correct ok you can begin whenever you're ready please the court the question presented in this case is the proper tariff classification of the four facts group training group laminate flooring the crux of the party's dispute is whether chapter forty four no four excludes the imported articles from the fiberboard heading forty four eleven because the articles have been upgraded to the point that their classifiable and or another heading its builders joinery and are heading forty four eighteen the government concedes the chapter known for excludes some products from hitting forty four eleven by virtue of their inclusion in another heading the question as the extent of that exclusionary note with faust maintaining that any operation that gives an article the character of another heading excludes it from forty four eleven and the government maintaining that only those operations not enumerated in the chapter refers to any operation that is any of the enumerated operations or any of it any other operation such that the effect of the chapter no that is to say that if an operation is performed on a fiber board article that gives it the character of another heading the article is classifiable in the other heading and not in forty four level i wouldn't a grammatical reading of chapter notes or suggest that it actually refers to the phrase may be worked try reading it that way rectangular or any other operation provided it does not give them the care it the working does not give them the power why doesn't that make he sure better construction sense than trying to to either any other operation or form to shape or those other trades your honor that that construction would leave out the clause submitted to any other operation and we would read words to form those shapes that are numerated as well as submitted to any other operation to be the things that the pronoun it refers to there wouldn't be any particular reason for it to refer to but her works and not to the words not to the verb submitted well if it refers to maybe work it would incorporate all the other language that follow  or submitting it to any other operation presumably physical operation on the prop right that's right your honor and that construction be consistent with his position it would also be consistent with the obvious function of the chapter note which is to distinguish certain raw materials in intermediate products which are not described in other headings from those that are if we just if we agree with the government's construction of no four is that when you have an alternate theory upon which we could will in your favor and yes yes your honor if the government's construction of chapter note four were correct there are two theories and  which we would prevail the first is that there isn't an enumerated operation namely a lamination which does give this flooring the character of heading forty four eighteen we describe it in our brief that it couldn't be used for the finishing of a building it hadn't been laminated that's clearly not in operation listed in chapter note four and so under their construction the it exclusive effective chapter note for would government site and its three and iran are and what particular part of forty four point a will it seems to be it's similar to know or are right but you know it talks about there cover where submitted to any other operation i mean it's reading seems a little more consistent with the one that you'd like us to give to no four seems to me well your honor we think that the n twenty four eleven supports us generally speaking in two ways one is by replacing the word with the term viz operations which in our view refers to all the operations that preceded it another government's reading if everything that not enumerated is within the scope of the proviso we then have additional things in numerated in explanatory note forty four eleven which are not within the scope of the proviso which we believe undermines the governor reading reading of chapter no for another reason then are getting a chapter no four is correct your hon is that in addition to serving the obvious purpose of providing a line of demarcation between articles that are classifiable in other headings on the one hand or in or upgraded materials on the other and we note in the brief that the government's theory would be an irrational application of that rule in which you would be in the other heading if certain operations applied but not when other operations applied and there's no particular reason to believe that the drafters would have thought that some operations that would that equally advance a product to the finished article heading should have a different result than other operations  also when we read chapter notes for in conjunction with chapter no three which specifies that articles classifiable and heading forty four eleven should be should be there whether they are made  or of one of the nine would substitute such as fiberboard that result would obtain every time under our reading a chapter not for and only some of the time under the government's reading and the government's reading you would only classify wood and non wood products the same way under heading forty four eighteen if the non wood product got to forty four eighteen as a result of an operation enumerated in chapter note for if it got to five if it was took on the character of heading forty four eighteen as a result of an operation that was a numerated in chapter note for and of the government's reading that article would stay in forty four eleven and you would have an anomalous result such as you do actually in the context of this particular product laminate flooring the government is saying tongue in group flora should be under forty four eleven whereas a finished solid would hang in group flooring the government classifies under forty four eighteen we respectfully submit that that result is completely inconsistent an exemplar that's listed in the text of forty four eighteen but the language of forty four again contrary to what the government is arguing simply uses the word including to list several exemplars it in no way limits forty four eighteen to the particular items listed as exemplars and we would respectfully submit on the definition of forty four eighteen it's well supported by the dictionary definitions and by the explanatory note forty explanatory note forty four point eight teen the government really doesn't come up with a coherent contrary definition of forty four eighteen they do argue that it's limited to the exemplars in the heading but there is absolutely no support in the in the text of the heading for that they also say it's limited to articles that are not classifiable elsewhere and there is absolutely no support in the heading we believe our interpretation is correct but even if you believe that note for you there ambiguous or that appellant's interpretation has some merit you shouldn't apply their interpretation because aras is the only one that doesn't quite hold  that's concedes that applying note four in the way they suggest would in fact y provisions out of the statute but they don't see a problem with that because those the provisions that would be wiped out are subheadings specific provisions covering goods that fall within the dictionary definition of joinery and are used in buildings the manner in which these provisions of chapter forty four as well as other chapters have been laid out know mr jarkko indicates that there is no support that forty four eighteen was intended to be limited that way in the text of the heading in the context there is a lot of support for that there are terror provisions that would be investigated if you were to accept thousands and her patient of note for now let's say we i'm having a little trouble i mean let's say we accept your grammatical of five or but it's gets it's provided for in forty four eleven understood your question correctly if it undergoes one of those specific operations or another operation and that operation does not give it the character of an article i mean other heading then yes it remains in forty four eleven and that really has to be the way it is because especially in chapter forty four you do