arguments raised by my colleague reflect precisely the basis why the trial court aired it entertaining jurisdiction here the arguments regarding the industry certification go to ultimately a scope decision a scope ruling to the extent that some cream disagreed with customs initial determination to protect public revenue by suspending liquidation of the entries and requiring that the positive of estimated duties should've immediately at that moment gone to commerce and request a scope ruling and in response to a drain is common comment about mitigating harm you precisely correct it at that exact moment in april twenty fifth when suncream became aware with customs in continuing this conversation that they are free to do so and ultimately at the end of that process customs will liquidate their entry and at that moment they can protest with addition and again come to the trial where and under subpoena graph a and because there are these two process it is up to their election you're exactly correct or are they can pursue either happy news if it is exactly what they did but they prematurely sued customs in the trial court if they wanted to pursue their remedies before customs they should have waited until based upon the ultimate affirmative scope ruling we left uncollected and that's simply contrary to the statutory framework invision by congress where customs is required under statute to protect the revenue to the maximum that it is not just created a system that works under the statute and recognizes the authority and separate spirit of the courts the agencies and conserves their resources but it leads to the overall  administration of the trade laws in a way that recognizes the ultimate aim of those trade laws which is to ensure that duties are in fact elected on good that have been found to injure domestic industries