but not that not that we would necessarily not review i'm sure your clients are are representing the truth but can't you understand that custom might prefer in general in many cases to have the option of being able to see the goods with their own two eyes because in many instances that will tell them whether it is used or on use and there may be some folks out there that aren't as scrupulous with regard to assess their assertions about whether that is the devices use examine any merchandise being exported at any given time they soccer team was being exploited under the x s program but if they don't know you're exporting that particular thing because you haven't given them the proper notice customs receive proper notice on all exploitation requirement thought return to customs custody or exploitation and customs of vision and yet rejected merchandise brought back they specifically had that requirement a return to customs costs so congress recognized that there was a distinction between exploitation of the customs of vision and just exploitation customs has gone beyond that to a scout's regulation that expands with drawbacks statute in a way that congress did not have let me ask you just as a practical matter and sitting side the amount of money that happens to be at issue in this particular case because no you know notification was was filed in this case doesn't seem like much of a burden on importers who then want to become export file the notice which is a practical matter why is this important that there are several reasons you want to example that would be a company then i understand but i thought you said to me earlier perhaps it was in response to a christmas question that the problem was with a customer that needed to get something right away and you notice required to wait but i if you actually says that the goods have to be destroyed under customs supervision that's not optional at all right that's ok but then the regulation says notice has been given to get customs the opportunity to examine the destruction sense right serious they don't have that option are they really exactly the same i mean has commerce effectively with regulation implemented under customs supervision language into the export of provision of the statute or  well yeah i understand the bonded carrier it is it is supposed that you've got the good sitting in a warehouse in the port of houston and you send your notice in customs comes over in a look at the goods and they say and l of always with supervision at the border exportation pointing to the one that regulations one of the law in order to get the draw back you are supposed to first not have used the good in the united states and secondly you are supposed to next or at the very good you're talking about as opposed to some other goods that might have been used how will customs know that what's being exploited was not only not used but that it wasn't is to make that damage i would think most of the time then maybe setting aside an occasional instance in which urgency time is a real factor but most of the time it be in your interest to have customers looking at not know that they can for instance a documentary evidence of exploitation is something that customer service dictates these are the only documents were books up front prove that i can they do that but not say we have to see the good what's the difference the difference is that the drawback statute the structure of the statute says heater export it or destroyed under custom supervision now why doesn't why isn't export it under customs here exploited or destroyed under constant supervision in the down and put into the pronto i mean you could have a manufacturing and you could import some some something metal some kind of novel or the beginning could be processed with four other types of metal to make a hybrid metal and some i wonder if it's even the shove run it comes up in several different ways and whether it's a gas consciously left by congress to be filled in which case you've given huge amount of deference to the agency or an ambiguity comes to nothing tend to leave there and then you give a good deal of deference the agency that this seems to me well you tell me if i'm wrong but this seems to me to fall into the third teta gauri which which to what chevron is kind of applicable and that is that the agency has if given by congress the authority to probably get regulations to procedural regulations in effect to administer a statutory scheme the agency has a lot of leeway to devise dates and times and forms and notification those kinds of procedural administrative details that fall within the agency's authority under go ye and probably get rules and regulations to administer the statute which doesn't require i guess either an rule making such a rule making power in the statute so the argument would go to say well the congress realizes that for the most part everybody's honest and when they say they're expert in something will probably get the regulations that require others notice in advance to let us know you're sending out to let us have a chance to come and look and if we want and that's a matter of them as dense presiding judge are suggesting as a matter simply of the agency saying we think this is what congress wanted us to do in administering the statute that they gave gap analysis potenza chalet that almost always when a question comes up that has and then specifically decided by the congress some specific little detail like for example here you could say well even if the statute has said you must give notice in advance of the export of the congress didn't say how you give them notice it didn't say how many days it didn't say on the under your regulations after you give the notice under one ninety one thirty five there's still quite a lot of regulation going on before the goods actually managed to get exported isn't that true there's a bonding procedure that's been talked about what you mean arguing your bretheren actually what's happening here in terms of what customs is doing viz on the expert cation by requiring notice in advance plus mondeo plus waybill on the wrist doesn't constitute supervision court supervision what is it it's not expert supervision what would count what would constitute expert supervision well i mean let's assume the statute is said exploited under custom supervision what would customers have to do to supervise exploitation that destruction must be somewhat rare that i would think i mean he would have to have goods that were worth less than the drawback personally i mean i suppose something like two thousand and six calendars two tons of two that we still this case time a requirement of notification before exploitation it market action was that the it was not i say that but that a customs position at that point was we don't supervise but we do require  the in bunch trent's transit is by abundant carrier prop bunny private carrier connect that customs is satisfied that that bonded carriers supervision of the goods appear in front of the relevant subcommittee in congress and the senate and the house that deals with the statutes would be you'd be comfortable telling the senators and the congressman that the customs regulations are in