have provisions headings that compass materials but you also have those same provisions in compassing articles made in those materials now some of those articles would fall into the very broad category of joinery for example in forty four zero nine you have specific prevent  not one of the one of the surface covering operations provided or for products and forty four are not so it's not true and mr jackson misspoke a little but i believe what he said that we seem to always put time group solid wood flooring in forty four eighteen that depends upon the operations which which has they have the flooring has undergone in order to create that product this service gets only lawyers could enjoy this discussion eight or any of these other provisions that zero right there is particular problem there that is to say other of the other seems to me to be a somewhat ambiguous category help me understand one thing five before i should say fiberboard of what it is all three under the employ hertz of the exception of other other other which happens to turn out to be six percent  like you our job is to reach the correct result and classify merchant i look at it and certainly fans wouldn't be here if their duty rates for forty four eleven and the duty rates for forty four eighteen were the same no nor would i because we are defendant and i have to defend my client ok getting back there actually you're right there is no provision that specifically covers laminated ords of this type of fire border forty four eleven twenty nine actually in compass is laminated boards for a different density of fiber aura so forty four eleven does cover this is a poorly drafted piece of document for deciding his case wrong right respectfully disagree i'm glad said that guy because the fact that there was a laminated boards provision put into the h t s us in for a different density certainly does not indicate that  that this density of fire board has no home and forty four left and the other provision clearly and compass is other fiberboard of that density and it certainly covers process fiberboard because it's specifically allows for per specific processes in note four yes but on the other hand it doesn't there's nothing in forty four eleven that specifically deals with the density of product that he trying to with materials provision forty four i believe in that case is forty four twelve which i don't tell you how do you hear similar provision in forty four eighteen had been in the running this court recognize that originally  forty fourteen was was an issue and found none the less that that product had not undergone any processing that would take it out of the the neck a supply would provision so this product is very much covered by the language of forty four eleven it's five words of the right density it is bonded with resins it is surface covered as allowed by an additional us note once  is not undergone any any operation including lamination which is provided for an additional us no one say that is that would remove it from forty four eleven and in order to put it into forty get well as help me understand this why would all those other fiberboard products be free but other other other would be six percent what is the annoying policy that is trying to reach by most likely been classified as a building board under the ts us and in fact it was the forty four eleven twenty nine was carried over pretty much intact from the building boards provision of the us i don't know why it wasn't i have no idea why it wasn't carried over specifically with that language into forty four eleven nineteen but it doesn't really need to be since there is an other provision that would encompass on anything us oh i have some time remaining assuming perhaps that you agree with the court of international trade and you believe that with g r i three a relative specificity analysis is in order here before i even get to that fifty i just wanted to note that judge poland put together a definition of builders joinery that which is not a bad way of putting it did things in the definitions excuse me he excluded parts of the dictionary definitions he looked at for example big diff generic definitions indicated joinery can be furniture furniture is specifically provided por in chapter nine or he didn't put that into his final definition but it's joinery so there are provisions in other chapters that would also be nullified if the real stairs is included as an example in the explanatory notes and stairs are our structural good product joint reserve very broad category doesn't describe a particular product  having when you give heed to all the statutory language and the relevant legal notes you should find that products such as flooring were never meant to be encompassed by the claimed heading by forty four eighteen that that's really a sense of  provision for products that don't fall in earlier provisions or that are not specifically named like parquet panels so you should find that only g r i want to now say it's required if you disagree however you should find that dum them into the meaning of headings that the court's analysis in orlando food and other cases which have strictly set up an analytical framework to to analyze the language of headings first  before going on to subheadings it is very significant here and it's not a matter of simply asking the court to put its blinders on you can actually reach different results depending on your motive analysis in this case as we explain under the chapter notes and the headings you would end up in forty four eighteen what then if you then went back to some of these subheadings that the government talks about what then would they mean what they would mean would be what they would cover would be products that are not within the scope of heading forty four eighteen an example would be these fiberboard subheadings that talk about surface covering or lamination lamination is a process of sticking two things together service covering is a process of putting something on top of another not all surface cover letter laminations render a product usable for the interior finish of a building as it would have to be to be classifiable under heading forty four eighteen so for each of the examples that the government would use through its subheadings to try to undermine phalluses analysis in our brief we always come up with an answer to those examples that is whatever they describe they describe things that are not within the scope of having forty four eighteen and moving on to the relative specifics of the analysis which is discuss thoroughly in the briefs what the government continues to ignore and using phrases like an arrow or are roger to describe these two headings is the test from orlando food that the court has establish well established here which is that the heading that is hard it satisfy is the one when the court is breaking the tie between two headings it's the one that applies and the government really has never responded to our two major arguments on that point the first being that it is mandatory under forty four eighteen to have processing of a product whereas under forty four eleven it's only permissive not mandatory you could have a process products you could have and process products under forty four eleven not so under forty four eighteen under direct analogy to their or lando case itself in which the court held that a process tomato product was and that that was a more specific heading than an unprocess tomato product the same rationale would apply here in addition forty four eighteen is a heading which is limited by use and must be used by builders in the construction of a building whereas the fiberboard heading is not limited by use that is another means it could be used in the construction of a building it could be an automobile that words it could be in furniture and a lot of other things under the government's construction of chapter no four and so we would respectfully submit that because a the heading forty four eighteen is narrowed by use that is another reason that it is harder to satisfy and therefore more specific under relative specificity analysis thank you the final case in which we hear the argument this morning is number