[00:00:00] Speaker 05:
This case is Will Luck Company versus the United States, 17-1860.

[00:01:02] Speaker 05:
Counselor Arandia.

[00:01:05] Speaker 05:
Yes, your honor.

[00:01:07] Speaker 05:
So help me out here.

[00:01:08] Speaker 05:
You split your time with Mr. Givens.

[00:01:12] Speaker 05:
Is that correct?

[00:01:14] Speaker 05:
Yes, your honor.

[00:01:14] Speaker 05:
Is Mr. Givens given the rebuttal arguments?

[00:01:20] Speaker 01:
Yes, he's only given the rebuttal arguments.

[00:01:22] Speaker 05:
OK, so you're going for 10, and then Mr. Givens is going to rebut for 5?

[00:01:27] Speaker 05:
Yes, your honor.

[00:01:30] Speaker 05:
OK.

[00:01:30] Speaker 01:
All right, you may proceed.

[00:01:31] Speaker ?:
OK.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:01:35] Speaker 01:
This case is about the common commercial meaning of sunflower seeds and an unambiguous, unlimited eunogic provision for sunflower seeds, which provides for sunflower seeds without qualifying language.

[00:01:48] Speaker 01:
According to dictionaries, industry sources, and encyclopedias, the common commercial meaning of the tariff term, sunflower seeds, includes willux sunflower seeds.

[00:01:58] Speaker 01:
The trial court committed reversible error by disregarding the common commercial meaning of the term sunflower seeds and limiting the scope of an unlimited EO non-provision to exclude Willex snacking seeds.

[00:02:12] Speaker 01:
This court should reverse the trial court's decision that Willex snacking sunflower seeds are not classifiable as sunflower seeds.

[00:02:21] Speaker 01:
Alex just got three main points today.

[00:02:24] Speaker 05:
So your argument is that because 206

[00:02:29] Speaker 05:
starts off by saying sunflower seeds, but the inquiry ends there.

[00:02:34] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:02:35] Speaker 01:
Heading 12.06, we simply provide for sunflower seeds, whether or not broken.

[00:02:39] Speaker 01:
When we do an e-nominate analysis, we look to the common commercial meaning of the term, which we did here.

[00:02:44] Speaker 05:
Well, what the court did is look at the common commercial meaning of the term as to the product that's been imported.

[00:02:52] Speaker 05:
So what's being imported are not just sunflower seeds,

[00:02:57] Speaker 05:
coconut-flavored sunflower seeds, spice-flavored sunflower seeds.

[00:03:01] Speaker 05:
So there's something different there, wouldn't you say, with what the imported product actually is, other than just sunflower seeds?

[00:03:09] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:03:11] Speaker 01:
They're different in the sense that they're processed.

[00:03:14] Speaker 01:
They're made for snacking.

[00:03:15] Speaker 04:
And used.

[00:03:17] Speaker 04:
You can't grow them, for example.

[00:03:19] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
Or you cannot extract them for oil.

[00:03:22] Speaker 04:
In the blue brief at 28, you have a chart that

[00:03:26] Speaker 04:
represents the industry distinction between confectionary type and oil seed type sunflower seeds.

[00:03:33] Speaker 04:
Where's that in the record?

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
It's coming from a variety of sources.

[00:03:40] Speaker 01:
So the chart itself is not?

[00:03:44] Speaker 01:
The chart itself, no.

[00:03:45] Speaker 01:
I constructed that from the variety of sources in the record.

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
I can point you to the sources.

[00:03:51] Speaker 05:
So was the court wrong when the court looked at the imported product and said,

[00:03:56] Speaker 05:
coconut-flavored sunflower seeds or spiced sunflower seeds?

[00:04:02] Speaker 05:
Or should the court just look at this and said, the imported product here is sunflower seeds?

[00:04:09] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
The court looked at the product as it was imported.

[00:04:13] Speaker 01:
However, what the court erred on was limiting the common commercial meaning of sunflower seeds to only those students.

