in this case improperly applied the existing precedent and disregarding important factual findings the congress had made the original termination well i minimum doesn't the sceptical back even if i don't agree with you on all of that because i didn't the judge below free decided a factual issue before he sent it back to commerce and thereby prevent commerce and commerce his opinion is clear that we don't even have the authority to consider this actual if you mean that we i was here last year in front of the court in meridian appliance handle decision which also made a similar finding again in that case as virtually the same product it's a true appliance handle  plastic end cap was at issue and whether it was a faster in the same issue applied in that case your honor and your right yes it is a factual finding that could be reminded on that basis we would there any difference between this and the ready in case me why further than it went in meridian and decided that because this appliance handle with the end cap was an assembly the lower court decided that under the general terms of the scope that all assemblies would be out that assemblies are not covered by the scope and that goes a little bit further than the court had gone in meridian and frankly that narrows the scope to the point where now we start excluding a lot of things that would be covered in fact this court in the it correct your honor and i would suggest again we would suggest that the this court could affirm converses original determination and they keep the lower court's decision in reinstate that that decision  but if i may so here going to the fastener issue the lower court reached its assembly determination exclusively by or it had to reach its the decision whether it's of assembly or not seventeen calmer state that we find at the end caps described or involved in attaching the handle to the refrigerator door in a manner that allows it the handle to fit tightly to the refrigerator door and release friction between the door handle on this basis we find  previous scope determination commerce looked at the other fasteners that were in those domes and it was screws not bolts and washers was part of that kit that was in the assembly but yes you're right your honor the amount of deference that should be given on a factual have an argument pretty well thank you your honor i do not have another question let's look at the at the description of the three different types of vandals a type a wreath type b and taxi and those are provided by evaluating the schematic came to the conclusion that without that and kept you could not fasten the handle to the door and therefore they function the same way  opportunity to do sell the issue that he raised with respect to the general scope language and i'd like if i could just draw your attention to that the general scope language that he reviewed general scope language is included  at the predicate for the analysis in the scope case is the language of the word and that you have to look to see the light language order reasonably describe the product of issue well let's look at there are five paragraphs in this the energize and then getting down it has a limited students may also be fabricated what does it say about fabrication prepared for assembly there's no language here about assembled prepared for assembled and then they may be of final finished products again their parts they can be there things like curtain walls and door frames and so forth part doesn't expand the scope beyond the  subassemblies what page are you i'm sorry i meant page twenty four it starts in twenty three i discovered the first two paragraphs on twenty three paragraph three is on twenty four paragraphs from the right the middle and i'm in the middle of two important points here it describes what is included here by web interface to form subassemblies i eat that means i'm describing my subassembly is a partially assembled merchandise is partially assemble these are completely and fully assembled and that and that congress department made a fine you know that no one has disputed that that they're there fully assemble the other point is that even if they were and of course they that that's the general scope language now let's get to the issue of the fasteners one point point one i want to make is that we argued that the products were not covered by the provision tha the i know you've read the briefs you know this too and if you get if you look really look at the direct my your attention to the following page when we've got on page twenty five fully and permanently assembled and no one is denying that they're completely assembled and completed at the time of vetri ready for use and they're comparable to finish windows with glass or doors of class or vinyl in each case which you finish finishing good well shambled i would be just just had to be very very precise about that finish merchandise it's a little confusing because the first sense of the scope was finished merchandise the term finished goods is included in that quite separate exclusion for a finished goods kit this is not the finished goods yet this is fully assembled but i'd like to add like thank you for  raising i'd like to mention something about this issue about the application of the finished goods kit i know that councils made much the of the fact that there's a fastens exception and lucian but let's look at that that the that the handles are with the end caps constitute a finished merchandise that's right our position is the general scope language does not cover it for the reasons that i just summarized as just answered head but i don't understand he said these are finished merchandise and you see they're fully assembled so how is it that the washers which connect the handle or are in place at least for taishan when there's no door to actually can purpose of them is to join them to the door and there's no door importation how is that a fully assembled subassembly or initial it or what is what is fully assembled is the door handle and the commerce department  expressly taking the view that in a situation like this where you have to use it with something else that you don't need that something else as important numbers the finished merchandise here is the door handle it's a is a fully concluded it's not covered by the general scope language so the issue of whether they're finished merchandise we're not going to look at that issue yet but this is the page if you've got it this is where they their so called analysis on this issue and this is in that paragraph it starts based on the information provided by whirlpool we find that the plastic that handles issues are comprised entirely excluded aluminum and faster is at the end of the appliance handle assembly and it is attached to the door i means of a bolt that's not included with the importation so it's the assembly is not attached to a door at the time it's important it's important as a complete handle or something example of the window frames those window frames and the glass a minute catch right i mean it's right there well but having a hard time thinking that just stands to didn't exist didn't have a hard time deciding whether he gave proper deference to come or since determination that these were fasteners i think because it's again it's not my determination well let's define the term does there's no