move now no it is not your honor today is the deadline for any parties to seek cert in that opinion of the court we have not received a notice the i t c has initiated yet they have a and issue the antidumping orders no it's not needed in ten days and we could have two anti dumping orders on the books at the end of of this process because congress has no authority to revoke the court imposed anti dumping order we are under the would not change whether this court affirmed or reverse in any practical sense other than that this one of the two authors would evaporate into the ether and no your honor how would there be a practical difference but the practical difference is that the that the statutory scheme that is implemented by the issuance of an anti dumping order takes effect on the date that the order is issued we have had for the past always what let me see i think i understand what you're saying what you're saying is that as far as the future is concerned the two words are identical but if the mean damus imposed order is sustained that will mean that the cash that my understanding that rightly partially yes if a new order if the court vacates the antidumping order that the trade court imposed the commerce would return back those orders refund the cash deposits there's no it there's no way that you're saying if that order the reverse that the cash deposits can be reached well the cash deposits those though they would have to be they would have to be refund and then we would start again with the new order but the practical effect of the revocation of the order is also that all administrative reviews that have been ongoing to date would be canceled they have to stop them we've had administrative reviews going winship or reviews and administrative reviews pursuant to the antidumping order that the court issued are scheduled to begin in november the issuance of the new order under statute would set the airlie administrative review a year from the issuance of the new order and would put an end to the ongoing administrative reviews that have been taking place until now there was no clear duty your honor and it and you know it strikes me in reading the statute that the statute seems to say that it is a file or in fact normal circumstances where there is an order issued by the international because what triggers commerce is due to publish the antidumping order and collect cash deposits is a notice of an affirmative determination under sections sixteen seventy three that is the only statute congress  deposits even though there was an appeal and no you're right now because the opinion is not a final inconclusive in this court in looking at and interpret ing section fifteen sixteen that is that the administrative handling of entries should not be altered by trade but let me say shifty of sixteen women that the liquidation lose no we do not lose because we still have to look at whether there was a clear duty exactly what the statutory language that you're relying on is because of the there are several different connected statutory provisions let me make sure i understand how you're reading each of these connected provisions first of all with respect this section now are you reading determination in that case to mean the itc's own decision or a final order in the entire case the i to see them decision ok so at that point the id is supposed to inform the commerce department of the petitioner right of its decision of its determination yes right now why isn't that the determination that under sixteen seventy three a is made by the commission of an affirmative determination that imposes on commerce the duty to isn't satisfied but look what language from you your the no vote to the specific language of the statute what language of sixteen seventy three a is not satisfied by my scenario because the courts the naria was premised on there having been a notification persona i am a sitting on that i'm saying if there is a notification from the i t c that they've made a determination do you have an obligation to act within seven days is the provision that applies to cases that are in litigation and that remember so they have to be read together and in harmony with each other and under fifteen sixteen a see what congress has that is when there is a fed at the trade court that gets remained it and or when the trade court issues a decision that is not in harmony with the agency's original determination then  c thought its decision was being compelled by the court of international trade that the decision of the court of international trade was wall and that it wanted to continue to contest that why didn't it simply say this is a right it is and it's a new determination and so it's a bit terminations looks like an ordinary final word right yes your honor so if you wanted to be something else why did the i p c c say that the i t c once the court affirmed that that's one fifteen procedure in place for doing the kind of thing that judge like suggests even though they may be well advised to devise such a procedure because that would seem to cut through the gordian knot here i provision that there is one section of that provision that deals with liquidation but there is another section that deals with what are the parties to do when there is a decision not in harmony issued by the trade court and the directive of congress says that the parties are to thank you your honor may i please the court let me try to answer some of the questions that you've been asking the way i look at the statute is you've got an administrative proceeding in the international trade commission the commerce department under sixteen seventy three the dumping law that proceeding comes to an end final negative final farmer to whatever you then go into court under fifteen sixteen a year in court this is a congress that i can't say why they did it during court it's not clear that the government is no one no it's not but i believe you know i look at it you know the administrative agencies the blueline the courts the readline and then you go back to the blueline so once the court action and congress use the word final disposition of an action you then go back to the agency and your reasoning your process and what that means in this case fancy your question from earlier is the i p c c would finalize it but it's not a federal register decision and the federal right and i think that's an important point here they have not gone forward and published it the i t c would then publish congress would publish the antidumping order and we believe as judge musgrave blow believe the special rule would kick in which would in this very unique case first one in thirty years would end up with entries the liquidation of which have been suspended under the special rule being not subject to dumping duties but  done here is not only yes i believe in a certain case they could in this particular case no but whether or not you deposit cash does not determine what happens at liquidation liquidation is just stopping a customs from liquidate from taking final action on the entries i need to be clear about this suppose suppose the we were to hold that they didn't have to to collect cash deposits there's no way they can go back  deposits are in a way not that you know they're important from an you're saying they could collect the higher duty even if there had been a cash deposit yes yes but provisional authorize that if an entry is not the commerce department would determine what amount to so there are many instances instances where i have a clients that may deposit one percent and have to pay ten percent plus interest or you may deposit ten percent and then maybe there's no dumping  back with them so you're saying that even if there is no cash deposit the government can say the end of the day here there's material injury there