[00:04:20] Speaker 05:
But the court didn't err in looking at commercial dictionaries and undertaking a review as to the common

[00:04:26] Speaker 05:
commercial meaning of the term sunflower seeds, right?

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:04:30] Speaker 01:
The trial court found that the common commercial meaning of sunflower seeds includes snacking seeds.

[00:04:34] Speaker 05:
Includes what?

[00:04:35] Speaker 01:
Snacking seeds?

[00:04:36] Speaker 01:
That's how we describe it.

[00:04:37] Speaker 05:
Snacking seeds.

[00:04:41] Speaker 01:
The trial court did err though in limiting that common commercial meaning to those sunflower seeds suitable for only oil extraction or sowing, which our seeds are not.

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
That limitation does not exist in the tariff language.

[00:04:55] Speaker 02:
But if we look at the product as processed sunflower seeds, why isn't 2008 more specific to that?

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
Because it talks about processed nuts and seeds rather than just general sunflower seeds.

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
The difference between heading 2008 and 2006 is heading 2008 is a not elsewhere specified BASC revision.

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
We contend that heading 2006 does specify and include

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
snacking seeds because of the common commercial unique.

[00:05:28] Speaker 05:
So at some point, you would agree that the imported product here plausibly falls under one or two different classifications.

[00:05:39] Speaker 05:
Absolutely, yes.

[00:05:40] Speaker 05:
So there's two classifications that are at odds with each other.

[00:05:43] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:05:44] Speaker 05:
Well, don't the rules and general interpretations say that when you have that type of situation that the proper classification is, as Judge Hughes suggested, the classification that

[00:05:54] Speaker 05:
more specifically describes it, more narrowly describes the product.

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:06:01] Speaker 01:
GRR3 does say that.

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
We contend that the rule of relative specificity favors heading to 006, because there is no limitation in the tariff language.

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
And the car.

[00:06:13] Speaker 04:
Is your product not classifiable under 2008?

[00:06:18] Speaker 04:
It is.

[00:06:19] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:06:20] Speaker 04:
So you have subject merchandise

[00:06:25] Speaker 04:
in which you have a prima facie classification under both?

[00:06:28] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:06:28] Speaker 04:
So GRI 2A or 2B?

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
I don't follow, Your Honor.

[00:06:37] Speaker 04:
If we have one where you have it classifiable under both, does GRI 2A apply or 2B?

[00:06:44] Speaker 01:
I think that's the incomplete rule of interpretation.

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
I thought it was under GRI 3.

[00:06:50] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:06:51] Speaker 04:
So they don't, right?

[00:06:52] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
Exactly.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:06:53] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:06:54] Speaker 04:
So then we go to GRI 3, right?

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:07:00] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:07:02] Speaker 04:
Because neither is more or less specific.

[00:07:06] Speaker 01:
Well, the heading table 6 is more specific, because it is the only e-anomaly provision for sunflower seeds in the tarot schedule.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
And it's limited to a narrow range of products, only sunflower seeds.

[00:07:20] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:07:21] Speaker 04:
So is 2000s?

[00:07:23] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:07:24] Speaker 04:
is six more or less specific than eight?

[00:07:28] Speaker 04:
I'm trying to march you down a path.

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:
Six is more specific than eight.

[00:07:36] Speaker 04:
If they're equally specific, take me with this hypothetical, do we go to 3C, at which point 2008 applies?

[00:07:50] Speaker 01:
Possibly.

[00:07:52] Speaker 01:
I don't recall throughout my head what 3C says.

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:08:00] Speaker 05:
Why do you say that 206 is more specific?

[00:08:02] Speaker 05:
206 says sunflower seed, so it generally captures, granted, the basic product, the commodity here, a sunflower seed.

[00:08:14] Speaker 05:
But then when you look at 208, and you've acknowledged that

[00:08:19] Speaker 05:
These are two headings in which these products could be classified, and they're at odds with each other.

[00:08:25] Speaker 05:
And that justifies me now to depart from the Inami rule and take a look at 208.

