international trade in a properly applied existing precedent in this case and disregarded factual findings by the department of commerce and the original scope determination and substituted its judgment for that of the agencies as such we would ask this court to vacate the lower for its decision and reinstate converses original scope determination with respect to the appliance handles that issue here we believe the lower court's decision rests entirely on its own legal and factual determination as to whether the particular and caps of this appliance handle were not fasteners that this court has said in previous instances congress's interpretation of it whether a particular component than meets that definition of fast or whether it's broader or narrower is a factual conclusion again reviewed under substantial evidence that we believe the lower court inappropriately substitute its judgment there as well on a factual ground  as well in both instances a as we said the c h p in appropriately substituted its judgment for that of the departments and first the lower court narrowly defined or interpreted the word fastener in this case as it relates to these and caps or the lower court believe that fastow should be nuts bolts or screws things that are generally made of steel the spoke language itself as it relates to fasteners talks about nuts bolts screws but uses the language as such or such as rather an accent or a that's not limiting it's exemplary of the types of fasteners but it is in no way intended to limit those to just those types of things and in fact if it did you know it it's not clear that the scope language was as precise as it should have been but i mean the congress didn't make any findings with respect to subassemblies these end caps were not fasteners and were another component that therefore the product didn't meet the scope definition at all and therefore couldn't reach the parts and subassemblies portion of the scope at all now we would say that if if the court believed that the faster language was ambiguous it had to ask commerce in a remain and to go back and using it interpretive guidance set forth in its own regulations under the k want to get to analysis to interpret what is meant by faster and we think if they had done that the petition itself in this case which is one of the items that are supposed to be reviewed in that in under k one and prior decisions and previous decisions of what a fastener is it would have found that it is a much broader definition than the lower court applied and in fact  thing doesn't seem to fall within that definition but congress kind of gone back and said well actually it falls within some narrower definition and it didn't we believe judge chancers decision as to whether it was too broad or not meets the definition even if you assume that and kept and that's a factual finding that that ultimately the commerce and doctrine correct you're asking us to reverse that actual that well we're right we have two arguments one that the lower court improperly interpreted substituted its judgment as to what is meant by a fastener to begin with which is in effect a conclusion that commerce was the part of the sort of them from the scope the court concluded otherwise so and in its remit terminations calmer said you know that we are constrained by what the lower court found because a lower court said that these are not in fact fasteners the lower court couldn't gotten to the position it got to if a lower court agreed with congress that they were fasteners than they would have been subject merchant that again but that only matters if we're if we're talking about the  exclusion right correct finished goods and finished goods kids yes now you're absolutely right commerce could have been addressed whether it was subject as parts or as a sub assembly in the klein no it didn't do that it didn't do that that case those curtain wall units contained more than just extruded aluminum parts yet this court found that those were so that was subject merchandise because it was a part of the finished curtain all the same would be true here this  in the oven doesn't function without the handle the handles apart of the other and it would therefore be covered under that language as well which we believe but congressman address that issue on remand but beyond that your honor the lower court's decision is premised again on this definition of whether that encounters a fastener or not and its interpretation that that fastener was not a threat and cafes not a faste then the lower court to slip inclusion of will there for an assembly and it's out completely it doesn't meet the definition at all but again as we just talked about that's not true this court has found that assemblies like a curtain wall unit are subject to  so whether something is an assembly or not doesn't take it out of the scope it's a question of whether does that assembly then meet those other things did commerce ever say that these are assemble her significant certainly so if it were an assembly we still believe again as we've said before this court has found other assemblies to be covered by the scope so whether it's assembly or not doesn't necessarily take it out of the scope ok if it were an assembly you would then examine whether it's part of the final finished good in death scenario this is a handle that's a handle for another so that the oven is the finished good and this is part of that and  ought to be covered the fact that you have a minor not excluded part that's associated with it doesn't necessarily take it out of the skull under that ground and it certainly we believe a subassembly of the other again going back to that part language so in either scenario we believe it would be covered but i think the basic argument is that the lower court interpret ing fastener or what was meant by fastener with respect determination that that end cap was not a full not a fastener and therefore didn't meet the definition and in commerce didn't reach those other other two grounds and like i said again in answering the other question that this could be covered as an assembly or subassembly or part of the oven it clearly is a handle for the oven it's described as a handle for the oven i don't know of anyone who buys an oven without a handle  you can't really use the oven without the handle it's a part of the oven and could be covered under that ground as well but at base at root the end cap we