and these items continue to be yes a yes and we the record does not reflect that of the council i spoke to someone just physical samples if you want to see them for a lot of them to mr jones there are pictures of but to the extent the court wanted to actually the exceptions to the exception that these constitute are articles for technical uses of life yes i'm sorry i didn't hear the very first part of the question as i understand it the first issue we're dealing with here question is and i think it's not entirely clear from greaves is if we were to determine hypothetically that neither of the exceptions to the exceptions apply would the exception that is oracles were technical uses the last one i think i got last year and some of the exceptions exceptions except but at the end of the day our position is to the extent the court rules and maybe this is the hypothetical you're asking me that we don't fall into exceptions  when you come within eighty four to twenty four because you're with within one or the other of the two exceptions to the exception write your own yes if i may say i we've been arguing that to say that  that blocks us from going into it for twenty four doesn't apply because of those two exceptions right right that's what's been an arborist but if you agree that if you don't come within those two exceptions to the exception  you're outside of he or twenty four no and i'm not trying to fight the hypothetical i'm saying no because we have to resolve and is an article of glass meaning just i want to alice's what does that mean articles of glass ok and i don't believe that that the resolution that question is tied to those two exceptions that you are asking about so if i discard those and say you tell me mr will forget those two exceptions we don't agree with my then an article class i would say well let's look at some of the twenty and what does it mean to be an article of class because it's not just flat so you saying that the same issue with respect to the twenty exists with respect to the exception that is whether it's an article of last year we have to resolve the essential character of this thing glass or not appear so and i think we resolve those two issues to say with your hypothetical by saying you don't need those two exceptions there because that it's not a high proportion  feel understand the reason what the connection is between the brussels history and these provisions here is there some indication that congress relied on the brussels history  born out of or kind of morphed from the brussels tariff nomenclature so more understand that i mean there must be some kind of legislative history of well it's not i mean it's not a secret that the actually supports our position rather hurts it if i can just come in on that for a flea on the relevance the government is saying is we have this phrase high proportion explanatory notes we're trying to figure out what that means in the record in the joint appendix judge stanley also asked for information what does this mean high proportion and the government said well when they were creating these notes in the brussels tariff nomenclature they had a discussion there was a discussion all that's reprinted in the joint appendix there wasn't there was people like in this case the rest result by saying it's got to be mainly the other thing for it to not be glass and the governor said well that should be how we interpret high proportion because if you look at the history that's what it means but there's discussion there in those pages that an appendix and i can give  up in trying to figure out which is more important we'll get faster if you look at the joint appendix and the pages that are in there there's no evidence yet she made of inclusion but to me the issue is where is the facts where are the facts to support that and when you look at the test only one witness in this case and you look at the joint appendix pages of his testimony in testimony and you read what he had to say over and over again in the very clear why was the liquid that was the brains of this thing we give example our brief my last comment of again if there's a fire in th rove is right there was one witness in this case and and he knows a lot about the products which is why we used the to his testimony to support our motion for summary judgment number one and number two and our field here but he's it's been consistent and it is the predecessor to what ultimately became the harmonized tariff schedule of the united states when the i t c recommends adoption of certain provisions when they were changed and congress generally simply adopts those the i t c also can encourage egypt provisions which is the last subheading in the brussels you say its predecessor predecessor because you can't have something from brussels we have predecessor of the us that you can have it as guidance i'm not saying it's legislative history or that it provides  the connection is that there is consistent history throughout the various international customs time in the tariff treaties and brussels tariff nomenclature was one that was in effect in the sixty's and currently you'll see a consistency in the organization and in the provisions and so if you're looking for what is intended to be precluded or included in a particular provision that explanatory no has carried through precisely both one thousand nine hundred twenty five and the one to chapter eighty four no one see through today so there is a consistent history in how technical articles of look back to the the to carry b and the in from nineteen twenty five into eighty four i don't know why the language and it has been high proportion but it was clearly intended in one hundred twenty five that there would be more other materials than glass in order to take it out of a chapter nine chapter eighty four but there's also other provisions and there in the appendix that use the term high proportion in the explanatory  deals with mastic that are based on plastic and