subject to the aluminum extrusion and orders that seems to me to be a simple and definitive concession that if the scope ruling unless it's been materially changed since the march twenty seventh two thousand and fourteen version will in fact make you subject to the two orders yes that's that's our understanding of will that in turn that termination well  why this is captioned consolidated case one of six and then as i understand it the docket sheets and the two other cases show the cases being closed simply by the filing of the judgment and the order of december twenty sevent yes and the judgment includes in the last paragraph a direction that the merchandise that was covered by the december  shall be liquidated in accordance with these orders yes that includes your merchandise does ok and that and that motion that's all it was the government's motion and i believe in doing that it's a recognition that these are this is al did say and i think there's a comparable sentence in paragraph three of the perma steel lisa complaint where it seems to me you do say that again you were talking about the original scope ruling of march and fourteen and unless something has changed between those two things you have in fact alleged and it seems to me you're bound by the allegation that the two you have a dumping a kind of railing duty orders will in fact apply to do with anything right well i think there was an effort by by the government to try to limit its application in some way or other but what it implies if it's not doesn't really matter what the government says in terms of how their school will apply not they don't really cat also congress failed to consider very important aspects of the problem concerning the record evidence about what is finished it's the curtain off and that is just is as a finished it and it just and we believe that they've ignored what is information that they have to consider under the regulation specifically language in the petition and that provided curtain wall and if something less them that comes in it's not the finished product well as the parents have said in their brief this court has it has brought on what is a curtain wall of decision earth of commerce but that we submit commerce looked at what was a curtain wall unit or a heart that was not what we would consider the complete curtain wall to be the entire building and this is the case because commerce and specifically to declined to consider that issue they said that in their scope wrongly as well as the trial court acknowledging that was the case we're talking about what happened in the previous case yes ok so they declined to look at that issue they also said they were they were not considering what is the finished goods test so we parents do not believe the whole building collapsing and from which it would seem now to follow the importation of less is whatever else it is is not implication of a kit that found that in scaling back what they determine is that they need good or finish good kit they may find that a product that is a subassembly that is otherwise finished that is not a complete  product may be excluded and they implemented this test so as to avoid it circus arts or and reasonable ones where they would have to require something that like truck and they said for us to say that you know to interpret the scope to see the whole fire truck has to be the finished it isn't reasonable also we would say going back and looking at the scope of language there is no limitation or direction that it has to be in one shipment so you can look at the same is a curtain one because this is all under a contract to be a full complete good project subject to the contract they would have to be shipped in say men's and because they cannot be shipped at one time to complete loss site or building or section so we would say that it's anything more than well see i don't know yet did did the trial court here rely on some facts over and above the fact that you didn't have a complete cladding namely various kinds of attachment devices caulking i forget what gaskets that were not in the same package and therefore we guard what the subassembly unit is it doesn't meet the requirement of the kit exception to the exclusion because not everything is in the box i think thank you for that sorry class matron of other i guess i'm just trying to focus on whether we really have to decide something as a as broad as you need the whole wall in one ship or whether this particular ruling relies on there's stuff missing from that particular shipments even for you know hanging two of the panels well what we would say is that first off this question is they had anthracis what would be what they consider what they claim to be and just hearts or finishing that would remove or they found that these products wouldn't i guess the finishing not finishing bed and how they are just added to the building and not something that is completed four or reworked the actual material itself and i think if you look at the and so were we looking at their their their quote from the original orders that such subject of human experience may be described at the time of importation as blah blah blah blah and ending with subject kids i went yes what we i guess the seventh paragraph and it begins with this where it talks about the scope also excludes finished merchandise and within that paragraph and i play you find that they do have a definition of what a finished goods kit is and what we're saying as if looking at this that what is the emphasis is the sentence where it says that assembled as is means you're looking at what the what the article is to install it and not the actual installation operations and con provide a brief this is what commerce is focusing on to say that we're not in this article or it's merchandise it's not passing that second part of the subassemblies to us and i think if you take their conclusion off fully assembled already at the time of import but that is in looking at the factors they consider that are additional finishing components that is whether eyes and  operations that go to make an adjustment but not to the assembly or order just counting the assemble article so if you follow commerce reasoning there's really only only thing that could be shipped is something that's completely assembled whether it's which is absurd and what is the reason why they  suck it applies to you wonder only based on your why does a contract you want as technical drawings and you want as important documentation that applies only to you wanda into the you won the case and at that point this issue was not really front and center because the