Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with generally accepted accounting principles. 54 Fed. Reg. at 29,974. 4 19 C.F.R. § 177.10(c) appears to apply to rates of duty rather than appraisement issues. 5 Defendant’s Reply Brief did not clarify the Cheurón deference discussion in its brief-in-chief to note the refinement of Chevron found in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Christensen. The government cannot pick and choose which Supreme Court cases it will follow. 6 Although the court concludes that TD 85-111 is not entitled to Chevron deference under a Christensen analysis, the court does not decide whether a similar policy promulgated through adjudication with the attendant procedural safeguards would warrant greater deference than that granted TD 85-111. Cf. INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 416 (1999)  (quoting INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation
B. holding regulations entitled to chevron deference
C. holding that in the absence of a statutory definition a term should be accorded its ordinary meaning
D. recognizing that board of immigration appeals should be accorded chevron deference as it gives ambiguous statutory terms concrete meaning through a process of casebycase adjudication
E. holding contract with ambiguous terms should not be dismissed on pleadings
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.