discussion here of the term then they say it's analogous to a washer well you know anything could be a now i mean there are many things and sure tightness like a wrench don't say that's a washer or relief friction be considered a finished goods kit and therefore exclude it merely by including or example very clear i mean there's a general principle that if you have language and one provision and it's not included in another provision it wouldn't construe caps attach the handle to the door they know there is when you have two items that are attached right within those yes well one thing i would say is that the the that the fasteners issue is only relevant if you determine that the language in the earlier which is the exclusion for finnish merchandise talks about finished windows with class minish or picture frames sort of the ultimate product that's going to be so how does your what's going on here qualify for that because the stress just the handle that we're talking about right now there's not the refrigerator not the refrigerator door so if we're trying to pla though is apart from that commerce didn't get to decide whether this was finished merchandise or partially assembled merchandise i e the subassembly point i feel like your stance you may have overstepped his bound finally making that factual determination in the first instance and preventing them at least they felt they were prevented from looking at that issue want to remain and and you know maybe you have a clear idea of how it would have come help but it's a question for co stance you may have overstepped his bounds by doing that in the first instance judge moore is that i think he gave them plenty of opportunity to revisit that he raised the issue he said this is you know they didn't address this at all his language point seems pretty strong to me but i agree because he said they didn't include it and maybe it's no doubt you know apparent why they didn't include it because this is not  honestly believe they could have revisit that issue but they did understand that if they didn't think they could their opinion makes it clear they didn't think that was available tenet and i think his opinion is strong enough that i don't think their interpretation is right they it falls into the fasteners or rather yes your honor so to go directly to that point your interpretation of finish merchandise first is finished goods kits if you interpreted the scope that way would lead to two completely inconsistent interpretations of  you would be exploiting products that are officially covered by the scope for example in the scope where it talks about parts for final finished products it identifies what are assemblies window frame board frames solar panels and curtain walls and furniture that window frame if it were theirs for extruded parts of the window frame if it's imported as a window frame that it's assembled means there's fasteners in there it's exactly the opposite of the way this reads write it if you determine that the end cap is not a fastener and potentially he may have a point but if you determine that the end cap is a fastener then whether it's attached at the time of importation or not section into another section and that's what you're asking me to do and you're saying that logic should cause me to do that but i don't deviate from language that other people don't and be outside the functions of me as a judge to say oh well you  criminal unit case the court looked and said assembled aluminum frame units sometimes pre placed with glass otherwise meet the physical description subject merchandise so it was a part of the curtain all it's a unit where it's assembled together to look at includes fasteners and other parts and it was still subject merchandise if you had a product that had only fasteners in those fasteners were attached under his interpretation if anything's attached to it and i so even the handles that they imported without an end cap that came in with just the screws if they put the screws into the handle now it's assembled when it comes in now it's out facially that's a cover product it's an attribute of women in part you on but i became very convinced by the pollies argument so i want you to address that head on which is do we need to send this back for commerce decide in the first instance whether this is finished merchandise or partially sampled merchandise and at first i came in here th been decided for them so that's where i came in and that was where i came in thinking that maybe this movie camera man but here's the thing other seeing the pictures of this thing coming out and i don't know how anybody could decide this was partially assembled murcia the plastic and caps and all the other stuff was in a little bag ever fall within the partially assembled merchandise exception given the state of the facts of this record so might be a fact weston but if no facts are in dispute about how these things come in there's not really a reason to send so i think i'm trying to just lay right and that what i need you to do is to address whether or not there's any reason to send it back if you made that mistake given that i now understand the products coming in fully assembled there are new pieces and a bad we're honored even in the curtain wall decision those has to be put into a building with a tire that has to be attached to a car or by would be a subassembly according to you every single thing that is not a standalone completely self fulfilling and self function problem is that your view of how not applying it not whether whirlpool handles or subassemblies but what a sub simply and i'm i'm finding it a little i'm a little hesitant to say the subassembly could be anything that is incorporated into a larger object ultimate like a window which is incorporated tired as incorporate into a vehicle of some sort i'm a little nervous saying that i feels wrong to me as a matter of law that that would be the right definition of subset when is there anything i can look at are there any other anything in this record at assembly of the larger problem all right it could have been found to be in for that reason this court found that it was in as part it was part of the curtain and therefore subject merchan mean you're looking at a building the outer skin of the building where you see glass the there are a lunar extrusions that hold all of that together from the top of the building to the bottom of the building and the skin of the building is the finish what's this court found in the subject merchandise for the units that comes in like a jigsaw puzzle or pieces that are assembled to form the skin of the building subject merchandise but the difference is this come in like pieces and are put together just  but again so as we were talking about this finished product finished merchandise exemption it would be inconsistent interpretation to define one product if it has a fast to be in because it's an assembly and then the same product came in without the fastener attached to it to be subject merchandise because it doesn't satisfy the finished goods get exemption that's the interpretation commerce is applied over and over again it's an interpretation  those cases weren't nuts bolts and screws they were brackets they were iron locking buckles things other than some sort of what you would think is a not baltar screw if there are no other questions