Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings” (ie., heading 9405 and heading 7013), the merchandise would nevertheless be properly classified under heading 9405, pursuant to GRI 3(a) — the rule of “relative specificity.” As outlined above, GRI 3(a) requires that— where merchandise is prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings — “[t]he heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description.” See GRI 3(a). As the Explanatory Notes emphasize, only if merchandise cannot be classified pursuant to GRI 3(a) does GRI 3(b) come into play. See Explanatory Note GRI 3(b)(VI) (stating that GRI 3(b) “applies only if Rule 3(a) fails”); Bauer Nike Hockey USA, Inc. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1246, 1252 (Fed.Cir.2004) . It is clear beyond cavil that heading 9405,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that for purposes of gri 2a essential character analysis it is the ability to process data that gives the essential character to articles under a tariff provision covering automatic data processing machines and units thereof
B. holding dismissal proper where complaint fails to allege an essential element of plaintiffs claim
C. holding that for purposes of gri 2a essential character analysis incomplete merchandise as imported does not have the essential character of the complete or finished article  the ability to strain salt from water and thus cannot be classified as straining cloth
D. holding that where the gri 3a rule of relative specificity adequately resolved proper classification of merchandise customs erred in reaching gri 3b essential character analysis
E. holding that plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the rule 11 context
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.