believe is a fas schematic demonstrates that it's if a fastener of the respondents themselves in their initial petition described it as a fastener it was appropriate for commerce to define it as a fastener and this court while it hasn't expressly addressed the what's meant by fastener in a few other cases meridian train kids being one of them and then during their district cargo being another those were cases where you looked at whether something was in or out under the finished goods merchandise exception and whether that something was a fastener in those cases we had brackets and we had iron buckles or locking mechanisms those were fasteners and both of those were approved as being subject much in dice and everyone kind of plays lucy goosey with the language that these plastic injectable and caps are fasteners but they're not you couldn't go into a hardware store and you wouldn't go in the bolt in the not in the screw section and find plastic and walls and injection and cab service as any of make any finding regarding that in the scope rule and they didn't address that at all and so that could have been a fact finding we don't have it before so we don't have that speculation and our standard of review you know in this matter is whether or not  really it was whether it was supported by substantial evidence and that's what the c i to determine the underlying matter was that it wasn't fact not supported by substantial evidence it wasn't discussed at all and so there was no basis for judge chancing to make a determination regarding the findings and the result of that finding so there was no discussion and converse with the citizens about the substantial component correct aspect in other discussion you can't come to the end result that the product doesn't contain additional pieces you know that mysteriously these plastic injection and caps they transform into fasteners if that was going to be a fine in my commerce commission aside so and then when given the chance he looked at the court schematic when reaching its decision and the problem for the court was that commerce forgot about these these on caps and that's that's the summary of at the end because they did not describe it there wasn't enough facts to finnish merchandise exception the five pieces attach together included in a package with screws and instructions for a product to attach to an oven well that would be a final product and nothing needs to be done other than a chat chip and that's the analogy that they're attempting to make that there there should be some additional input would let you know when the are articles that is excluded from the finished product in the exclusion order are windows and that's you know somehow saying that you know a finished window analyses on the symbol that product put it in a bag then we have a finished good that would be subject to the finished good kids usually just saying that it can't be reconciled it can't be if it goes in either in the finished kit if some gold or the finished finished that's imported as a finished the last thing that is said in the in the brief is that this is somehow a roadmap for circumvention i would say without be just to the contrary you know what really is the case for importers as they have you have the liability they need to know how their product either making its decision and you know i want to be careful that we don't we are dealing with some assembly hearing there's been some some loosely language about the speakers subassembly this isn't subassembly this is not personally assemble product you know end caps are used to fasten the handle to the door then if you go to page twelve of the decision when it talks about the party's position in the paragraph or two there aside from the inclusion of fasteners for t handles at that point when the department found that the end caps are used to fasten to the door when it talks about faster says talking about the screws in the end caps and so it did find that they were faster why did it find that they were faster is because the respondent in its petition curious sure i would say inconsistent inappropriate conclusions the end cap here is a faster ok if it's a fastener and it's attached to the handle under their interpretation it's out as a finished goods yet if it were not attached to the handle it was it be subject to the product because it's not attached and it's a faster if you can't have two different interpretations of the same exclusion and commerce has consistently but it will bring both the finished goods kit and the finished goods exclusion has said these are essentially two of the same things one happens to be assembled and one is on assembled but it incenses a finished good and therefore would be excluded this endcap is a fastener and it has to be subject merchandise whether it was attached to it or not and then again as we've said the fact the mere fact that it's an assembly doesn't take it out of the definition of the scope isn't excluded product that meets the definition of the scope defined by its own use here is a handle the second step would be letter needs any of the definitions of the exclusions but the lower court didn't get there the lower court simply concluded that this doesn't meet the definition of fastener and went on from there getting to their point about fastow's having come off the shelf from a hardware store that is not found in the language of the sco that's what the lower court how it interpreted what it meant by fastener you posit that is inappropriate to the extent the lower court had a parts that are actually part and out the assembly they didn't you know and then you still have to separately fasten them to something it's a molded part that's attached to the extrusion  determine what's meant by fast we didn't do that it simply said that's not if i don't believe under its analysis what that i'm not an extraordinary meeting of the term just doesn't allow such a broad reading but with all due respect your honor common ordinary meaning is not necessarily part of the commerce is regulations as to how it interprets a scope and whether something's ambiguous or not it's supposed to refer to the petition language and the other elements that go into interpreting that scop that frankly the language about how to what is meant by fastener is broad it's beyond the sort of off the shelf hardware that the respondents claim i see my time is almost up and unless you have any other questions