amendment that's not necessarily the result you want of what i would contend is that the two statues can be read together and that actor and client similarly situated in fact satisfied thirteen thirteen thirteen thirteen are won does not require claimants to playing drawback per se but any set theory of time they require claimants to complete their claims within a period of time that period of time is within three years and the date of exportation the completion of the claims which is what our one requires must be accomplished within three years and must be based upon the laws then in effect to determine whether the claims are complete in this case lose on the statute even if we reject your construction because you use still did what was necessary to file a claim under the regulations your honor we did everything we  for one to statute and one that even if your construction of the statute is rejected you still win because you complied with the three year provision that's correct i don't know if i would stay that way on why not which statute things with the first place are we are are even if we reject your argument with respect to our right we agree with the government you're still saying we satisfied the three year requirement under the regulation now correct but i would say that the three year requirement is are i don't distinguish between the two the government has taken the the statute are and it's answer to distinguish between claim for import duties and dollar about a but if by if i'm attempting to include harbor make new taxes in the fees then the calculation going to be different because i'm going to win clued the amounts a b and c correct no requirement that you submit the calculation with respect to packages that are associated with the correct your honor not only was it a requirement but the structure of the regulations was to prevent such calculations from submission to submit such calculations would have resulted in an excessive duty refund amount refund amount but basically what you're saying is that we're calculation that whole subsection b of the regulation is returning to calculation of the duty and it and not telling you what you have to do with respect to the associated tack i would say correct although i would infer from one of the one three b as well as instructing us not to claim taxes and fees for to do so would result in an excess of claim amount in excess of clear amount is an incorrect amount by regulation incorrect amount least when incomplete claim for our one services and incomplete were ruling other sections of that were regulation but was assuming they would still a potty and therefore the retroactive benefit would not be available to everybody but only to people who complied with those other provisions which include the three year limit on men three year than on a plane completion and i agree with that position what else could it mean what else could it possibly mean could it mean that congress intended that only those claimants who ignored the regulations and despite the prohibition to tax if the refunds submitted tax if a refund requests at the risk of ninety nine ninety nine so why couldn't you within three years then have amended your entries and claims to add t it maybe defeat recoverable i was very close to this export decision we've been doing this for a long time i will say that that raises a couple of other points as well the rights to recover years earlier be responsible for knowing what changes would come down the pike more than three years after their exports they're all about the fee you have a different argument and a much stronger argument as to the harbor makin be you're on notice back in ninety nine that the fee was claimable you were within three years of export and therefore you could have amended but you didn't demand so it through the fee why why couldn't we say too late didn't act in time to preserve your position well it to the extent that we were then three years from export in november ninety nine when tech support came out it did not submit to the government seeking fees there may be a point there i haven't done that breakdown of analysis in the death of the harbor maintenance pact you seem to be thing that the first part of the  zero four the date of the amendment right and i guess i'm understanding you to say here poured the other provision in order to include anybody off can't be bound by the three years that right know you're not to say that i'm sorry four trade act i still win at your argument because i file in a timely way regardless of the two thousand and four trade act because the calculation requirement doesn't apply to tax calculations only applied to duty calculations i would agree with that position by r and b it's a it doesn't follow as neatly from the structure of the regulation statute but the calculation requirement is that when we buy these cla trading let's assume you're right about ok it still seems to me that you've got a problem because you're relying in terms of saying that the three year statute run your row wanting on this regulation which is quoted at page thirty of the blue brief and you're saying they didn't make the calculation that was necessary to comply with the three your stature the problem i'm having is when you read that subsection of the regulation referring to the calculation i think it's ambiguous as to whether it's referring a to the calculation of duties only or whether it's be referring to the calculation including duties and taxes both so help me has his customs construed its own regulations requirement flies to all duties taxes and fees that are being requested for the requests about importer the right to make sense whether they couldn't get it previously because it wasn't that need to be north of pax were comparable right and you can read this regulation is saying you have to make a calculation of the duty and if you claim anything more than the duty we're going to reject your calculation construe the calculational harm does that apply to the empire claim duties plus tax or does it apply only to the dude how do we know if i conclude that this regulation is unclear on its face where and what custom said there is that the reason that there is a calculation is it customs is not going to be responsible for telling the importer what it is owed under and in how can they be faulted for failing to submit a calculation that included the fees as though they sat around and did nothing they submitted some documents