international trade involves the tire classification of conveyor belts which are used in an industrial application and my client is the importer of the product what this mistake did the trial court make notes that a company just no one said textile fabrics applies only to the woven fabric of chapters fifty to fifty five correct yes so textile fabrics is only fabrics it's not explanatory pertains to as well woman fabrics are broadly oh yes do they do does the word woven fabric always in fifty nine o three encompass these  confused if both of them and only them are included in the heading because textile fabrics is woven fabrics only and if that was meant to include both of them and it i certainly start wondering why they would need a  subsection that then set both of them are included it seems to me that each subsection would get progressively narrower and your interpretation would give identical scope of understanding and a subsection which would make the subsections purpose i understand where you language whether congress intended to do that that's not what the language is it the way you read it sort of made no fifty to fifty five by application of note nine including for example fabrics consisting of and it has two dashes with examples and then the next sentence is the essential characteristics explanatory notes and they were included as a subsection of the old ends because they are so separation i guess because in the related case section of the blue brief that indicates six other cases that depend on the outcome of this case they're all belting cases and and they rely on that only to the extent that no one is implicated there are many products and some products do not implicate nine it's impossible to tell standing here exactly what those products  those six cases fully incompetence but to the extent that it encompasses these issues then yes but this is not an issue that is something that we see all the time in fact this is something quite rare in terms of nine but getting back to the interpretation of the nine it's if we look at the headings the section the chapter notes which are relevant here under fifty nine o three which we there is no dispute that these products do fall within that well i don't know much about grades but i do know that the definition of walled in appears in the general explanatory notes one see in the preamble and also as you noted before where it  section eleven reading no ninety sectional letter and tells us that it there is a particular unique fabric construction that is described there are layers of parallel yards that are good but for terror purposes there are some things like that and see that this is this is the way the tariff is written and so certain constructions that may not be  problem with the interpretation of the new one fabrics if it includes all of that works is that there would be no meaning to that stuff having and everything would be included and if that top level heading fifty nine and three were woven fabric and then there was a note that says the woven fabric simply fabrics like this part of your argument seems to hinge on the fact that this is a  subsection and you know the broad section in the subsection would have exactly the same scope if we interpreted the word including the way she wants us to do what i'm saying is suppose that we take the subsection tending away so that the only issue we have to decide that there is no subsection this is the only section and say that it's the only section would your answer be different what i'm trying to understand is do you think the word including always excludes other things from being considered or do you think it's only in the context of this case because of all the other in addition that the word including is actually limited to what is that disclose in this case because of all the other yes i agree that it gets narrower and narrower because the word including is generally relatively broad it's an open type of we're normally including you know if i had a party including judge rader that would mean it was just him and i that could mean you're invited and that lots of well the c i t put it on at least two of them under fifty nine o three and twenty and and that's one point seven percent is that right  what sparks apparently wants is fifty nine zero three ten fifteen which is a one point four percent tariff that's a rather small difference is that what this whole argument is about now the other thing is the other category which is ten point three percent is that where the big belting want to be used i'm just trying to understand which piece of the argument is at issue  i lose you on that one they do have consequences indeed they do so so depending upon where what stud penny the product falls under yes it will have an attendant do you rate it but the product must as you know must meet the terms  with regard to that or to one product of which there is a sample this deals with the proof in meeting the criteria that is outlined in chapter no too late to to section eleven and in the summary judgment the court reviews the evidence that is before it that must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an essential element to its case here sparks present the sample it was tested it failed the test we provided permanent evidence below sportswriter just a sample it had the opportunity to provide evidence would it be the case that in every case providing just a sample would not be  as can assess with the fact that it's before it i we have not i have not come across any case where a judge would go and manipulate the sample to the