action and second if not are there any restrictions on how that plays must be brought i have two primary question get to you helpful to me first of all what are we talking about here in this case is that wasn't aware of these deficiencies before it imported the product these particular deficiencies the ones in the that would have to be repaired is that what you're telling us or that you had some awareness that a number of these cause might have brake problems would have great problem based on prior statistics we were virtually certain that there would be warranty repairs on each of the vehicles that were imported on each of them and in fact the evidence and in the other cases the field shows there were sixty six now in the record shows that at the time of the ninety day limit yes you had performed about fifty percent of the repairs i would say something like that now is that fifty percent figure based on then estimate of what you expect talking about the claims now the letter please filed in this case but the protests that are subject of the other case at the time of those were filed so group of years had already been made correct but in terms of what we're other than your statistical knowledge about what percentage of cars that are imported are likely to have been there there were probably some defects that were picked up early on by the dealer before the card went to the customer so it years some specific repairs has made before the protest before and you had actual knowledge of the facts that were not yet repaired times well right actual knowledge of effects that were n effects in the car well let me see if i understand what you're telling us is that you have these causal broader than you knew that would be repaired probably some repair would be necessary you need one of these twenty four months along two to three years depending on the particular convolve so you want us to conclude that under the statute an importer has the ability to come in and get an allotment for the appraised value of what he imported for the two two or three year period absolutely but now just to make sure i understand the cars issue in this case were all repaired between ninety five and two thousand right that's what you filed the year that you sent loudly but you couldn't could you state in those programs the amount because if you tell me that you know didn't know what is a defect or any particular cause but you did know that generally with factual that you've got a statute that says the praise value is going to be the customs value unless you protest within ninety days that's to do all that is don't know what how do you get around that it's not always the rule if you look especially isn't it true that in order to get around that rule you're you're going to have to rely not on the actual valuations that you can and the letter six six years later but you're going to have to rely on this expectation that judge pro states talking about to file a protest yes you're going to have to say we can estimate that the approximate repair value is two thousand dollars per car yes the violent protest we have those figures that's correct but those are estimates they're not th and within this case because it's six years later we could actually go car by car by car by a car to do that we have a good violate the general rule of ninety days well i don't think i don't think the ins was violent in general because i don't think the general goods there are exceptions there are but it's interesting they don't have such an exception here where you know doesn't that militate against you know i think those i think know times of inflation was five customers come in and get paid on the warranty so i write a letter to customs and get my money for that and in year seven fifteen others come in and i write my letter to customs doing that and in year nine another i mean i'm perplexed a how congress clearly i think you would agree under fifteen fourteen tried to create a realistic practical officious system works under your view of one fifty eight well am i wrong about the pow the have to file a protest or is it your position yes you have to file a protest but the time on the protest doesn't run until you discover exactly what the defect in the car is i think you don't have to file a for the payments period would you have to protest that absolutely absolutely why it's a decision of the type of service having to do with the merchandise yet the protest that decision that's what i forty one fifty eight provides for allows was in fact but there's no real procedure to accommodate that outside of the ninety day statutory and the statue's just pretty flat out it's unless you file the protest within ninety days you lose that's kind of what the statute says that's what they're going to tell us in just a minute i think it's very unfair and i can we read fifty one fifty eight twelve the way you want us then why would congress have said that you could only we liquidate under the three limited categories you're essentially asking for a levy we look with a ten on anything i don't think you need  rebuttal back and if you give mrs william the yes was eight minutes beyond her fifteen so she'll have twenty three minutes if she needs to use all of that and that will keep our time all right if you need it you have that time thinking if you know what the experts are i'm could you tell me at the outset what are the governments they should have done in this case to pray to get this money back at that they didn't do what they should have done damage you wouldn't need need that provision if your only remedy is to appraise in advance discern any damage and include it upfront as the actual value of the material you would need any allowance but you don't give an allowance you just don't give them any way to get the allowance you know that that's what will come in why isn't accurate the best place yet these are these allowances aren't going to come up until the defects discovered a year you don't discover within ninety days suppose a discover within a hundred twenty days can you get another that's not an allowance that's the value of the merchandise when you bring it in congress has a fifteen fourteen there is a lot the same bring your claim within a certain period but there should there's an exception that general principle doesn't apply where what you have is a latent defect that doesn't handy years later and this is gone drop the timing of litigation liquidation i mean you said the liquidation maybe a year or two later who controls that timing not the important right the important ten because they could have serious and s answer the judge friedman is yes and your answer counselor life isn't fair let's assume there were certain kinds of latent defects like an automobile where a defect a right the one that you run it more than ten thousand  exception to forty what i was referring to is that language that's the only exception to fifteen forty except you also say in your brief granted in another section when you're talking about the jurisdictional question and you also make the point that there's no evidence they were unable to discover the damage in time to follow protests and there's no evidence they could have learned at a wall under your scenario why would that make a difference here i think he probably could have provided assuming assume he had provided conclusive evidence that there's no way he could have discovered that in time to file a protest under liquidation is that enough no it's not enough that's the problem here is the plaintiff saying not only is it always enough i don't even have  what i'm going to stop this is an absurd hypothetical but i want to find out what your answer to suppose someone important large quantity of purchases abroad he could have arguably said that there was a mistake of fact because we assumed all of these cars are going to run fine past ten thousand miles and that was a mistake a fact that they didn't think he could of course t because that that the finding in that had to do with a completely different issue and to take that completely take that context where the court did it would be a complete misunderstanding of what the  position has always been that one fifty eight point was covered by one fifteen fourteen i don't listen just that this is a new idea do you think you have the government has the authority to promulgated regulation that could account for latent defects and automobiles boats any large consumer product that is that is subject to light and defects years after read into the appraisal of value in the statute the concept yet if that is the its real value does not include latent effects it's assumed to be value its condition is important could customers have stated in the regulation after what it said is provided however that no allowance will be made for diff that's discovered after the period for a challenge to the liquidation as expired custom proposal and that is it's so open ended you can just go for ever and be discovering things five and ten years away how would you reflect a need for finality and to have some kind of real what is really the fairest thing to the here and maybe there's nothing to do about it to say that in this particular situation that you have the time within which to challenge doesn't