encounter feeling duty orders on one hand commerce argues that close is good enough that product they are similar enough to the products covered by the court orders that they could justify adding thirteen words to those orders to capture those products they call these thirteen words omitted technical language it's our contention however that the orders must be read according to their plain terms at the boundaries of those orders a stablish what is covered in this case the orders would still accept the product however for profit why can't congress take the same view congress could have taken the same view had included the industry standard within the language of the order in this case it didn't include that industry standard in the language of the order it simply referred to the minimum thing at four point seven five millimeters and warrant taking this with the only way we can ever determine the meaning of language is in its context and so doesn't the tree you see have to be part of the context here kind of what people see when they see four point seven five what do they understand when they see that you're absolutely right your hon language must be considered within context there's no testimony here there's no evidence here as to what somebody in the at the p c industry would think when they saw four point seven five millimeters and more that the industry doesn't operate on actual bases that has to be the case because there are certain actual sickness it below which even under the government theory this product would no longer be termed access p c so therefore the industry does understand and operate on some actual base but beyond just the on actual dimensions there's there's almost no question on that and there are tens of thousands of custom classic agents that use dimensions none of those dimensions that fly actually are nominal yet there aren't hundreds of cases before order to see what those words cover what the order covers or reasonably could be interpreted and it's on the quite wrong it's it's definitely proper to look to the language of the order and that's what we urge this court to fourth review this issue was sort of raised in verification in congress found that product that valve below an actual four point seven five not covered by the order that's my point that isn't that an appropriate answer to that orders it only uses the term nominal thing this and commerce has in many instances used tolerance tolerance ranges in orders how do you see them are different case i think it affected in two ways first is commerce is bound by the language of the order here it wishes that the order had read four point seven five millimeters or more nominal thickness nominal thing is a term of art it should have been there it's not there therefore commerce is precluded from adding that term ten years later the second thing that didn't work with stand for is that congress in found by the plain language of the orders in that case the question was over whether certain products maintained a rectangular cross section in footnote thirteen of the court's decision this court held commerce to the strict mathematical definition of the term untainted indeed and in free to commerce argued that it was generally recognized this product self within the general scope of the order of this court did not allow commerce to post hoc ad language the order to capture things that it wish it had included within the original scope of the order beyond that so it is in going back to chief judge raters question about the context here if you step back and look at the actual context of the industry four point seven five millimeters or more thing that isn't even an industry standard response to that other than to say it doesn't really matter whether it was four point seven five or four point seven six but it's simply not credible to say that there were four point seven five as no industry meaning yet the word thickness does that in other words that one word can have an industry such a case and yet one word three three words later in the order does that simply not credible and the reason for that is because this order was never intended to be based on industry standards this order was intended to be based on the h p s definition of what plate was how do we know that we know that for two reasons first there are actually just one reason we know that because during the investigation  and petitioners halfway through the investigation said you know what there are all these nominal products out there that we'd like to capture they compete with our products they're within the tolerance ranges why don't we just go ahead and cover those products by these orders because of the clarity of the order however commerce said no we're not going to that decision was rendered four months before the orders in this case before the investigation in this case was initiated in terms of context that the immediate context within argument that part of that carbon steel was distinguishable on the basis that commerce articulated in that free men to terminate so the question for you for your honour's is really operate but beyond that it's not just the edition of one word that commerce is proposing here they're proposing to add thirteen words was the word nominal and then referenced this standard that were never before the and comments made a determination here we think it's correct and we're defending the merits of congress determination that congress wasn't there this was an congress's idea to decide whether this product is in and out of the scope it doesn't have a vested interest could it invent a made it very clear case is fundamentally different from defective and funded into effect of the way the order is written in that case there was no conceivable way that the product that issue in that case could be found within the scope of the order because it applied only shut that down the court said no you can't do that that's what led to this sort of first step that we had never just look at the order see if it's subject to more than one reason multiplication as congress explained in page eight thirty of a three man determination to that a survey of the joint appendix this is why good morning your honour's averages of course i would like to start off by saying that i believe the industry does in fact operate on a nominal basis and there are two basic reasons why that's true first it is not physically possible for any mill in the entire world either in belgium or in the united states or anywhere else to take a a role of being still played in coils that is hundreds of feet long and consistently throughout every point stan no that's a customs law standard if you get back to the earlier part in the original investigation of this case h p s was chosen by petitioners of whom which i represent one out  any loved one because it was as mccarthy just said for convenience and customs purposes at the port of entry when the merchandise comes in and it's got to be clarified and so that's an easy way to do it people are not going to say in this industry well three sixteenth's of an inch is point one eight seven five inches or four point seven six two five millimeters which are actually the precise measurements involved people typically are going to say four point seven well it's one hundred how do they know what fits and what doesn't said if you're going to tell us essentially yes well they're going to say well but essentially no one are we going to hand out nature in everything so again this is the standard industry approach because it is so well understood that that is done on a nominal basis because nobody can kid and as a producer the exact gauge thickness whatever it is in the given instance that that you have to have nominal and that's what a s t m done it s t m's essentially the industry as a whole producers purchasers distributors buyers sellers saying client please ensure that all sales of products for which the nominal sickness is greater than or equal to four point seven five millimeters have been included in your question clients questionnaire response that was commerce writing to the belgian coun subsequently the belgian council responded and this is at page eighty one thirty one the department is now redefined the scope to include material with a nominal thickness of four point seven five millimeters or greater but is requiring do so in an orderly fashion in fact the department had by the letter from october fifth ninety eight change change to clarified that during the course of the investigation the scope was to be on the nominal basis thank you mr beck that's where i could be as low as four point five one millimeters four point five one that the that's the lowest actual thickness now that the orders cover say it's about up twenty five millimeter tolerance by actual thickness because as you indicated begin with there's always a little slot from those numbers in terms of the actual sheet that now what do you report well called for now for think it's three quarters of an inch from the end if you measure it using a micrometer at that point and what that actual thickness is is what the actual thickness of the product it and if it came out four point seven four and what isn't well according to our views is no longer that could measure any it's its actual thickness is four point seven five on the paper but it's not really four point seven five is going to be a certain amount of flex where do you how do you deal with that and i'm get just under four point seven five to the best of my knowledge you can't manipulate that but i mean that's what importers have been living with for the last two hundred years under the h g s because the h g s it's based on an actual sit in the system is administer  said was the one that they represent why isn't that the tree to use each instead of what we're told is the trees for cites please your honor is why why has congress gone to a standard that was never put before the at the end instead of this product is out of it so why so what i think i think for commerce this is a question of if it looks like a duck quacks like a duck it should be a duck and we should be able to capture you know it's nothing wrong with that which is except for this court decision to puerto which said look orders cut across product classes they they kind of arbitrarily set boundaries and those boundaries have to be respected for example commerce is using the industry standard now for bigness but it's not using the industry standard for surface treatment instead the orders in different to service treatment so you can see the order cuts across water different product classes as recognized by the industry why should they use one industry standard somewhere in the order and then a different and no industry standard elsewhere in the order of the day arbitrary during the first during the investigation in the first for review least in the second and fourth reviews and maybe in other cases as well congress has only calculated that you need a margin on the basis of a product with an actual sickness of four point seven five millimeters or more and now they want to calculate it