[00:08:32] Speaker 05:
And there it says, fruit, nuts, and other edible parts of a plant.

[00:08:39] Speaker 05:
Well, a sunflower seed is an edible part of a plant.

[00:08:43] Speaker 05:
Then it goes on and says, otherwise prepared or preserved,

[00:08:47] Speaker 05:
whether or not containing added sugar or sweetening matter or spirit.

[00:08:53] Speaker 05:
And here, these seeds do contain flavoring.

[00:08:57] Speaker 05:
They contain a coconut flavoring.

[00:08:58] Speaker 05:
They contain spices.

[00:09:00] Speaker 05:
And so it seems to me this is getting a lot more specific than what I have under 206, especially if I take it down a little bit further where it speaks about seeds.

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, but the end of that term heading also says not elsewhere specified or included.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
which, again, goes back to the 1206.

[00:09:21] Speaker 01:
We can thus contend that the common commercial meaning wholly encompasses snacking seeds, which is why it's 1206.

[00:09:28] Speaker 01:
We also make a reference to heading 1202, which is the peanut provision, which specifically excludes roasted or otherwise cooked peanuts.

[00:09:38] Speaker 01:
There is the provision for soybeans and processed soybeans.

[00:09:43] Speaker 01:
There is no other unanimity provision for

[00:09:45] Speaker 01:
process sunflower seeds.

[00:09:47] Speaker 05:
So does a degree of processing have a play here?

[00:09:52] Speaker 01:
Sure, yes.

[00:09:54] Speaker 05:
And does it matter whether a seed is, through its processing, rendered suitable to a particular purpose?

[00:10:03] Speaker 01:
That's what the general explanatory notes to chapter 12 say.

[00:10:07] Speaker 01:
We contend that the trial court, thereby relying on those explanatory notes to limit the tariff meaning of sunflower seeds.

[00:10:17] Speaker 01:
Finally, I just want to reiterate my point that heading 1206 is unlimited and an ambiguous economic provision.

[00:10:27] Speaker 01:
It includes all forms of the article.

[00:10:30] Speaker 01:
If Congress had intended to limit heading 1206 like they did in heading 1202, they would have done so, and it did not.

[00:10:40] Speaker 01:
With that, if there are any more questions, Your Honors, I would like to adjourn for the rest of my time.

[00:10:45] Speaker 05:
OK.

[00:10:46] Speaker 05:
Thank you very much.

[00:10:54] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:10:55] Speaker 03:
May it please the Court.

[00:10:56] Speaker 05:
Here, Mr. van der Weed.

[00:10:58] Speaker 05:
Did I pronounce that correctly?

[00:10:59] Speaker 03:
Yeah, van der Weed.

[00:10:59] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
Well, there's a Dutch pronunciation, but that's much more.

[00:11:02] Speaker 05:
We could put that to the side.

[00:11:03] Speaker 05:
Do you want me to try the Dutch?

[00:11:04] Speaker 03:
Well, that's fun to write up, but no one can pronounce that correctly.

[00:11:08] Speaker 04:
Including the Dutch.

[00:11:09] Speaker 03:
Well, yeah.

[00:11:10] Speaker 03:
That's true.

[00:11:11] Speaker 03:
May it please the Court, Your Honors.

[00:11:13] Speaker 03:
This Court should affirm the trial court's decision that the merchandise is properly classifiable and heading 2008 and not 1206, because 2008 is the only provision

[00:11:24] Speaker 03:
that wholly describes and encompasses Wellick's merchandise as a prepared snack food product of an edible part of a plant.

[00:11:31] Speaker 03:
But if we take 1206 as covering all sunflower seeds, doesn't it fall within that?

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
Normally, an AO nominate provision covers all forms of an article.

[00:11:43] Speaker 03:
But this court has long held that contrary legislative intent can remove an article from an otherwise AO nominate provision.

[00:11:49] Speaker 03:
And here, we see that contrary legislative.

[00:11:52] Speaker 05:
Under what conditions can we do that, or what circumstances?

[00:11:55] Speaker 03:
Under circumstances, go all the way back to a new compaction.