on their own and they're saying well you didn't comply with three years to answer because for one reason and one reason only and that you didn't submit the calculation right it way to interfere but that is not the only reason that you say that you should prevail on this point is that they had to submit a calculation that included the fees and taxes correct that's correct but but they've got all of that argument as to why that should not be them but i say put aside the two thousand portray that you still have to get us to agree with your interpretation of calculation as applying not just to the duties headquarters ruling that was cited her reason because customs as currently stipulated several judgments in the court of international trade based upon the two thousand and four trade at that there were a class of importers who either were still within  this regulation meant that you had to submit a calculation that included both doing some tax not that it's clear that if i had filed in ninety supposed court that change customs you would said well actually the fees are equal and i think very hard you know you either want them to do something that's nonsensical and futile well or you want them to have guess what this court might do when it finally decides to pick an appeal that celia a very hard position for the government was it was its own third alternative or am i right that those are the only two justifications for  time and if you think the i r s is wrong you've got to preserve the argument and the same thing presumably is true and customs but in order to require people to preserve their argument you've got to have some language in the regulation and the problem is if you look at page thirty of the blue bre that the the first sentence if that's what was regulation said you'd be in good shape it says draw back  required to correctly calculate the amount of the draw back to if it stopped there you have a good or you got a correctly calculated drawback the fact that customs disagrees with you isn't you know a reason to eliminate the calculation the problem is you go on and read the rest of this regulation and it seems to be referring only to the count deletion of duties and it says if your draw back line is more work than ninety nine percent or one hundred percent in some cases we're going to reject it which seems to say that the calculation required doesn't extend to things other than dubious it doesn't extend to taxes and p that's the problem well i guess i would i would say the same things over again so i don't want to repeat it too many times but when the second sentence says it the amount of traffic present will generally be ninety five percent of the import duties eligible for a drop back and would preserve their claim but even if the support doesn't agree with us on that position if the court agrees with us on the position with respect to the two thousand and four trade act that's the end of the story no that's not true you can win on the any we didn't comply because we have we submitted the entry we submitted the associated documents and your argument that we have to submit a calculation that includes of these you simply want we did what we needed to do to preserve the point even under your reading of the two thousand and four trade act well that argument that they prefer there's no preservation of the claim because there is no request to customs within three years of export position but that's the decision that congress has i don't care whether it's harsh or not i'm trying to find a language that says they have to do that you can't just make it up out of the ear you've got to find it in your regulation you're saying you're regulation require calculation show me where that calculation applies to the taxes and pieces opposed to the doing it's comes from the first sentence in that in that regulation says you must correctly calculate the amount of drug that to you and generally this is going to be then the regulation to further explain how to calculate and p f but that's consistent with the prior requirement that customs will only refund what the importer asks for customs is not responsible for determining if there is anything supplemental or extra that the importer might be i don't understand that they haven't asked for it for whatever reason do you agree that non compliance with the regulation on page thirty of the move three is critical to your petition for you to get in the firm that it would have the requirement simply because this court has to assume that thirteen thirty are and how customs has interpreted there to want to include the you know all the documents the calculations everything in their regulations that congress intended that question that that that we do we know that congress knows how to revive stale claims and permit claims that were not previously and he complied with three requirement of filing when in three years that if elsewhere in orca's he did file it will go on trying to figure out whether if we agree with him only to duties and not to feel it so then we entered yet we have to agree with you on your interpretation of the regulation in order to affirm minutes are required to correctly calculate the amount of the drawback do you agree that if the regulations stop after the first sentence that you'd have to submit a calculation that included both duties client correct but when i saw make my hypothetical let's assume the regulations stop after the first sentence you would have to submit under that person the calculation including fees and tax right ok right i will say that the rest of that paragraph didn't strive to you're not my question yes or get the rest to address yes you agree if it stopped at the end of the first paragraph you'd have to submit a claim that included the duty and the taxes and the feet to the extent you want to i can answer that without adding language to it to know you've been able to that we have hypotheticals i mean ask you to answer a hypothetical i would say that we stop after the first sentence i would say one of the corrects copulation is based upon the law in effect at the time it would have been incorrect for us to submit claims for taxes and fees at the time we filed the threat does not necessarily complete everything imaginable we can't imagine what's going to come down the pike years from now how could we be required to submit taxes each not elations to make out accusations correct i don't work reckless what all right i think we understand your