that says up to eighty percent so the if you look at the context for what high proportion means the context here is that there's a clear line starting in the one nine hundred sixty s that high proportion in this explanatory no it was intended to follow the one for having ninety which says mainly in fact it still says mainly and there's no indication that high proportion throughout very generous dani determined that it was in a high proportion here factually because sixteen to thirty one percent was not a high proportion and i know you don't want to hear about the vs tariff nomenclature one more time but in the later when they were talking about mainly high proportion they actually were talking about wheat and here that's what we're talking about two the weight of the glass versus the weight of the liquid taken we consider that an arbitrary way of determining something but it's a very traditional factor in determining whether something has a particular character the question here is actually the first question is actually two questions that have to be answered is whether the old one c precludes classification in mclean provision and as one who argued in our brief it does because there's no question this is a technical article plaintiffs can take those claims are all in the technical use of provision and the question is simply whether they have the character of glass and as well as mr roland and kate and we have samples for you and you can see you can look at them and that certainly can be part of your or your consideration whether they appear to be glass do you think the explanatory notes talked about losing the character of glass so the presumption is that something that is glass starts out as glass and the question is what's what if anything has been done to it to cause it to lose that character and be explanatory notes provide a couple of guidelines one is whether when there's a significant amount of high proportion of another material then the other is when these glass is simply static and the other component or the other material is  mechanical so that would be the first question to be answered whether or not no one see applies here and the second question if you determine that no once he does in fact apply to remove this these products which after eighty four is whether or not were probably classified and having seventy twenty which would require an essential character analysis to determine whether the the liquid component or the glass provides the essential character there's a slight variation between  the way i view the yes or no there is a character issue and then there's an essential character issue and there's they're very close but there are slight variations and the explanatory notes which will be question one does no engineer are made of the same materials are used in the same way they work the same way and so they should all be classified in the same provision not necessarily eighty four twenty four they're all using thermal devices but that gets a bit too whether or classification in chapter eighty four and the reason is because if you look to the explanatory no they don't have a high proportion by weight of non blacks materials and getting to the second crack guideline provided by the explanatory no there is not a static class component with a mechanical liquid component the liquid component is not mechanical it expands by means of something called thermal expansion it means when you heat something molecules go fast it expands that's not mechanical rivets will do that in a building you sheep heat solids and heat most liquids and they will expand because molecules move faster but that is not that's not machine like that's not a kin to have a pump or a motor which  examples provided in the explanatory no are mechanical pumps and motors are actually on their own classifiable chapter eighty four and some motors are in chapter eighty five but that does not that doesn't make not it's the liquid component or the glass component that provides the essential character to determine whether having seven hundred twenty is correct and for that argument i refer to my faith thank you very much so just quickly in the three minutes that we have left we're talking one of the issues is character of class or essential character of the class if you ever ship something in the middle a glass or you've moved to the moving company one of the characters of glasses posted  doesn't break here the character of the glass of this item is to break that's how the fire sprinkler ultimately operates i would suggest if you look at context here in chapter seven he wrote the glass tariff codes are those items none of them are really designed to break that's not purpose so sprinkling on them when there's no fire however that's just one of the functions and the reason people put far sprinklers are for when there's a fire and that was the testimony of the engineer regarding the mechanical issue which was on those mean it has to be some kind of harder i want to mechanical but something like a pump or a motor yet when you just look at the definition of mechanical the definition of mechanical does not is not limited to that it just has to do with relating to physical forces or motion and examples in the dictionary is give examples of mechanical force of wind and mechanical forces on molecules and that's exactly what's happening here the glass is mechanical not as if you'd stop those molecules are going to  break the glass so i think for me and joe just fine he said as much as that i don't think he said that's the definition of mechanical what we cited below but i don't think that's the right definition because of those two examples pumps motors and i don't think that's a matter of a recurring problem yes the law that was an act by congress referenced seventy twenty for these items but that's because title was handcuffed proverbially by customs position to get around that or to get the relief from that we had to reference seventy twenty