months and i have the privilege of performing his wedding i was going to say marrying him but then i thought that might sound so i prefer him to his wedding which was a great joy he's been a wonderful long archimedes going to go down to one of my favorite of the three corks absolutely no question that he will be a productive useful and valuable member of our bar so i would ask my two colleagues to vote on my motion and i hope that it will be granted it's true which it would  the core of this case presents a question of whether to a form of commerce has the authority to suspend liquidation back to the original date of suspension when the source is identified in k one of the regulation are dispositive of the looking at what's under k one of this of the regulation three fifty one point two to five k one and consider at that stage whether or not the underlying sources from the original investigation terminations by the international trade commission and the congress akrotiri sources that were and are available that relate back to that initial investigation and if the k one sources are dispositive states when there is a ruling where further inquiry is warranted is the beginning of party and it talks about the initiation of the scope inquiry and so here we have a ruling und address when there is a scoping for a what would happen with suspension it doesn't address what will happen if there is no scoping order and as we've explained in our three ifs converses reasonable position our view is that in that circumstance when the order in the k one sources are dispositive suspension basically the view is that the merchandise has always been within the scope of the order and that the order is not unclear because there hasn't been any collection of duties or anything up to that point it's reasonable to think that it's unclear and that commerce itself doesn't or customs doesn't think that these goods are included  because there's been no suspension as of yet it's your own that regulatory history if the best place to look at it in the bruce is huge eighteen and nineteen of the final reply brief united you know just because in different sections of the different and on page eighteen you know it starts with the regulatory history in this has to do with paragraph of the regulation which has to do suspension and it starts with suspension of liquidation in connection with proposed paragraph well a number of commenters have urged that the department should suspend liquidation when it initiate a formal scope inquiry if liquidation is already by the department represents nothing more than the finding by the department that it cannot resolve the issue on the basis of the plain language of the scope ascription or the clear history of the original investigation and when you consider that their congress is focusing on the scope inquiry and if you look at this whole passage scope inquiry comes up or at least four times i think the notice issue that is being flagged by commerce in this  when this and i don't mean order was entered in the federal register and all the other related he wants sources are all publicly available that the investigation the  side and for situations under k one congress determined that you you didn't have the strong cutoff date for suspension that's only perspective they didn't explicitly regulations what happens in this type of situation where you don't have from a link or and yet you have intrigues that have not been liquidated there hanging out that have been deemed to come within the scope of it that they don't think due to your as a result of whether or not a product is in scope and so for the question of whether something is suspended in the first instance when it has the border shouldn't be dispositive one way or another of whether or not suspension can apply to that entry and if we  in each one of them it says that if suspension has already occurred it will continue i didn't already occur here that's what makes this curious that the the are not actually interpreting the words if the tension is already occurred from the fact that the in the instance of a formal spoke rule and then we know what the role is and so by the by not explicitly addressing when there is no formal scope ro application the k one k one really then it goes on to f or joint them together it's it speaks about suspension liquidation under paragraph one one and one two of the same section those go there you don't go on an argue that that the the the the secretary was wise enough to address formal inquiry is the fact that they do that not address the application rulings that that it's clear and under k one if the language just clear then what unfair disadvantage was placed on the import of the input or knew all along it seems to me that they had a problem here no your honor the importer in this case our importer did not know it had a problem and he didn't know it had a problem because under the trade usage of the petition and goes look at the original on the i can see investigation it's a find it difficult to understand just from the record here how any importer of any helical washers would not have been alerted at the initiation of this anti dumping duty investigation that maybe they had a problem because these are not referred to in the trade as helical springbok workers our client was buying this merchandise from petitioner realize we probably you know we claim that we should win on k one but we believe the k one is relatively close but when you look at the cable in fact it's when you look at the petition it's talking about as much as talking about continuously about  that as to whether something is clear you look at what's in the kate one factors and you say wait a second the cayman factors talk about different specifications or specifications aren't mentioned they talk about trade usage so we're quiet they didn't porting this product for a long time and this is a case where they were really shocked and customs customs basically agreed customs could have said ok you guys are totally  i'm suspending liquidation because it's clear customs agreed it's not clear and customs agreed you continue to enter even though our chlorine included we did not because customs knew this was something it had to go to commerce and because of that specifications on you know the big play meaning controls or there could be some situation where the k one factors just you know undeniably support the plain language of the order but we're not in that we believe we we believe we did we believe that we submitted enough evidence and asked to indicate one factors on the if you look closely at the evidence we submitted if you look closely as to what petitioner w very interesting language about the work clarity here clarified because a mass is all about whether that word is clear and how is that word used in that decision is really what this case is about how is this case different or similar to us and  in a situation when an order is unclear you mustn't initiate a formal scope ruling and what it meant in that case which very different facts in this one a substantial transformation analysis of goods from another country determine whether those goods should be treated as goods from china because they were processed in manufacture there is very different and more searching then than just looking at the k one sources is what occurred here also in a mass that there's a case regulations when you whatever is not clear and we believe the water here on is not clear on its face and it's not clear on its face and customs recognised not clearance facing our client shouldn't be believed it was not in good faith believed it was not clear on its face and the court of international trade also recognized that you were was not clear on its face and when it's not clear on its face still show you were you were putting the court's attention to the it's not but but it's congress found that the scope of the order was clear ok so hold on so if the scope of the order should clear that means that importers will put on notice as to the particular entries that if anything that perhaps they have a potential problem those there's in presumptive that we're not liquidated don't you agree that under let's say that the scope determination was correct  the judge you know judge chill growth recognized that the order was it was not clear on its face the importer was acting in good things and when you look at the analysis i mean we were safe with that's what the court determined