decision the court of international trade said the difference between cash deposit rates and liquidation rates is of no significance in this in these cases because of the automatic assessment regulation american signature appealed that decision as their designs american signatures case was decided it was reversed and remanded in a non presidential opinion in which case the court said that although the department of commerce may have discussed the implementation of what liquidation rights during the investigation it did not decide those at that time and that the true nature of the current appeal is focused on liquidation rights and not cash deposit rates  counsel can correct me if i'm wrong but i think my understanding was that the court would consolidate and that if it thought it was appropriate and we decided not to move for a consolidation motion in part because we had subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of organ or national trade in part to address an injunction but also the discussed merits and so we were on a later schedule to be when it became time to appeal to th rights is there are several different ways of looking at it one is the well excusing what will be discussed in the merits of the appeal in the liquidation or are very different first if we were to are effective which is based on a federal register publication on the other hand we believe the core of this litigation that moves forward will be on the statutory gaps that exist where congress left to commerce rates would be temporary it would be the financial harm to the company of having a post cash deposit rates in the interim and we believe that's what paramount design cited and it's in the investigation originally whereas liquidat r litigating over liquidation rates would mean the facts actual payments the final payments to the treasury and so there's much different harms the earlier they one designs could not could not have appealed over liquidation rates from from the original decision in the investigation at that time no one knew a whether there would be an and b if an administrative review was requested whether it would be rescinded and so any litigation moving forward at that point over liquidation rates would have been premature and underwrite because  whether or not fair amount of entitle to a refund based on retroactive application of the rate cut but let me ask you another question suppose for the sake of argument that we were to conclude that your if i may call them the fences fail as they did in american signature if if we ever have to get to the marriage what is the government's position on the marriage you can see that there tightly get this money back or not i have no quote i have no problem with you i said there was a this whether it should have been classified one way or the other but here we start with the proposition not that what the government did was an arabic shouldn't have done w of the statute of how the the rate should be determined for a particular entries during the course of investigation but i guess i mean to the extent a court is concerned about america might think this is the case is about jurisdiction and  sniggers not necessarily to conduct the review but to get to it then you get to the administrative review and you look at it and say oh my goodness this is a clerical error and where we've had the same place that we might be now one attempt to rather than place obstacles in the path time consuming and expensive obstacles just fix it but i think this is a issue that could have been addressed if the merits could have been addressed in a pursuant to that to anyone see and i guess the extent of the court is really concerned about the merits of whether or not commerce reached the proper decision the merits your honor raises a question about the judicial process and that's really commerce is primary concern here today is that is the jurisdiction i think this is an important issue because the problem with with what plaintiffs are trying to do figure of on the jurisdictional issue that hasn't that issue been decided by our guests it was november seven american signature opinion you saying that i me put it this way are you saying we should not follow that now you have because american signature address the very limited issue and that's that is a very limited issue for this court here which is what's the true nature of the action in american signature the court determine that the true nature of the action is  mean isn't that the correct thing for us to do granted american signature was not presidential opinion but it is it cited relied upon consolidated bearings isn't the correct thing for us  to do to reverse the decision here based on american signature and send it back so that these merits issues can be sorted out now is that i mean why are we do something different than what happened because i would have thought the government would have come in i was expecting when i said when i looked at this that we would have gotten some authority telling us why we shouldn't is different than what the government that's a very narrow issue what is the true nature of the action that's really really should ask you if we send it back based on american signature are there any more i mean we would be saying basically that  the words liquidation instructions like magic words to a certain claimant or to any one item that really does him undermines the ability to assume we we would if not understand that argument you make that course in your brief but if we were to follow what we did in american signature we would be saying we understand that we're still saying there was jurisdiction properly under fifteen eighty one i my question is if it goes back and we say what we said on november thirtieth albeit in a correct there might be and i guess it depends on the nature of the court's decision the court issues a proposition say you can or it's unclear from the court's decision what exactly it is that they can claim but if the opinion just tracked what was  if we've crossed that rubicon so to speak already you know maybe that the answer you know is to change the statute but let me ask you on the just i realize we can't decide the merits of this but picking up on the to it wasn't clear as to exactly what entries were covered so i'm just trying to what i'm trying to say is everyone agrees it was an error and the question is i was just trying to get a sense of or maybe you don't have an answer is is it is there a dispute as to the dollar amount that flowed from that air or is it a question where we say well there's an error but we don't know exactly the precise dollar amount no i don't we were trying to try to quantify the exact amount i think to go to your question about what i said before about an issue about which entries were covered by a particular rate i think they're what the idea is that the issue on the merits is what entry should be covered by a particular rate and they say that this ra deal with this unusual situation of a cloud necessarily could not be so limited and would have brought a consequences certainly one of our concerns about think even and you've got american signature which if it was presidential would be problematic for you right you don't actually get it and then we would still say that it's a no but right now you're in better shape than you would be if american signature was presidential right to some extent your i mean you can argue read but if if we have to come down with a presidential spring in the goes the wrong way for you you know you've raised a number of concerns was an error made it's good faith there are these things happen it's not a perfect world and you know on the other hand there's important legal issues so it's up to you it's up it's up to the parties here but i just offer that to what dollar amount flowed from this albeit completely innocent error there is a question of it obviously we have the amounts of what was paid and then there's a so they still made a settlement yesterday during with commerce at the administrative review phase at subsequent to subsequent to the recession of our review and so that's why we think some kind of a charge in doing the arithmetic i think it's a court it's not a question for witnesses it's a question for charts and also a question of whether firm and designer should be treated equally with maria receive equal treatment with maria this point after this very moment we may not be able to determine now exactly how much you would be entitled to if you all about us right now yeah or controlled by american signature on with respect to the jurisdictional issue you heard what he would say that the discussion we were having what is your view on that we think the  fair amount designs raise the issue in the case before his american signature do not participate and we don't think that's legally significant we think so you're saying what we said albeit non presidentially in on november