[00:11:59] Speaker 05:
Because you do agree with your opponent that when we start out with an AO nominee classification, and in this case, Sunflower Seeds, then the general path of interpretation is to stop there.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
But there can be exceptions to either limiting language for an AO nominating provision.

[00:12:25] Speaker 03:
Granted, there's not here.

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
Just sunflower seeds, whether or not broken.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
Or there could be an adverse judicial decision in administrative practice, an adverse commercial designation.

[00:12:35] Speaker 03:
You haven't cited those.

[00:12:36] Speaker 03:
We don't have those.

[00:12:39] Speaker 03:
But we do have contrary legislative intent here.

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
And that legislative intent is manifest in multiple ways.

[00:12:46] Speaker 03:
One way is the structure of the tariff itself that Congress enacted, whereas less processed goods are in earlier chapters.

[00:12:54] Speaker 03:
And as the goods become more in practice, they go into later chapters.

[00:12:57] Speaker 05:
What makes the tariff schedules unique, and the tariff schedules are already statute, what makes them unique is that Congress has provided within the tariff schedules the rules of interpretation.

[00:13:10] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:13:11] Speaker 05:
And you're asking us to abandon those rules of interpretation.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
We're not asking to abandon the rules of interpretation.

[00:13:17] Speaker 03:
We believe that this merchandise can be classifiable under GRI 1.

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
And this merchandise is not covered by 1206, because Congress has saw fit that once an edible part of the seed has been processed, let's just say pressed into oil, now it's no longer a seed of chapter 12.

[00:13:37] Speaker 03:
Now it's a good of chapter 15.

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
It's now a new article.

[00:13:40] Speaker 03:
for tariff purposes.

[00:13:42] Speaker 02:
Wait, are you saying processed sunflower seeds are different than sunflower seeds?

[00:13:46] Speaker 03:
Yes, because the sunflower seeds in all of the Chapter 12 goods, these are raw or minimally processed goods.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
They could be put to a variety of uses.

[00:13:56] Speaker 03:
You could put them in the ground seed.

[00:13:58] Speaker 05:
How do we know that?

[00:14:00] Speaker 05:
1206 says sunflower seeds, whether or not broken.

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
But that provision must be read in conjunction with the rest of the tariff statute, which is 2008.

[00:14:10] Speaker 03:
We can't disregard 2008.

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
It's part of the same general decision.

[00:14:14] Speaker 04:
Your opposing counsel conceded that at a GRI 1 level, that it was equally likely one or the other, and that you had to go further.

[00:14:25] Speaker 04:
So that's your answer.

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
I think that's a possible path.

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
But I still think under GRI 1 that the trial court reached the right decision here.

[00:14:36] Speaker 03:
Because when we look at 2008, and we

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
1206 in conjunction with each other.

[00:14:43] Speaker 03:
If we include all forms of an article and sunflower seeds under Chapter 12, then what's the point of having Chapter 20?

[00:14:49] Speaker 03:
Because all processed or all prepared sunflower seeds or fruits or edible or nuts or legumes, they would all go under Chapter 8 or Chapter 12.

[00:14:59] Speaker 03:
Nothing would go under Chapter 20.

[00:15:00] Speaker 03:
So Congress saw fit to have Chapter 20 to include products such as these, which are processed and prepared edible parts of plants.

[00:15:09] Speaker 03:
We can't read out chapter 20 and 2008.

[00:15:13] Speaker 03:
There has to be a dividing line there.

[00:15:15] Speaker 03:
So we need to look at 1206 with 2008, the structure of the tariff.

[00:15:20] Speaker 03:
And the general EN just corroborates this by further clarifying.

[00:15:23] Speaker 02:
Are there other provisions in chapter 12 that so generally cover other fruits or nuts that might go under 2008 without exception like sunflower seeds?

[00:15:35] Speaker 02:
Well, there's a pretty recall.

[00:15:37] Speaker 02:
Because the peanut one that your friend

[00:15:38] Speaker 02:
refers to is much different.