supreme court such as in the town of chester and that line of cases has held that there is a one plaintiff rule that as long as one plaintiff is in the case who possesses article three standing it doesn't matter that there are other parties tagging along either as plaintiffs co plaintiffs interveners what have you so this issue is not front and center before the trial but there they have a complaint at their own complaints and they were all consolidated so they're up their complaint before the trial court right that's right around her  the three complaints all challenge the same scope ruling based on the same record so it made perfect sense for the trial court to consolidate those three cases but that you're not saying that our decision whatever it is would clarify for me where their complaints about their products your honor that is their argument but it's just not accurate to commerce separate they could be a complaint about somebody else's products you're suggesting that all of this was just about one set of products and it was not theirs in other words you're saying they should have been allowed to be plaintiffs in the first instance your honor it we if we were  result of commerce's scope ruling jenga hose curtain was not you and has jang hose curtain wall systems and curtain wall units are now subject to the aluminum extrusions orders isn't that just a flat no wiggle room concession that their products are in fact now going to be dutiable under the scope ruling that that they challenge and if that's true which of the three standard article three standing elements is missing they're injured it's traceable to the scope ruling and it will be fixed if the scope ruling is overturned i understand your question your honor and it would certainly be convenient for us to accept that as a so called concession the problem that we have as a principled matter is that that so called concession mischaracterizes what commerce has done commerce went out of its way to necessary to determine whether or not duties will be imposed they pay in cash deposits no you're are that's not in the record and i don't have that information but based on the  which are without prejudice to a final determination at the good asian as to whether duties are of those cash deposits may be refunded are you going to refund these right after this case no matter what what happens here i mean if we were to say they don't have christ and that we actually by coincidence had a case yesterday that involved this retrospective globbing clawing back and keeping the cash deposit which i assume may be what happens here  information that there was a failure to cooperate and congress made a determination in part based on adverse facts available that jane hose merchandise was subject to the  that is pending before the c i t a challenge to that commerce determination that's not before the court but john moe and promised all these are asking this court to do this court of appeals to make fact findings base this case the last paragraph does actually command the liquidation of their products according to this scope ruling yes it does your honor but that so how did they not have standing to the united states objected initially and the trial court indicated it was not inclined to hear that objection and this is before my time but ultimately that objection is withdrawn at the court's direction and here we are the fact that there's there was a p r preliminary injunction and a final judgment that says in a court and liquidate in accordance with the decision that just begs the question liquidation and the applicability to those two plaintiffs of this scope really your honor it would be that the judgment in favor of the defendant however this proceeding i thought it was related to the injunction no rather the there is a separate decision respect in the context of an administrative review there's a separate commerce decision that pertains to janko those products and that is the subject of litigation before the c r t it may reach this court but it's not before the court today and that's our that's our point to what why why did you agree to consolidation if your view is that from the get go this scope ruling could not possibly be litigated by these these two  judge pogue indicated that he was not inclined to hear the standing arguments at that time so what we had were three complaints challenging the same scope ruling on the same administrative record and it's standard practice for the government to move to consolidate arguing that their product is exactly the same in the subsequent cases if this court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction i have little doubt that they will find they will discover  el here because no one relied on that no the trial court never addressed and we never litigated that question the question of whether their product is the same is something that the trial court didn't look at congress didn't look at and they are asking this court to make that fact finding on the very record the conversation was insufficient to make that determination the little girl weaver is odd isn't it it's a little brother verse so i mean that if that but we feel very quite strongly about those and it's important to note that this doesn't come up very often it is true that they are they interested party statute is very broad and in ninety nine cases out of a hundred perhaps the interested parties under the statute are going to possess article three standing as well it's only because of th the two duty orders are the following four things why might that not be enough for standing if they say we have those four things even though the specific we're  not subject in some adjudicatory sense to the commerce department order but the order has a broader effect than a bottom line judgement if that's what you want to call it for for you on it as if we can get a reversal of the rule that of the the ruling that these four factors make the duties applicable then we will quite quite likely benefit maybe not even certain certainty but certainty is not required for standing technical drawings its particulars of its contract to all rangelands its import documentation and that's what commerce determined and made a conclusion based upon congress did not have any of that evidence with respect to jenko and promise to lisa and so i've been standing is not a question for commerce to decide it's a question for the court to decide and they come in and they say she has those four characteristics we have as well that that's that's right brother they're injured because you want money from them traceable to this scope ruling because the