disregard of the c s registry number identified in table one and then you argue that even if not dispositive the registry number must be evaluated in the course of identifying the current products one tells you what is the product that is duty free by table one alone and that there are two pieces of information for that the i and then the international nonproprietary name and the chemical aspects service number the that are afforded duty free treatment order for genesis product received duty free treatment listen both tables one and two and so my my st question is is is it your position jacen says that the puerto rico is is founded on an antiquated structure based on the duties they collect and  there was no change in order to make up a budget shortfall that's correct your honor there was no change to make up a budget sort of shortfall jansons claims in its protest and its application for the review you just one other point on that these operations in customs operations in puerto rico are in fact as dancing alleges funded in part by duties collected there and that is also true of the virgin islands be particularly selective that i can't figure out how many products are talking rather than those that are doesn't it strike you at least as a policy matter that your position would be odd surely you agree that it would make no practical sense if your view that the liquid version of this chemical that no one in the world uses was on the list but the marketed version was not isn't table wanted extremely detailed includes thousands of different products by their international nonproprietary name and their number and both of those pieces of information refer to a set of information including the molecular formula and the chemical structure of each of those products so there and the c s number likewise are for it that gives you the muscular formula and the chemical structure so both pieces of information point to the same thing which is the root of permit reciprocal duty reductions as a result of a advice of the international trade commission the u s trade representative and other congressional committees and so than a presidential proclamation is issued grant question that we're debating this morning with the two in the same or substantially significantly different what doesn't that stack finding deserve deference by our  chemical bonds between those two products were not sufficiently strong to make it a new chemical substance rather it was simply a mixture that should be classified under chapter thirty and so there were multiple ph d that experts that testified on those issues on on page nineteen of the blue briefs the government says yes it had multiple opportunities to seek to add the ethanol a form to the pharmaceutical appendix when updates occurred exclude anything i think the answer has to be they do not intentionally exclude anything the president told congress nine hundred and ninety four that he wanted all pharmaceuticals including new pharmaceuticals as they were developed to be duty pharmaceuticals they are not to be free and so the pharmaceutical appendix is an attempt at a comprehensive listing this one happens to be an easy case because the would be no pharmaceutical appendix it's all pharmaceutical appended all pharmaceutical products we're duty free congress here and the president have set up a framework of multiple tables listing thousands of chemicals hundreds of forms of those chemicals on table two if all pharmaceutical products were duty free it would just say that we would not need this if it's a gated table structure it to set that up and so clearly the president