[00:15:40] Speaker 02:
It has specifics and it has specific exclusions.

[00:15:44] Speaker 03:
It has specific inclusions.

[00:15:46] Speaker 03:
The World Customs Organization said that that language was confusing.

[00:15:50] Speaker 03:
Why is that here and not in other provisions?

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
It wasn't precisely drafted and consistent through the rest of the chapter.

[00:15:58] Speaker 02:
Is there another provision like the sunflower seed provision which says sunflower seed?

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
Is there a provision that says walnuts?

[00:16:06] Speaker 03:
In chapter 20, I believe there are some AO nominate provisions of worked up articles such as soybeans and nuts, peanut butter is in chapter 20, because it's been processed to the point that it's no longer in chapter 12 good.

[00:16:24] Speaker 03:
Here, we don't have a specific AO nominate provision in 2008.

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
No, I was really asking the other question.

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
Is there anything in chapter 12 that so broadly covers a specific type of nut or fruit that is then covered later in chapter 20 in a process form?

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
Or is sunflower seeds the only one like that?

[00:16:43] Speaker 02:
Peanuts, all of the provisions.

[00:16:45] Speaker 02:
Peanuts doesn't help you, because peanuts has got a lot of explanatory language.

[00:16:49] Speaker 03:
Soybeans.

[00:16:50] Speaker 03:
There's soybeans as well.

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
And what does that say?

[00:16:52] Speaker 03:
And so in soybeans, I believe it just says, I don't have the tariff right in front of me, but soybeans is provided under Chapter 12.

[00:17:01] Speaker 03:
And again, it's provided under Chapter 20 as well as processed, as worked up.

[00:17:07] Speaker 03:
So there's always the case of where there's the unprocessed versions, which are in Chapter 8 or 12, depending if it's a fruit or a nut or a legume.

[00:17:15] Speaker 03:
And then in Chapter 20, there's the processed versions.

[00:17:17] Speaker 03:
So there's a dividing line there.

[00:17:20] Speaker 03:
And that dividing line is the processing that a seed or a legume or a net or a fruit undergoes.

[00:17:27] Speaker 05:
So do you think the court followed the correct path here when the court looks and finds 206?

[00:17:34] Speaker 05:
It's an AO nominee provision.

[00:17:37] Speaker 05:
But then in order to establish a commercial meaning of the imported product, because the court has to look at the, or in customs, has to actually look at what's being imported here.

[00:17:47] Speaker 05:
Absolutely.

[00:17:48] Speaker 05:
And it's clear on the face of the imported product that the bags of the imported product say coconut flavored sunflower seeds.

[00:18:01] Speaker 05:
So would it be correct then to go, oh, these are just sunflower seeds, where there's another provision that potentially refers to processed seeds for the process?

[00:18:14] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
There's been no uniform commercial designation of sunflower seeds that's been established here because there's potential multiple industries of sunflower seeds.

[00:18:26] Speaker 03:
There's for sowing purposes or what we may colloquially call sunflower seeds if we go into a store and buy them off the rack and chew them and call them sunflower seeds.

[00:18:35] Speaker 03:
But that doesn't make those sunflower seeds for tariff purposes of 1206.

[00:18:42] Speaker 03:
There's no uniform commercial designation here.

[00:18:44] Speaker 04:
Let me take you away from

[00:18:45] Speaker 04:
from the CIT's analysis.

[00:18:50] Speaker 04:
And I'll take you along the same lines I took opposing counsel.

[00:18:54] Speaker 04:
And that is, if we go past 1, do 2A or 2B apply?

[00:19:02] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:19:03] Speaker 04:
OK, so if they don't, is 1206 more or less specific than 2008?

[00:19:15] Speaker 03:
2008 is more specific than 1206.

[00:19:18] Speaker 03:
I could provide your Honor reasons for that.

[00:19:20] Speaker 04:
But if they're equally specific, doesn't 2008 apply pursuant to 3C?

[00:19:27] Speaker 03:
If we get to 3C, then it's the higher the tariff.

