isn't you that is the dispute here between whether or not if the initial action was not substantially testified that sufficient to establish that the government's position is not substantially the premedication activities by commerce in conjunction with the litigation here establish a substantially unjustified position that the weight everything together and at the end of the day here the scale the initial position taken by commerce of the government is not justified then no matter what they do with medication and how justified independently the litigation positions may be they knew their position is not just right and i understand but i want to go to the first one and my understanding it right when you say she didn't apply the proper legal standard i don't understand it did that they really mean is that the legal standard that i just said which is she didn't arguments but she chose not to but if you can and need your submission in order to do what you're at least advocating as the appropriate analysis of the underlying facts and what happened will you do you will be resetting this back to her or t pay the forty five percent they should get a lesser amount which i think is confidential so i won't say what it is but it's in minimal amount by comparison and congress this yes all of these folks should get this minimal amount and they write in order to customs instructing them inadvertently left them on the list page j a six twenty six so there's an acknowledgement it seems to me that there inadvertently left off and that's and yet it isn't corrected and this is all prior to the two thousand liquidation they didn't the had months many months in which this issue squarely presented to them when they could have corrected the situation before the liquidation occurred now why that's significant is the whole reason you argued to us there was no jurisdiction was already we can't there's no jurisdiction  liquidation already occurring but what about the fact that they notified you of the error prior months prior to the litigation and the government did nothing why isn't that a really important aspect of whether or not the government's behavior was substantially irrelevant it's a government or with brought to your attention to the time where you could correct it easily and it wasn't corrected and then once the goods liquidated then you raised what might be a substantially justified no jurisdictional argument but that's only because you waited was clear that there was an error and why does it matter again whether it was a customs error comers there if you're all part of the same government because basically going back to it's not clear that congress can always fix their errors in this case it whether or not it was a reasonable one can you meet therefore what that means it's not always easy to compare the different stages of litigation and come up with one overall determination what the government was just and that's what together and reach one overall determination so what happens if she thought if we find that the original content was unreasonable and then the litigation positions are reasonable what happened is that entirely within the discretion of evaluate whether or not i mean it seems to me perhaps she didn't make any but i mean can you point me to what she told her what she concluded with respect to the premedication conduct in terms of whether it was reasonable or unreasonable  and find that it was competence contempo substantially justified is she a lie now to do that what about if she had found that this portion of it was exceedingly unreasonable and therefore notwithstanding that there w that's enough to avoid the attorney for the century it's not our position that's necessary and our view but this question for the trial judge to assess the way and it certainly is relevant whether the government with acting  a great defense of well it wasn't may not have been clear to them but there i see no declaration from anyone in commerce or customs to suggest any of that so given the record as it exists do you think that portion of the government's behavior was reason error we have notification to government here and we have failure to correct it in a timely fashion which could be avoided this entire litigation do you personally think that's reasonable government behavior i don't see how you could say it is think it's a reason of this entire suggestion that congress didn't know anything about it didn't know that there was an error he could fix it all came from government councils testimony in his each application or speech or government council