they did not stop there because commerce misunderstood it was reserved for here meaning despite being presented with decades of cases about what those terms mean we took the paces from the c i t and there were i believe all of them classification decisions why did we use classification decisions in a talking scope or because they're not a lot of time in scope cases out there classify goods coming in and what those terms mean so we were saying you know it's classified in such a way under the tariff schedule and therefore you should find that it's either in scope or out of those flavors that the different flour cooking oil onions bell peppers tomatoes seasonings blah blah blah is going to permeate the fish you can never extract it from the fish again you can never recover fish it's not a preservative in the sense of preserving the product it has changed the product exactly and how do you get the salt stew and  commerce seems to have a pretty good they says in fact for its determination that this is no longer crawfish per se it's something different well i'm not challenging the facts like so much  would you say for example that if you if the author covered crawfish tails and the product in question was crawfish gumbo that it would be covered well maybe but i think wheat that is exactly the type of problem commerce has right and in the commerce that's the kind of problems to which commerce seems to me gets a great deal of breadth of discretion to make those kinds of judgments which discretion is respected by the ca t and we're just revealing at the second level the c i t's determination as to the question of the exercise of discretion it's hard for me to see suspect you'd be there be no way for you to lose i would you wouldn't last in the c i t but it doesn't so there's clearly an open question here it seems to me i don't see why that's not a question which commerce is intitled to answer either way had it said one way is ruled in your favor you know any effort on the part of the coastal to come to us might have had just as a difficult second what way is a completely different and i think that's what we were just discussing with judge bryce and i it's you've changed this product into something quite different their call whether that changes the week red character or just a putting ice on crawfish to hold it but all they said was that changes occur first full well he says transformed into a different in product in order to be repair preserve as c r t cases indicate there has to be a change so you can't consistently with the expressed terms of the scope rule out the possibility of that change commerce after crawfish unless i am a good chef as you say in which case i'm going to do an awful lot with bill peppers and flour and and marination and whatever else happens actually quite easy that's not on the court right i mean other words the it if the agency is saying x then we can review the agency on any basis other than what the agency has chosen right that's right ok however into that statute which governs very clearly only the court of international trade that we should really do something we should repeat the the entire review of the records that the c i t has already done that does that make any sense as a as a matter of judicial economy as well as just  does that make any sense i know that this been discussed in a few cases in the court as in the past contemplated the difficulties of this but i'm wondering if the government's given let me ask you a more direct question if the court if this court wish to reconsider its standard of review in dumping cases would the government want is relevant to this case isn't because it does potentially put in play a different set of circumstances a potential to generate problem your response to why there isn't a general problem in standard review deletion certainly it would have to well it will be a question of whether i don't think this will be an ideal case because their home is hard to find out if you know the cases but tell tell us why it wouldn't be examining the entire record rather than us reviewing the entire record are something you have to correct you have to be a little careful about what you wish for here because if you and the government occasionally sits over there as opposed to over there the idea cases and if you're sitting over there make a determination of whether the product falls within it unlike a customs classification case where congress has written to harmonize tariff schedule income and congresses intent is actually an issue here there's no question it's one if you think all of that there your opposing counsel cited a number of cases involving different types of mostly food products being exclusively through products that have been modified in various ways do you think do you think all of tomatoes certainly not and tomato sauce the kind of stuff that you poor over spaghetti if it's meatless tomato sauce would that be tomatoes if we i guess your answer is congress could make up their mind and then we look at the language if you cannot resolve the question without doing violence to the essential plain meaning of the terms in scope language you have a problem if your congress certainly on the question of h standard review based on correct should that you look at it absolutely i'm asking about what it should be if this court were to reconsider