willing and then going on to the issue of mootness and less your honour's would prefer that i start the other way around no i think that's fine thank you the products at issue in this case are the steel threaded rod components and star pipes joint restraint kit these camps are not a mere aggregation of disparate items packaged together each of the components in the kit interacts and fits with the other to create a unique article of commerce these products are used in the water and wastewater industries to connect and secure pipes and bolt together pipe joints the products in these products the castings are the essential components of the kit both by weight and by value and the other products the bowls the not factors and the h g s that were used these were are all criteria that were outlined under step two of the continent so all of these were things that palmer commerce when issuing a final scope or they should have considered all of these  the published guidance is clear and provides clarity and some kind of generally applicable criteria or a bright line rule that was my understanding and my out understanding was mid continent went further and said these prior that the k two factors are key to criteria it was necessary and required to consider them in a mixed media analysis and commerce did not do that there but we ended up affirming the scope ruling and saying two criteria is not required because the pencil scope rulings that were being relied on by walgreen's just don't have sufficient clarity so can how can you help me through this because i'm just trying to read these two opinions and to me they reject in my view any position that these pencil scope rulings provide some kind  of clear guidance on how to handle mixed media cases and so therefore as i understand these opinions they they say these pencil rulings don't provide that kind of clear guidance and now we're hearing from mid continent that to overcome the presumption that components such as these still threaded rod components in these kits are outside of the order we need to see something that's clear in preexisting guy published guidance and and as i understand these two opinions they take away from you the reliance on the pencil sco this back to the language of the regulate regulations that apply in this process especially to the fifty one point two five k now i understand that to say that when the above necessary to go beyond k one and it pointed to to well st it started with the fact that of course even you conceded that in the absence of the kit these products would be within the scope of the order and then it pointed to the fact that the original scope ruling specifically referenced products that can be used in waterworks applications which is exactly the purpose of these kits right you go to k two when it cannot be determined based soley on the application and the descriptions of the merchandise referred to in paragraph one of the section so there is an implicit acknowledgement by initiating the case that you're supposed to go to take two and that's particularly here where the part prior published guidance which is used prior scope buildings all of them went to teach to so at a minimum we think we and and also start high presented evidence under the kitchen factors under substantial evidence  other issue here is whether star pay claims concerning retroactive assessment of duties are moot because the entries have liquidated and very simply it of they are not moot because they are not moot because these entries are live and due to a prior that was filed in this case based on the regulations and the court's decisions on united steel and fasteners and sunscreen the law is very clear that if customs has not previously suspended liquidation duties may only apply from the date of initiation in this what counsel can slow down a little bit what's your response are you the government's argument that you waived this point there is no so there was no waiver because this issue came up for the st time on oral arguments at the trial court just want to make sure i understand your position or are you saying that if we were to entertain your argument and and read the order as being limited to duties on all point you would be relieved of having to worry about ever having customs come after you for duties on premiss usually imports or that it would they still would have that option just as they would in in any other situation in which after a scope ruling post initiated imports are assigned duties yes so  you understand what i'm asking i thought i did but if you could we say that i'm ok to make sure i'm ok one more time let's say we give you what you want and ok read the order and say of course the order only relates to imports after the initiation of the scope inquiry for purposes of what's going on here in this proceeding in this appeal we're only talking that order only goes to imports after the initiation ok are you saying then that if we were to do that interpretation then you would never have to worry any more about customs coming after you for duties potential possibility regardless of how we construe this particular order to go after you for for duties for pre negotiation import well i guess there there there there could be a so there could be a five minute or two action i suppose but because of l three if you if we get a ruling on retroactivity here there should be no there should be no duties as a matter of application of commerce's regulation and one of the points of dispute here is that start fights position would be that this court in mid continent now which was a decision issued in response to an appeal by us by the government and impose any dumping duty orders on them innocent amount of nails and this court and the continent recognized the minister ability concerns that congress had said it's too bad you don't need to follow the law you need to follow the plain language of your scope and whether they focused on the kid as a whole it was outcome determinative of congress decided to focus on the kid of the whole it would be excluded every time he felt like there was no notice in the language of the order that there was nothing when there was there was no public notice that like mid continent uses k y on potentially twice in two different contexts as i understood it it st looked at the nails inside of that too kit and tried to figure out where those was there's something in big us about the border as to those now and because the nails fit the description of the nails in the order  you know under the standard look at the order look at k one and there was nothing ambiguous and everyone agreed that the nails fell within the literal terms of the order and then mid continent does an interesting thing so in the ordinary course of things that would be the end of the inquiry but for mixed media mid continent says well because it's part of this larger ki nails inside of a mixed media is that should be excluded and then the answer to that question was no and then mid continent says ok so now there's a presumption and the only way you can overcome the presumption is anything you've got that shows pre established clear guidance on how to deal with mixed media i would overcome this presumption now in that sense there i guess what i'm trying to ask is do you read mid continent as it's kind of going back to k one and thinking about k one a nd time around for when it comes to mixed media mccarthy you're out of time but i just really want to get quickly to the nd issue is this case sure thank you is there any is there any real debate here that the order doesn't include pre initiation import i mean don't you agree that the most reasonable reading and maybe the only reasonable reading is that it doesn't include cream machine imports because you didn't quite come out and say it in your red brief that the government agrees that you know that this water does not compass and could not compass pre negotiation import that's all we've never said that this argument regarding mid continent with regard to the government's argument that we said that mid continent doesn't apply in our initial scope ruling that is true we made that statement in our initial scope willing to drop the argument counsel did you make the argument that mid continent was wrongly decided we made that statement but we use the analytical framework in the continent even in that initial scope building and then when commerce initiated the school building we dropped that position and understand in light of the decision in mid continent how you can say that mid got cabinet mandates mckay to analysis in every instance so in in in that's correct in those cases in every single instance point greedy that there was a presumption of inclusion based on the description of the product and even based on the description of the potential uses for that product but you're saying you continent when that presumption arises you know the government keeps kind of ending its analysis that that presumption but that's not what the continent said mid continent said ok if there is a presumption you can overcome it by the prior published guidance you can overcome it by looking at the cases factor the issue is so the issue that needs to be addressed is whether the argument is moot because the entries liquidated and it is not moot this is not an advisory opinion because there is a prior disclosure that has kept these entries alive and that