congress reasonable interpretation and scope language in doing so the trial complete court committed a second here by adopting an unreasonable interpretation of the finished goods kid exclusion the fails to give in fact all of  kits have here which is that the product contains aluminum extrusions which meet the physical description of subject merchandise and fasteners and under congress's reason want to protection the scope language that product is  are excluded and then it's like an exception with the exception that even though i mean you're the order says that if it's just the what you say what you said the the  sentence as a qualifier to the exclusion and then we would argue that that's the best reading of the entire exclusion which starts with an explanation that the scope also excludes finished goods containing aluminum exclusions that are entered unassembled yeah but the thing is the easiest way to do it seems to me the common sense way to have written something is to say finish the kids are excluded but the but it has to finish so they're saying even though it's a finished good kit we're going to call it something else is that the way you're considering the order yes i've no doubt this could have been written better we certainly have knowledge that we wouldn't be here today if the language wasn't in some part a little bit confusing but the we think that the best way to read that language is all three sentences together first it's as a kid that contains aluminum extrusions which suggests that there is some some part that is not an aluminum extrusions that we have the package combination of parts and we we can see that with the aluminum extrusions and the fasteners that means that definition and then the third sentence which is that it won't be considered a therefore excluded merely by including fasteners such as screws or bolts the problem with the interpretation that the trial court adopted is essentially lets the exclusion rule the scope because then slate and to reconsider any arguments that meridian wanted to make meridian did not revive the argument about that about brackets and so our argument was and trial court agreed in the first instance that that argument had been waived when the court extrusions were sufficient to become excluded merchandise so our argument here is we do believe that argument's been waived and reading can't revive it before the before this court but in any and then we believe essentially reading this language would create a an even result so for example trim carpet trim which is identified as subject merchant base if that were imported  by itself and the consumer is directed to go to their hardware store and pick up some screws that subject merchandise but if the if the screws are included in the packaging with the carpet trim that now becomes out of scope excluded merchandise and that can be the result that it leads to an even results and in one circumstance that centrally the same subject merchandise will become out of scope at the same issue we have here at the product here is subject merchandise plus fasteners extraneous materials which i can discuss briefly but we don't even understand the trial court to be making the argument that the right of the ranch or the instruction booklet would be sufficient to to render a product to be excluded merchandise under this particular exception when at best when the trial court offered was an alternative interpretation and in that circumstance i've you know we appeal this decision because we believe that the trial court committed a reversible error of the law but as a practical matter certainly this particular language of the finished goods kid exclusion has been the language that  has invited the most school ruling requests for commerce and as well as litigation before the court of international trade so we do believe it's an important question for that for the court to address initially remanded that determination to commerce we laid out our arguments for why that was wrong we said that's not so because brackets aren't fasteners and covers are in fact they're not fasteners and instructions and the tool for assembling the very good that we're talking about are not extraneous and congress again said no we're not buying this line of argument at that point as to those issues about the brackets and the other tools there's nothing left for us to say now in the second remains con did draft redetermination to the parties in the administrative proceeding below and what it said was it was very very explicit it said we're making our decision consistent with the court's instruction to evaluate what working with something like this was in reference to the ban or stand rulings in the drapery real kit rulings in these sorts of things and they said we're making that decision notwithstanding the fact that you are just a collection of extrusions and fasteners an extraneous things in other words they said that's off the table we think you already lose on that ground we've already told you why so this is the thing we're talking about now and by the way they gave us four and a half days to respond to that they should that at midday on a thursday and said your comments are due tuesday in the first paragraph of our response of our comments below we said given the time frame we're providing abbreviated comments and what we dress was the analysis that they let laid out in their region from a nation we said the way you're considering what it means to work with something or what it means to be customiz able doesn't make sense to us they then take that into account expand their redetermination filing before the court and then come along and say that we would waive the issues about the finished products kids and what a bracket what the significance of a bracket in a ranch and all these other things are we never waived any of those issues and in fact after that we did that after those comments were filed in court we filed a notice of supplemental authority because of an intervening case that had been decided the newer made decision and again pointed out why it should be conversations to say on this issue of extraneous material says look it's not incorporated into the final item then it's extremes that completely undercuts the notion of what a kit is if you buy a modeling kit and it has an exacto knife in it that you used to do it it's not to corporate it into the final from the example we used in our papers was a a painting kit that included the brushes or crocheting kit that includes approaching needles none of these things are going to be incorporated into whatever your ultimate result into products but of course they're part of the because now we no longer just have a collection of extrusions you fasteners now we have extrusions and fasteners and a chunk of steel and everything is fine and so this this item status is a finished product it turns on the composition of one of these panels there's no basis to think that the petitioner's are commerce ever intended that sort of a result and it's a very strange result because we haven't we haven't changed anything about the way the kit is assemble we haven't change anything about the way that it's sold the way that it's used we've just switched from one piece being aluminum to one piece being steel and  call it a kit which of course is not what we have at the core doesn't have any more questions for meal yield the rest of my time thank congress that when congress pacifically addresses the issue of brackets it refers to the installation booklet where in the brackets the booklet explained that the brackets quote attached to the angle end of each side trim and are secured by murty and provided as well as the definition of a fastener that meridian provided with respect to the extraneous material what we're really looking at what the with the scope of language is so whatever  colloquially call a kid is not really what we're talking about we're talking about does the product contain a package combination of parts and whatever the wrench or the instruction booklet or the hinge covers are they're not doors with glass or vinyl picture frames with glass pane and all of those examples include significant not all women and extrusion component so it's reasonable for congress to interpret this parallel exclusion as also having that particular