so we all know yes so both parties were kind of operating under the laws they understood at the time which is there was an injunction in place we're going to honor the court's process right o but but you weren't you were consenting to that process as well you didn't see any need for a t r o at the time at the time you did not because that was not course international trade doesn't come out until court describe the meeting especially this meeting going back well if we're going to look at excuse me we're going to look at retroactive implications here does that take us to the princess cruises line of cases from the supreme court they were talking about their notice reasonable line reliance and expectations and it seems like both parties expectations here were that there was nothing that needed to be done that they you were both going to honor the court's process as you both expected that things would proceed that way and it's only later that those expectations change when they have no this issue is an injunction that would last and so we should have the trial proceed right and that ultimately what happened so now you're coming in and you're saying that injunction wasn't in fact as i understand your argument here is that injunction t paragraph two and three shall be liquidated so what if concussions run in and liquidate the entries before the importers thirty day window to file an appeal has  saying is you have the right to do that if you decide to play hardball is that your position and you want to construe the statute in a way that gives you that right no because that issue is not for the currently before the court what is before the court is whether  customs can do whatever it wants when it wants including before the party has an opportunity to follow the people yes but in practice it would not occur because the department of commerce practitioner's liquidation instructions and customs still does not act until it receives the specific instructions from the department and those instructions are also generally made public and they are available to the part of the or as well  notice that something is happening and it converts were issued liquidation instructions the parties would have time to go into court and see if it's kind of around how do we know i mean if they issue instructions on how much time do they have irreparable harm to the consenting to an argument concerning the merits let me ask you this question hypothetically change the facts of this case a little bit so that suppose that when the parties submitted the report of their conference to the trial judge the trial judge says well i i will then plan to enter an injunction it will last till the end of the proceedings before me and then i will be visit the question of whether it should be extended judge's chambers and the clerk's office or whatever the actual piece of paper entering the injunction never got signed would your position be the same no injunction therefore deemed liquidations even though everybody at the time was under the understanding that there would be an effective injunction tempted at least to incorporate that in my hypothetical so we could skip all this predicate material the question is the injunction is not actually entered but it's plain that the trial judge intended to enter an injunction at your position sounds to me like you are heading down the road of saying sorry they lose because the injunction actually wasn't entered is that your position yes and in that case it appears that because there is no injunction there is then yes the plates will probably lose in that case you feel comfortable with  that's that's a policy question that is being left to congress and congress that happened to liquidation statute and set up this entire system congress it's reasoned judgment that it was going to equitable remedy and there's an old maxim of equity that that equity regarded as done that which should be done in other words if the judge has fully expressed intention to in turn an injunction why shouldn't case would be on december sixteenth to the phrase under the six month six month period graham december sixteenth two thousand and three it was until january two thousand or that the court held oral arguments so the court and come to any final judgment concerning what was issued back to the that the tail end of the injunction there was no question in anybody's mind including yours as far as anything litem on the record reflects as to the propriety of the injunction pending the disposition in the court of international correct the government and the cleanness head of greece the injunction would issue with respect to just the yes is the answer you you fully anticipated and then had no objection to the entry of that form of injunction at least right only dispute was as to the tail end extension of the injunction correct was correct just between the part pardons as the government is the government in contempt if it somehow violated in fact the injunction that's never been issued know the trial for needs to actually issue an injunction as stated in the international trading three about the same time that all these proceedings are going on so the whole issue of whether the government's actions in this case somehow result i'd like to reserve thank you no i don't think he i didn't interpret him could mean that you knew that international trading the international trading rule was already in place but nonetheless that just that you knew that that issue was out therefore there would be no jurisdiction for further proceedings relative to that entries so that while the liquidation data itself is not a  party subject to it the potential of the contempt action and if you later decide that something that didn't exist actually was existing somewhere in the ether that does that creates a real a real problem for something like the contempt sanction what is your best authority for the proposition that we should be there to prevent an injunction in place at the time before a judge well i enjoyed his injunction   that is your best evidence of his intention to put in place some form of equitable relief at the time that you came to the  parties agreement to the first can judge it in the court is certainly free not to to do that do you have anything that you can say in response to mr to seen these points it was perfectly clear that the judge was going to enter e was what was it that happened before december of zero three that that involved the courts directing the parties to have a conference about this and reporting back that the extent of their agreement and what's the this is the limit this was the two thousand and six answer yes or i'm when you told me he said something in two thousand and three and i'm trying to see what you've got from two thousand and is there anything on the record from that that you can point us to where we look here's our problem years pretty easy to see what our problem is here we are being asked in effect to say there's an injunction where there manifest isn't an actual injunction so in order to do that if we're going to go the din defacto injunction route anything you have that says that judge had fully intended to unsubscribe to the notion of an injunction which the parties have agreed to is is helpful to your side now if you know for you to say to us in the status conference he seemed to be inclined to enter the injunction is not giving me something i can do much with is there anything more you have that you can point us to as to where the judge was as of the time of that status conference or anything else during that time period not you know what happened in the hearing two thousand  or the government would necessarily need to oppose every request for an injunction in order to not somehow be liable for contempt under something and in order that doesn't exist