scope rulings rationale is really really likely to mean that those duties will they will have to pay those duties and if we can get the commerce department ruling reversed then you know redress is likely they're there and their argument asked the court to assume its own jurisdiction because their argument that they make the same product in the same and in court in the same way that it's standing is always based on a set of assertions of facts yes at a pleading stage you  to take the facts as a given and if you want to go beyond the pleading stage as a defendant you have to contest those facts which you didn't well the we have contested the question of whether lisa had come into the court and said we know that article three standing is that a ship and so we've come in with half declarations or affidavits or other competent evidence in order to establish their cognizable interest but they never put their name on the dotted line under oath to demonstrate to this court with competent evidence that they possess standing instead what they have done is they have relied on record i'm sorry up but all we have in their cases is the complaint and a complaint people don't submit oaths that's not a good for evidence and if you are in a kind of a normal district court case complaint make certain factual allegations if the defendant wants to contest standing the defendant has to contest standing at that point there might be a summary judgment or other proceeding in which evidence is actually the issue but we never got to that in this case your honor it was never litigated previous council i mean the underlying duty orders yes no i don't have those so you think you found those ok very good maybe maybe we could say something about the merits sure if the court reaches the merits of the truck work correctly  sustained the scope ruling which found based on substantial evidence that you want this curtain walls are not important as a kit and don't need the finished goods kit exclusion in the orders the commerce analysis was straight forward the orders exclude fish goods kits that contain at the time of importation all parts needed to assemble the finished product as it is without further finishing   we're not in the kit exception want the other exporters tros to import around the same time all the parts necessary to assemble the final of the niche product and that's the cladding of the whole yes consistent with the petition exhibit which suggested that that might be a possibility they see technical drawings and contract documents show that the curtain was required steel and beds and other components for assembly that are not shipped at the same time not all of the parts needed to assemble the final curtain wall and they're not assembled as it is either you want to skirt the wall units also require cutting hunching waterproofing during assembly that's not as it is it doesn't meet the requirements of the kit test how much of what you just said would apply to your colleague's argument about subassemblies that say i think i heard her say take two of these panels two together would be a subassembly and so i think i first wrote it do you disagree that a box on the ship that contains two panels and everything you need to put them together so that if that were the entire building it would be finished do you disagree that that would be excluded from the duties attached to the building it shouldn't unit after unit after unit in order to assemble the complete curtain wall so you cannot assemble the curtain wall without the steel embedded and all the other components the co because they're not assembled at the time of importation they're assembled after importation i guess i was maybe i misunderstood i was understanding her to say something like a crate that contains everything that would be necessary to put together two panels truly everything would be a sub a kit for creating a subassembly and therefore that would be excluded from the to duty or not on this record your honor because even those curtain more units commerce found work were not assembled as it is they require further finishing in fabrication cutting punching waterproofing that this order does not require that we say whenever a less than the entire building cladding is part of the shipment the exclusion from the two duty orders are in applicable there's nothing even if we focused more narrowly there's still stuff missing from the crate that that's right roger and i think that was the approach that judge gordon took in the trial court all of that because there were further compounds and further fabrication that was necessary in this case we didn't need to reach the additional defect in that the reliance on the finished goods kit that these were entered at multiple entries multiple times over a period of months or even years if i could just sum up in some because a long list of further finishing in fabrication arguments alysa long i use up my remaining thirty seconds three counting them all simply put these important parts are not like those that that giant like those that attach themselves to the outside wit give right article three standing if it doesn't exist that the at least not as the injury right that they are but they are tacking the basis for the statutory standing in a sense by doing that because they're claiming somehow that they are that they don't have the interest of the merchant lives in some way and the way they're getting to that is by raising what i think really are merits arguments when i hear them talk about parts lists and whether or not on the materials ready for the time of assembly at the time in that case the other arguments as to whether whether with the exclusion of matter not really gets into the merits of it it really is a standing issue so there do some so no one don't question whether we had standing all along because the product is understood to be the critical it was only really later in the proceedings when they were on an issue was raised as to whether we should be looking at particle stream disagreed we disagree with the premises we don't believe any of that st merchandise the merchandise hasn't changed and whether or not somebody's going to qualify for the exception because of the lack of complete parts list or something along those lines that really gets into really what the merits are in other is that those components and what commerce society too is finishing are really operations that are not impact make it hanging on the building or drilled it in such a way maybe that would be fabrication or did some sort of finishing to that aluminum but that's not what they're talking about here and again