from china so if if if pleases the court to turn to page one seventy one of the appendix it provides it provides a diagram of the som that identifies the various layers at the semiconductor material it is the same diagram it's also in our brief on page thirteen  p and form by any means cannot mean a different type of junction there are two types of junctions in general there is a key and junction and a p i and john sion they are chemically different one has an additional correct your honor why is that necessarily so because this is how they are described in dictionary definitions there are dictionary definitions provided by petitioners there are dictionary the definition  an umbrella term is provided without any citation is provided without any support and in scientific literature or in a dictionary or anything so that in itself renders the argument here is based on additional information that had not been considered in triac and the other problem with commerce is interpretation of the term p n junction is that it essentially renders the term meaningless so if congress interprets pm junction to mean any junction essentially it becomes superfluous this court in king supply has indicated that scope language must be interpreted in such a way that it is  formative and nonsuch are flawless well if we say any junction that doesn't help us at all identify the subject merchandise that is under this order because it contains a way for and the way for a crystal and wafer and the crystalline wafer has a primary role and that was described by commerce as it is the primary solar absorber there are several problems with this part that i wanted to get to is that solar world itself clarified that simply a silicon wafer that has a positive orientation that is built has is no more capable of converting sunlight into electricity than a sliver of river ark this sliver of river ark to paraphrase solar world is the same way for that is being used by some cream so congress cannot at the below and in that case there was a lot of description about testing that was done by customers in cooperation with your client i believe san diego a few other places yes yes or any of those and those test levels of processing and essentially they found there is an amorphous silicon then film component but they could not identified because it is too small they did not have the right technology the right equipment to do so and this is why in our scope ruling we have provided a laboratory report from a group that specializes in analysis of semiconductor materials and it's provided in our in our scope rolling request and that analysis identifies all of the layers of the cell and which of the layers are dope and which of the layers the fact that the amorphous silicon layers i highly doped and the sun and the  rolling and he did seventeen to eighteen there is two criteria that commerce considered for purposes of whether a junction falls within the scope of this order one it must be essential to the creation of the electrical field in congress look at both  essential to the creation of the electrical field and commerce concluded again as it tracks eighteen that the p i n junction simply extends the electrical field over a wider range of the cell so in terms of interpret ing the scope language at thirty one congress also consider the i p c investigation they considered the petition in particular i'm looking at tracks at thirty two you signing the petition that seven based upon the petitions congress determined that a peon injunction form by any certainly are if we go back to the appendix page one seventy four and one which reflects a diagram that my colleague was referring to i earlier you can see that the crystal and silicon substrate which is that middle there as an slash s i meaning it has a negative charge based upon that record evidence commerce recently concluded that the silicon substrate was active and because it was active it contributed to the generational atrocity and therefore suncream cells fall within the scope of the order regulatory framework and specifically i'm looking at one thousand c f r three five one not two to five l one two and three and if we look at that regulatory framework what that tells us is we look at a one it says  appeal that was here and where the court here hell that there was no jurisdiction over a because there hadn't been  when you're when in doubt you don't need to see the scope if it's clear well xerox's distinguishable from the circumstance of this case because there there was a mis factual misapplication of that water by customs we don't have that circumstance here here we have a under fifteen eighty one a but that's not the circumstance here where we have of the no a straight forward issue as to whether some prints merchandise fall within the scope of an order that's a classic scope ruling and congress has delegated that authority to commerce in order to make that determination and that's what the regulations certainly has these two categories of entries those that have been previously suspended and those that have not been we would you agree with me that when the regulations are in the product and questions are already subject to a suspension liquidation that that suspension one would be applicable in terms of trying to sweep those from congress perspective they would still apply online because they would know congress would have no way of knowing whether a separate action by u s customs and border protection was legal or illegal or alt under the case law doesn't have the authority to target or clarify for us or with that has very specific meaning or honor because that's that's what the scope ruling is in customs is not the agency delegated to render that kind of caution is highly doubt if there's any uncertainty then what happens is you move to it you don't suspend liquidation you move you go into the proceeding where house thank you your honour's name please the court perhaps i'll start on the last one as far as customs ability and i'm here for solar world and i'm the attorney who helped draft the scope and i'll talk about that later but the underlying policy and it's that's that's true true that but importers reclast the vast majority of these and there needs to be the ability to protect the revenue from the first point where customs realizes that there could be an issue uncertain about any problem getting the regulation possibly rates with regard to scope i just want to underscore that commerce found based on the k one factors in the lower court found that some creams products fall squarely within the scope they are crystalline silicon photovoltaic products product with a thin film where they're not a thin film product so and we agree with the government the suncream conceded on several of those points throughout the process so thank and if i could just to answer quickly your honour's question regarding who may request the scope or length so in the regulation at two three five one two two five k c one by the government acknowledged that the cells and sometimes product contain amorphous silicon and films so on their face the cells are certified as a thin film product by a third party accreditation agency they regulation is that an importer would have no recourse for an ultra various eye for an ultra various suspension of liquidation by custom until there is the initiation of the scope inquiry i'm not sure i'm clear what you're saying we have no recourse except if they prevail with the end of the day with commerce then they do have recourse it's only if they don't say they have no recourse if at the end of the day come or says no you're wrong yes but in a case where the scope is ambiguous as it is here where an importer has a lot of factual elements for a bonafide a belief that this product is outside the sc you want the money back from the duties you paid from country up until the day that the scope hearing was initiated yes or no matter yes and your basis is i believe you think that over the case has both components it is a hybrid cell so on its face it was should have been clear to customs that if this is not a crystal in cell well there is a good reason for the exclusion here the documentation shows a very good reason for the exclusion regarding the thin film exclusion this case whether the some brain cell is covered by the order would have maybe been a closer case if it weren't that solar world was asked directly during the i  aware of this technology the hybrid technology it is proprietary and it's limited and in particular they said we have no problem competing against daniel put a sonic that the example at the time was the cell which is a hybrid cell now in the context of a material injury investigation a statement we have no problem competing against this product the hybrid cell can mean only one thing it means that importation of this product is not the cause of material injury and this court and fed met found that when a petitioner fed med resources found that when a petitioner is asked to clarify the scope of its order it has to provide a to come into effect that gives customers greater flexibility if referring matters but at the time when these merchandise came in that statute did not exist but what i think's important here is to look at the regulatory framework outside the context of some green because instructions which is why in this case their instructions merely mirrored the language of the regulatory scope and to the extent that customs and it up getting it wrong which we now know it didn't but if it had the way that congress