point made please the court in this case comes to this court you know unusual situation and it's kind of like coming to the supreme court in a sense that we have two different decisions from the court in international trade on the identical merchandise the first time the court of international trade followed this court's decision in store wall and they classified these pieces tracks and hanging standards as parts of furniture under heavy ninety four of three the second time the that the court found that because the container store products were metal and the  and just focus on star law i think i think we have to go right to stall traffic because i think two judges at the same level can come up to different conclusions ok but there is precedent which says very plainly that  there's nothing even to talk about but if you have staring decisis what we're left with from stonewall is how the court interpret the law the facts relating to store well you are not our facts i have a slightly different all the court determine what the scope was of having ninety four zero three and what the notes were for chapter ninety four and it's amazing the parallels between our products and the that the court said in t c s too that the products in our case are functional equivalents of of the products in store well will that make sense and also the end product the unit furniture product is a functional equivalent of the of the products in store will in addition to that we have is the government made the same arguments and store will that they're making here and they say no thanks i was a little confused about in your brief yes no matter what we think of the merits of it it seems like you are really focusing a lot and parents at once but that's not the majority that you are correct or are we we a note in chapter thirty nine that says if you have articles of chapter ninety four you move them to chapter ninety four then there's a note in chapter ninety four that said if you have an article that is a part of general use as the find in section fifteen those that's a metal section that you want to remove parts from chapter ninety four and put them back into parts of general use so that note which was very much  general use then the court would have excluded from chapter ninety four and then you would have competing notes one note moving it from ninety four sorry one moment no moving it from thirty to ninety four and one note moving it out of ninety four because it would be a like a part of general use and the court didn't do that they said although we're only dealing with ninety four and these arguments were made by the government the in their breaks and the court never never addressed it in its opinion but it was before the court so let's put stary decisis aside for a second ok we think we're entitled to judgment just based on that but this should  at ninety four zero three is still more specific than that and if you have to stop let me answer your question this way that only comes into play if this court believes that this merchandise is covered by section fifteen we don't think it even is covered by section fifteen we don't think it is a part of general use but but even if it if it did and if it is a part of general use and it's parts of furniture the government concedes it's parts of furniture yes the court believes it's parts of furniture then i have no to cancel each other out you have to go to relative specificity g r i three and based on judge  think it's more specific but it's a closer question judge ok but we don't think so but we don't think that our merchandise is considered a part of general use so that in let's go back to section fifteen and section fifteen which covers eighty three o two and a bunch of other provisions section fifteen there's a note that says if you have articles of chapter ninety four you move them out of s ok so and again we go back to chapter ninety four that said if you have parts of general use you go out of chapter ninety four so the government classif it should be classified under eighty three zero two four man things metal mountings suitable for furniture and now the exercise is what's a metal mounting suitable for furniture we the dictionary definitions of the term mounting are really all over the lot so here's a collection of them one of them says frame support embellishment it's a basic setting it could be lots of different things and what that what the court did was they picked one definition and i mean as it turns out i mirriam webster dictionary definition it says mounting the fine for kids ok that's and that's the one the judge focused on and he says it's a frame or support that holds something but then it also says amounting for an engine which would kind of put it into context the judge didn't add that into his decision but the dictionary definitions for mounting are very very broad it can either be something that attaches to thing it could be something that's attached to something but it's not the thing itself here are the top tracks and hanging standards form the back of this furniture so your point is that by objecting to that th dictionary definitions that you were effectively arguing ambiguity yes we pointed the judge to the explanatory notes from the very very beginning ok did you point the judge the legislative history or is that new for us  i think the legislative history is no but what we found was when we looked back we found that well first we saw that in store all the court look to explanatory notes and look to legislative history which i in that case turned out to be the brussels nomenclature and we have exact language in the brushes nomenclature that appears in the explanatory notes for the harmonized tariff schedule so we thought that was a helpful tool it worked in store wall it should work here so if you have dictionary definitions that go a lot of different directions the court has to go beyond just those common meaning definitions and look at explanatory notes and legislative history and so on and the explanatory notes here that the judge cites then in his decision different places but our sense is that he really ignored them he took one sentence and used that which basically said if you have something that's let's use for specific use it still can go here but the but the most of the explanatory no it's not limited what's a melting suitable for furniture to an embellishment type thing to an accessory type thing to it says in there clearly it doesn't include essential part of the structure of an article well without our top tracks and hanging hangs down there's there is no unit for it that you can't get any more essential to the structure and then those articles it also gives you examples of things that are those structural pieces if you the swivel in one of those chairs and turn around and it gives you window frames and ours  one where the government loses you've got store where the government was and it does feel like you just keep going back to the well if you're not happy with with the conclusions of various courts that are ruling against it well i mean let me let me actually explain why we're here and contain we had to that's why we're going back in this case in the container store