Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to create a new right,” but instead were intended to overrule Texport and thus to clarify the pre-existing right to drawback of HMT. See Aectra, 565 F.3d at 1369-70; Recording of Oral Argument at 12:15-13:55 (Shell argued that statement in Aectra is inconsistent with conceptual underpinnings of default rule). Shell’s “default rule” argument is both untimely and lacking in merit. As noted above, Shell raised the argument for the first time at oral argument. Shell’s briefs do not even allude to the default rule, much less articulate a position on the relevance and application of the rule to the facts of this case. By failing to brief the point, Shell waived its right to press its default rule argument here. See, e.g., Novosteel SA v. United States, 284 F.3d 1261, 1273-74 (Fed.Cir.2002) . However, even if Shell had briefed (and thus
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived
B. holding that an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived
C. holding that party waived argument which was not presented to court of international trade until after the party had filed its principal summary judgment brief reasoning that parties must give a trial court a fair opportunity to rule on an issue other than by raising that issue for the first time in a reply brief
D. holding that this court will not address the merits of an issue presented for the first time in a reply brief
E. holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.