court to reverse the judgment of the court below and to find that the plastic sandwich bags that are at issue in this case are classified both household articles based on the clear and actually sometimes under markable evidence that sandwich bags belong to the class or kind of articles that are commonly used in and around the court below the mr all this judge just so we can be clear about what the issue is here is i and that you're making two arguments one characterization of our argument about three thousand nine hundred and twenty three dollars being limited to commercial and bulk type of transport containers that's part of the now the but i would phrase our argument as being that the sandwich bags are not of the class you lose on both of those you lose the case that right i'm just thinking that there is if you conclude that the principal use that the court below made a correct principle use  meaning things found in households rather than things used in household if we conclude that that's the definition household articles then it's not a  if you stick to just the dictionary definition and you say that it's things that are located in the home i suppose you could say these things are not household articles but even under that definition the court below with that same definition you're using just like found that these are household articles it's important member the juggalos did not say these are not household articles she wound up doing it it's not of the it's if we if we accept the definition that means articles found in the home then it's not a use provision right x i'm not sure i would concede that only because there's no such thing that would seem to be creating new laws i suppose of course the court is able to do that but that you still need to conduct the use analysis to know if something is found in the home the court's precedents clear on that you have to be brockman which we cited in our brief talks about if the adjective right the word article that household articles once or bring your articles by itself means virtually nothing that's a very broad broad description so we have the adjective household that court decision s g r thing household of the use provisions so i suppose the courts are always free to deviate from that and create a new law but it would be breaking with literally about one hundred years of precedent interpretation of what household council where might be consumed such as in and around the home and during trips away from home on picnics sporting and a spectator participation sporting event and quote the extent  well i mean it i guess one can build little to say that that's the extent of it but the court said used made reference to the youth and that combined with the other cases we cited for example of household utensils which there you look at st one of the physical characteristics of these bags and of household articles and you would see in the case of the bags here as we cited as the judge below agreed there kosher they're tested for the absence of b p a they are used with special they're made with special resins that are have to be safe for food contact as the physical characteristics about these bags are all are built around food and food is a household article that will be the st factor the nd factor which is used in the same manner as the class the evidence in the joint appendix i can provide the pages if that's useful show that the overwhelming use of these bags and the actual use of the bags is for food and storing food in the house and taking goods out of the house the expectations the open purchaser again the joint appendix is replete with evidence showing that these when someone buys one of these bags they're buying it for food storage purposes they're not buying it to carry around a bunch of paper clips work or the principal use of the bag to store food in the right it's both another words the bags are used for both purposes they're used for storing food in the home right after make a sandwich in your kitchen and you're done with that you want to put in the refrigerator you put in the bag put in the fridge it's also of course to take food to school just like the coolers and s g i were used to store things and to carry things to the court an s g i didn't say because i can carry something in there bags certainly would qualify as articles for the conveyance or packing of goods correct no i would disagree with that because assume that we really reject the commercial or transport limitation the answer to judge your mouth question with then b s no because you're defining it by saying i mean i understand why it's tempting to reach the conclusion that if you can put a sandwich in the bag and carry it to school that you're packing and conveying a good but the the the language of that provision is not that broad that if you just pack or carry something it's fault and three thousand nine hundred and twenty three how do we know that we know that because order to be a house that article isn't because you're going to carry your sandwich back to school therefore makes up for packing or conveying just something not supported by the by the history the tariff as well we pointed out the predecessor tariff which of course not binding here we acknowledge not applied to the extent that the bags are used to convey who to schools were workplaces why is it that having three thousand nine hundred and twenty three doesn't apply because you have to identify what what is that the question this sandwich bag use for packing or conveying something that would be an a or a nominee approach the question is what is the class or kind of merchandise that's falls in having three thousand nine hundred and twenty three it simply makes no sense to say that any bag that can carry something whether it's a forgive the phrase approved for your dog a sandwich bag here the bag you get at the produce aisle in the grocery store and you kind of say all those are for the packing or conveyance of goods and it's all one single class of articles looks the commercial fungibility and contractors who get the needs a heavy duty contractor bags going to be sorely disappointed if someone gives them a sandwich bag same thing with the child brings the goldfish in the sandwich bag that leaks there is a class explanatory notes are only secondary correct correct but i'm a but you made a reference to shopping bags and those are not called out and head and three thousand nine hundred and twenty three remember in orlando this court held you st have to decide if the and twenty three itself itself is so you have to disregard as i wouldn't tell you should you must that's the teaching of orlando you must resolve at the heading level st because everything below there is just a subset of whatever you define the heading to under your definition of the general heading isn't that teaching us that your definition of the general heading is probably not what congress intended if it doesn't follow if i can just answer the question it's just three the trial for properly classified the goods of merchandise as articles for the conveyance or packing a goods that is the class the kind of merchandise under thirty united what a great for the conveyance or packing of goods and the trial court determined that the meaning of the tariff in accordance with the plain language properly held that it was covered good of plastic used to carry or transport other goods of any kind and in making that determination the court look to the terms of the heading and then the dictionary definitions for any the subcategories are also at work right so yes i would say that they definitely inform the analysis i was just saying that you obviously would start with the language of the heading when we get passed back because it's clearly appear to convey that it covers goods of plastic used to carry or transport other goods of any kind and the merchandise here fits in that category and agencies decision can act to narrow the scope of a statute what's plainly included in  limited as as i believe seventy seven to twenty which is something that the founders brought up was more limited than three thousand nine hundred and twenty three and it got carried full forward erroneous plea but it's very nice twenty three is not limited to the household articles of plastics pretty much the st thing you think of is plastic bags that we all use in our kitchens so why isn't that why isn't that supposed to be something we should we should to three i believe the batter would have to be remanded back to the trial court to do it for their analysis of the fact was necessary to determine what the principal use of the goods was that said i believe that the court already did that and found that the principal use of the merchandise was for the conveyance of packing of good even though they found a classified will d in heading three nights and four of household goods what the court found was it was a household good because it could be in the home the court did not find that it was principal used in the home as a matter of fact a lot of the evidence that the court the trial court found and the findings of fact and a lot of the evidence on the record found that the principal use of the good was to transport merchandise or goods  they all have different physical features they all have different uses they all have different consumer expectations different channels and trade different environment so i'm vironment some sales or marketing the fact that now has does not assist in coming think or something i apologize for my speaking bad but i agree this does not feel like a use provision a use for indicate doing something in a certain way like very nice twenty three  things those are statistical suffixes so they don't inform the fact until a texas court said that the statistical suffixes don't inform the scope of the heading or even of the subheadings other they're not well they're not statute you would frustrate no statute by treating interpret what the heading means so that was just to address the court's point on those breakouts where you seem to be focusing on very specific types of bags that are called out there those are not statutes number two about this idea that it but as a matter of policy if the court were to conclude that household articles not of use provision that mean anything i'm going to put in my house a forklift an i phone anything i put in the house is going to be a household article that's going to be the implication of the decision of that i think they have to be made of plastic and i'm not sure i made a plastic secondly as far as your comment goes wouldn't it depend in fact on whether they were otherwise called out in some other section that more point typically not case another if you have to figure out what is commonly used in the house to figure out if it's typically in the house that's the use an out if i can i know i'm out of time just thirty seconds or less there was one last thing i just want to dress about the agency decisions that were referenced full of course and up on the on this court but the agency the expert in this over and over again have to struggle with all the types of things we're we're struggling with here in this case and it consistently said that's why