[00:19:33] Speaker 04:
I'm walking you through my draft.

[00:19:35] Speaker 03:
So 2008 is clearly higher than 1206.

[00:19:38] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:19:40] Speaker 03:
I believe we win on GRI-1.

[00:19:42] Speaker 03:
If we get to GRI-3, I believe we win as well, because under 1, you can't have a product that's prima facie classifiable as both the raw materials themselves and then a wholly new manufactured product that sure may include the raw materials, but has undergone a process, has added ingredients that now... But if it's equally arguable, then you have to go down through, march through.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
And if we march through and we get to 3, we get to 3A.

[00:20:07] Speaker 03:
2008 is a much more specific provision.

[00:20:11] Speaker 03:
The standard that this court has articulated is look at the provision with the requirements that are more difficult to satisfy and describe the article with the greatest degree of accuracy.

[00:20:22] Speaker 03:
And it's much more difficult to satisfy 2008 because it includes a process that an edible part of the plant must undergo.

[00:20:29] Speaker 03:
And they're cooked to the point where you can't use them for the... You can't do anything else with them other than eat them.

[00:20:33] Speaker 03:
You can't put them in the ground.

[00:20:34] Speaker 03:
You can't turn them into oil.

[00:20:36] Speaker 03:
And all of the chapter 12 goods are those goods that have that fungible nature, that can be put to any use.

[00:20:43] Speaker 03:
It doesn't matter what use they're put up for, but they could be put to any use.

[00:20:47] Speaker 03:
They could be put to eating, oil, livestock meal, whatever.

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
You can take the earlier chapter sunflower seeds, put them in the oven, put salt on them, and you have roasted sunflower seeds.

[00:20:59] Speaker 03:
That's right.

[00:20:59] Speaker 03:
And they're cooked to the point where you can't use them for germination, sowing, or anything else.

[00:21:04] Speaker 03:
So at that point, now we have a new article for tariff purposes.

[00:21:09] Speaker 03:
And that new article is specifically provided in 2008.

[00:21:11] Speaker 03:
Are there any other questions that Your Honors would like me to address?

[00:21:16] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:21:18] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:21:19] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:21:27] Speaker 05:
Mr. Givens, you have five minutes.

[00:21:30] Speaker 00:
Five minutes.

[00:21:31] Speaker 00:
So I'll write to you.

[00:21:32] Speaker 00:
Your Honors.

[00:21:36] Speaker 00:
Sunflower seeds have been eaten in the United States for some 3,000 years.

[00:21:41] Speaker 00:
The USDA in our appendix says that and talks about the issue of sunflower seeds.

[00:21:48] Speaker 00:
And so what we're trying to figure out here today is why an unambiguous, unlimited term called sunflower seeds does not include sunflower seeds that have been eaten in the United States

[00:22:02] Speaker 00:
for 3,000 years.

[00:22:03] Speaker 05:
Maybe the commercial, it's because the commercial meaning of the imported product is not just sunflower seeds, it's coconut flavored sunflower seeds.

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
Could be.

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
Let's look at the judge's rationale.

[00:22:14] Speaker 00:
The judge looked at dictionary definitions.

[00:22:18] Speaker 00:
She says definitions, but only cited one dictionary.

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
And looked up, she parsed the tariff term, which is sunflower seeds, and looked up sunflower, and looked up seeds.

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
And sunflower, what she found was pretty flowers.

[00:22:31] Speaker 04:
Same question I asked everybody.

[00:22:35] Speaker 04:
And that is, if we think they're equally likely, we have to march through the HDSUS.

[00:22:40] Speaker 04:
And doesn't that take us to 3A?

[00:22:44] Speaker 00:
No, sir.

[00:22:46] Speaker 00:
Because this says that she looked up sunflower and she looked up seed.

[00:22:51] Speaker 00:
And when she looked up seed, she saw that it's for sowing.

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
And she looked over at the encyclopedic and encyclopedia

[00:23:02] Speaker 00:
and other industry sources, including the USDA, that we cited.