one piece it wasn't iraq we didn't appeal it again because of store wall and we would have had to put forth new arguments the era that was in containers our one was that the letter back to her said we should wait and yes and we think we might have some arguments about you know regarding stall law but instead of asking the parties for more briefing she just decided t metal as opposed to now or or not mold resistant i'm not sure i know that it's different because it's hardware the standards they might be specific to alpha but they're no different they don't operate any different and when you go to home depot and bystand general use it comes out of ninety four so essentially we don't we don't classify margin ice as to whether it's similar or not we classify it based on the headings so not based on the headings and the notes and the notation you don't windy and when he takes you to eighty three pop up merchandise that's falls under the term parts of general use it comes out of ninety four and to determine what part of general use are you have to look at the definition parts in general use and that in no two to section fifteen and no to destruction fifteen list a bunch of headings that that are considered parts in general used in eighty three zero two is there so it's not the fact that it's just metal versus plastic are the same you have to go with how do we classify merchandise step one we look at the headings step two we look at the notes the know is wendy does it fall with a no wendy no indeed takes you to note you see parts in general use eighty three o two that takes you to the heading they fall within the head yes as a copper correctly determined it's these products are mountains suitable for furniture because they support they support the shelving they support the ba product this is how you would fix them to the wall it's no different when i go into home depot if i want to buy shelving i buy a standard and i'm in a something to fix to the wall it's no different it's no different because it's restricted to those statutory provisions that were under review i mean why would that apply here oh how kind applies because it shows the french and as they say in the in the in the in the decision the notes work out how you actually alive at consistent with these circumstances very narrowly but i think i think what you just said is she is factually right star wallah star decisive is really limited to the actual legal holding right the legal holding us and the law to that but it also actually deals with at least one of the two provisions at issue here where honda doesn't deal with any of the provisions true and i agree but honda does deal with the concept of parts of general used car to general use appears throughout a taf and i'm just one instance to show that how they work together with different for different provisions the if you win again i'll pop direct the court's attention it's a legal now it's a statute and that wasn't that wasn't at issue and  the other thing i wanted to address was the legislative history the legislative history install was a bit different it talked about the process nomenclature but there was also a committee report and it was a committee report actually gave the the court some context some background as to the definition of unit from the chair but so you agree that legislative history is one of the things we should be looking to now regardless of how we read it now first here there's no legislative history all they point to is the fact that the  and another thing it's the explanatory note that they're relying on explanatory notes aren't legislative history so even if you look at the brussels nomenclature explanatory note the fact that it's the same here that doesn't say anything there's no committee report there's nothing there's no information each bringing the cases over and over again but indecorous to this court that we held in dockers want what the statute was how to construe that statute therefore you're stuck with that part of it you can litigate litigate and litigate but that is that you're not going to we don't do this lightly it was because of the strange circumstance that we had here a strong all coming down and not us not having a chance to brief the court we could not appeal because it would seem like a brand new case if ninety four and i think that squarely resolve this case in so counsel for the government talked about jeff to note one day it says parts of general it's i'm sorry this chapter does not cover parts of general use as the find in no two deception fifteen of base metal or similar articles of plastic chapter thirty nine or safes i mean that note was in play in store wall and it was decided there and i think it's binding here or we need to it's a consistency after so little was decided my recollection is i don't think this is critical either way america election as the judge asked us for additional briefing on never given a chance to that's what the government was saying they never play and you're saying that's not that my recollection is we did brief it and then the judge issued decision in addition to that these notes which moved things from one chap to another and vice versa those are all before the court and container store want the container store one judge did not address the issue about whether or not these articles were specifically within the common meaning of eighty three o two and the courts don't have to address every argument that's before them but that argument was before them the story will merchandise the government talked about these big panels but there were also located tabs and this court also said both of those things go into chapter ninety four three the c i t in container store two has said they're functionally equivalent to our articles i don't think that that's where they think that the fact that the inner store and just pieces and parts together the what what do you do as i think you sit down with a sales representative and they say they tend to sell you systems so there's you know a half a dozen different packages you can buy individual items but usually i want the boys cost or the boy's room and they give you thirty pieces or whatever that makes it up and take it home put it together that's generally how it's all the evidence in our case is like ninety seven  top tracked and having sense are sold with other items in the system at that time shelves and so on i don't think this is a use case anymore because of the government has conceded that ninety four zero three covers these here one time and you know your job is to try to implement the intent of of the drafters of the statute and i think it's not right to say toss out the explanatory notes and toss out the process that we're not just dealing with the but they clearly show the intent of the drafters of the state of the statute and the fact that this is going back over fifty years sixty years means they don't want to put functional items in and eighty three  tariff it means items classified under these provisions a through j and one of them is eighty three o two we're not in eighty three o two we're not a part of general use we're not excluded from chapter ninety four i mean that's my that's how i get