united states court of appeals for the federal circuit is now open and in session god save the united states and this honorable court the order makes absolutely clear but there's a fundamental split between aluminum extrusions that are imported into the united states as parts that become a component of some other merchandise or importation that is not found anywhere in the language of the order itself and that requirement is that you have to have a non aluminum extrusion as a part but there's nothing about the language parts that parts about the material in fact this court in the walpole case which we cycle pay express excuse me counsel hi thank you for stopping i just wanted to ask you a question i understand the point you're making one question i want to ask you that goes what is your response to that point about how your interpretation would swallow the rule embodied by the scope thank you write one it wouldn't swallow the rule because it still reply requires that the product had multiple part is between finished merchandise which is finally and completely assembled that contains aluminum extrusions as parts which the polish does the latter does the chair does and an aluminum extrusion that's going to be incorporated into some other product after importation which is the language i just read from the us and it's beyond dispute that the polish is not incorporated into something else after importation and your honor the nd point i want to make deals with a separate exception that dealt with the finished exception whirlpool distinguished meridian and what whirlpool said is a and back case commerce found on convincing the notion that a product made entirely of aluminum exclusions is on assembled and contains fasteners would be within the scope of your letter and the same product completely assembled at the time of importation would be outside the scope of you what are the exact same arguments that they're making here and this court in a mall will reject that argument and what the court said is that there's a good reason to treat finished merchandise merchandise consisting solely of aluminum extrusion components and fasteners it would have done so in the scope language rather than expressly confining its fastener exception to the finished goods kit involved a product me exclusively of extruded aluminum components if you monitor that was a case that involved a handle and a fastener at the top of the handle and it was a sub assembly that became part of a refrigerator and it was a handle that would go on certain appliances and so this exact argument was made and rejected by me whether it included nine that's my question whether includes not on to that aluminum component limiting it to the exclusion to the exclusion for finished tests finished kits has a separate exclusion that has no in a walk in the finished merchandise section and that is that it can't be it doesn't get outside the scope just because it has all momentum extrusions and you include fasteners and so that what the courts say to morrow pull is there's a good reason between distinguishing between products which are fully and finally assembled at the time of importation and kids because when the kid comes in it's easy just to take the extrusion and throw the fastener out but if it's fully and finally assembled at the time of implication you've got to go backwards in the manufacturing chain so  whirlpool specifically addressed and rejected and here i just want to emphasize again there is nothing about the language as part that talks about what the composition of the part is going to be is going to be and in the rubbermaid case which i understand it's not binding on this court but in the rubbermaid tacey made that exact point and they said a product can be made entirely of plastic and it's still finished merchandise here the language  non aluminum excluded piece as a part was with jacked it in the world pool logic that i just read here on and so when you apply the plain language of this order when you look at the scope language which specifically distinguishes between finnish merchandise and parts which become a component of something else after the riots in the united states it's absolutely clear under that pla as they're completely and fully assembled at the time of importation and it doesn't it doesn't matter if if you cannot add an additional requirement to that because it's not found in the plain language of the order the fundamental distinction that set out in the order which is we enforced in the exclusion which only requires two things that it be fully and finally assembled at the time of the  importation and that have aluminum extrusions as parts meaning multiple more than one and if you think about it this way that does make sense because not pro clue someone saying well look the fence pole itself is a don't complete it product that's r five no the fence pole becomes part of the fence the window sill becomes part of the window the aluminum frame becomes part of the frame but the pallet the chair the ladder don't become part of anything else their final and complete at the time of importation and as a result they're not within the scope and they're within the exclusion and the only way commerce could get there was by adding this requirement that it has to have something other than an aluminum extrusion component which again on page thirteen and of whirlpool which came after meridian which dealt with the express exclusion that's before the palette and such products are within the orders if they otherwise meet the scope definition which they do with guard lists of whether they are ready for use that importation so little products referred to by their and used can be finished good issue with the straightforward analysis to argue that it's pallets are not subject to the orders and specifically perfectness claims that it's pallets are not subject to the orders because they fall outside of the finished merchandise or sorry they fall within the finished merchandise exclusion where this court in meridian products analyzed and consider the companion finished goods kit exclusion but it's significant because the analysis applies here the court recognizes the exclusions involved both aluminum extrusions and not a parts and finish merchandise that is excluded from the order in fact is said that the basic divide between the products that contain not a limited fusion parts are excluded versus products that contain only a little to make sure your been put into the finished merchandise exclusion if they wanted the fasters language to be there it doesn't say anything else about it only being finished merchandise and without regard to what the material of the part list windows doors and solar panels which is very much like the exemplars in the exclusion and additionally converses scope rulings also support this interpretation and shows the converse of been consistent in applying the finish merchandise exclusion in plain language as council says it's like where it claims that is does not encompass it pal it absolutely does in fact again we have to remember council as being a literal in production so commerce has a practice of not issuing advisory opinions on hypothetical products however this is neither of those it's not a hypothetical product it has been imported and there is would be burdensome and overbroad it on it would be untenable for congress to have to constantly monitor exactly a point in time at which a company decides prospectus because  thought here we absolutely know that they have imported it it's like they it's like the record shows that in two thousand couple of entries in two thousand and twelve they absolutely imported it their precious predecessor company to do that and they to it's like their palette that they're describing would be executed and you'd wind up with this logical inconsistency which is why the court in that case talked about whether you have products that are purely to exclude subjects aluminum experience may be described at the time of importation as parts or final finished products that are assembled after importation all of the exempl assembled at the time of importation and they do not become part of something else and the argument they counsel for the committee made that you could have a test that would be treated different then finish if would have done so in the scope section and it did not do so bought for jets the argument that this merchandise should be treated exactly the same as spanish tits which is finally assembled then to there's a logical rationale for where because if it's foley and finally assembled at the time of importation and in order for to go back to explosions as a part it would have to go backwards in the manufacturing cycle so we'll pull explicitly rejects the argument that everyone here including commerce is relying on it's not within the scope if it's made entirely of aluminum extrusions it's foley and finally a stumble and it doesn't become a component of anything else like a picture frame a window frame a solar panel a pallet is the end product