[00:23:06] Speaker 00:
And she said, well, the plaintiff, in that case, said that his rationale is that sunflower seeds are both for general use, that's sowing and oil extraction and whatever else we can think of, plus they're for snacking.

[00:23:25] Speaker 04:
Are the items in 2008 sunflower seeds?

[00:23:29] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, Your Honor, am I hearing you?

[00:23:30] Speaker 04:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:23:32] Speaker 04:
We're in the same boat.

[00:23:33] Speaker 00:
Mine were left.

[00:23:35] Speaker 04:
Are the items in 2008 sunflower seeds?

[00:23:39] Speaker 00:
There is no sunflower seed in 2008.

[00:23:41] Speaker 00:
There's no specification.

[00:23:42] Speaker 00:
My word doesn't appear in 2008.

[00:23:45] Speaker 00:
It does not appear.

[00:23:46] Speaker 05:
It says edible parts of plants.

[00:23:48] Speaker 00:
Oh, but sunflower seeds doesn't appear.

[00:23:51] Speaker 00:
No, but are they sunflower seeds?

[00:23:53] Speaker 00:
Are edible parts of... Yes, they are.

[00:23:55] Speaker 00:
But that's a basket provision.

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
And these are sunflower seeds.

[00:23:59] Speaker 00:
Let me finish the statement.

[00:24:01] Speaker 00:
She looked at this and she found that our definitions, the ones that we provided, contain sunflower seeds of general use.

[00:24:11] Speaker 00:
That's what she wants in our argument.

[00:24:16] Speaker 00:
And they were for snacking seeds.

[00:24:19] Speaker 00:
So we call snacking seeds, confectionary seeds.

[00:24:22] Speaker 00:
It's one and the same.

[00:24:23] Speaker 00:
Then she says, from that,

[00:24:25] Speaker 00:
fact that this definition that we proposed is different from hers, and she found because hers is for sewing, she went to the explanatory notes.

[00:24:35] Speaker 00:
She couldn't go to the explanatory notes, and you can't go to the explanatory notes, which confuse things unless you have ambiguity.

[00:24:43] Speaker 00:
She found ambiguity in comparing her definition of a parsed part of the term with our definition.

[00:24:52] Speaker 00:
And she went over there and she found, well, and we got into all this further discussion.

[00:24:56] Speaker 00:
But the fact is, you shouldn't have gone with explanatory notes because there was no ambiguity.

[00:25:02] Speaker 05:
She didn't look up the term.

[00:25:03] Speaker 05:
How about the fact that these seeds, let's say you have a pack of unprocessed, raw, basic sunflower seeds, then those could conceivably be 1206 for human use in shell.

[00:25:19] Speaker 05:
But these are not.

[00:25:20] Speaker 05:
These are coconut flavored.

[00:25:22] Speaker 05:
That's right.

[00:25:22] Speaker 05:
And they're for the process.

[00:25:24] Speaker 00:
That's right, John.

[00:25:25] Speaker 00:
And most sunflower seeds, if you go out down in the store downstairs, you'll buy sunflower seeds.

[00:25:30] Speaker 00:
They're flavored and sugar and salt because they're more tasty and people eat them better, quicker.

[00:25:37] Speaker 00:
She said that snacking seed is not included in the sunflower seed provision.

[00:25:48] Speaker 00:
had been eating for 3,000 years.

[00:25:51] Speaker 00:
How did she get there?

[00:25:51] Speaker 00:
She went there by going to the explanatory notes that talk about 2008, and they take you off in different directions.

[00:25:58] Speaker 00:
As my colleague said, in 1202, you have a whole lot of provisions.

[00:26:05] Speaker 00:
Every one of those, except sunflower seeds, has some other provision where he goes if it's processed.

[00:26:12] Speaker 00:
So that's our argument.

[00:26:15] Speaker 00:
She went and confused the issue, and she shouldn't have.

[00:26:17] Speaker 05:
All right, thank you.

[00:26:18] Speaker 05:
I think we have that argument.