should have been a duty imposed and we're going to insist that you pay that duty or we li they could but here the special rule applies which would prevent it but in a special world there is a special rule when the i t c finds merely a threat of material injury and when the ip for c finds merely a threat of material injury the antidumping order is not retroactive it is only perspective from the data it was a show basically they couldn't collect in this particular instance but in almost every other instance because the writer of the earlier unfortunately for you we're dealing with this particular yes but i  this is a much bigger issue that the facts of this specific case which i think drove the c i t to its unique opinion cost and if you can't you have to look at what congress said you can't look at the facts of this case because if you look at the facts of this case you would do what the c i p did in my opinion which is to say this doesn't seem like a fair conclusion whether or not it's fair that's up to congress we just need to look at the law and i think the law here is very clear and i think the court has followed this interpretation of the law if you look at temp and you look at who's side the law is right there because of see through it i think so if you see three says when it goes back this position of the of the action not at the decision by the lower court if there had been no appeal we wouldn't be here but there has been and but i do think it's sort of the approval of the order by the court of international trade as opposed to the approval of the final appeal as a special significance right right it's an interesting point which is exactly what you raised earlier was what really what's the  that's correct your honor and i think ultimately that's the central question that this court has to answer right if the i t c made a new determination under sixteen from the three b and transmitted that to the department of commerce then there was an obligation within seven days to publish it did not do so and for the reason stated and opinion the court of international trade issued a written mandamus compelling it to do so so could this problem be solved by the  it's an interesting question i wouldn't be in a position where it's purely speculating on i'm not aware of any court decision or regulation that would provide it with that already or which  really if the i t c said we're issuing a new determination but we're doing it under duress from the court of international trade re man does that make it sixteen seventy three d determination any less of a six hundred seventy three d determination that partner commerce the publication issue the anti doping orders triggered the court below addressed this issue in regard to really almost a balance of powers the argument that being have to bend be willing to believe that the judiciary is really kind of running the agency and it's the agencies invite best of its power i think that's pretty much a stretch and i think it really holds water i think of a much more straightforward reading of the cases in the governing statutes say that liquidation determinations need a final conclusion determination ultimately by this court if there is an appeal filed because of the unique nature of liquidation it is could affect liquidation it would essentially frustrate review by this court and that can't be a problem let me see if i understand that there's a very unfortunate use i think a loose use in the statutory scheme of the term final and disposition and conclusive let me see if i understand what your position is with respect to the various uses you would say in sixteen seventy three is it the the determination of the commission is the commission's own determination without regard to anything that happens later correct yes absolutely ok and then when we get to fifteen sixteen a c three a final of this position of an action is the decision of the see id for example right not the denial of cert because that's got to be right in the context of the statute doesn't it because we're talking about the disposition consistent with the final disposition of the court that's not the final ultimate resolution of the action this is something that's in the middle that occurs in the middle of the ongoing action rector and i think what kim can refer to generally is final decisions as very final and conclusive which is when all well i can't find it right now but and i think that's what computer was trying to talk about in the other i'm sorry your go it back when it comes to liquidation issues you need a final conclusive determination because you can't undo but that court decisions from the cia that are short of liquidation must be given immediate legal effect in the absence of a stay with the exception of liquidation which can't be on and that's really where we're or the order of issues well i would think of it in a different way really but if the end pick up in order issues for a period of five years you can make the argument that this is not completely mooted in that either the antidumping order is going to difficult time following the what happens to the cash deposits and whether that pertains in what set of circumstances those in the getting just tossed into the the collected liquidated duties and what circumstances they don't this particular case would there be a financial difference depending on whether we say no the the cash deposit should never been collected oh absolutely no ok show so this case is not going to be moo complete determinations this matter turns on whether notice was actually given to the department of an affirmative by d c determination and here no one's contesting that basic fact that after of the terminations that it transmitter to copy of its determination and a letter notice to the department of commerce notifying of it its new determination statutes relatively straightforward after receiving that notice there's an obligation of publish within seven days when the department of commerce failed to do so we petition for writ of mandamus and that in your view for your response judge like would be something that's triggered by the beam in determination honor firstly poor most cash deposits are not for the benefit of the domestic industry thank benefit the government's ability to collect the revenue that is that will ultimately be due in the case and the cash and up themselves are not the final duty that is due the timken notice that we publish that congress published as a result of the notice of the decision that in harmony states clearly a mom equivocally that the duty will do disagree with with mr why the government ok and so with respect to this particular case does on the cash deposits it is going to make it a financial difference as to whether these cash deposits were properly collected or not for the ultimate collection of the venue no because the revenue will be collected based i thought you said the opposite really that prospectively there's no difference but that retrospectively there is a difference if the order were issued tomorrow it it could only be applied to entries after that they were as if the will be effective on the date of the tim can notice any entries that came in as of january of last year are covered they're protected and if i if that the language is there it protects the markings the government does now that the government is bound by that is we say that what you call the pimpin notice is an effective way to achieve this result and the other parties are right about when you join back if if the temp can notice were not involved yes then they would be right but that is not the case and for purposes of what we hope this court will do commerce and then impose that on commerce but no statute speaks to the manner in which the trade court ordered commerce to act so that is a court created a duty