Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
has provided none. Accordingly, this argument must be rejected as well. D. Conclusion In consideration of the foregoing, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted as to that portion of the requested relief that has not been mooted by the USTR’s removal of Gilda’s products from the retaliation list. Accordingly, Gilda’s imports of rusks or toasted breads from Spain entered after July 29, 2007 must be liquidated without the 100 percent retaliatory duty described herein. Further, the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection shall refund to the plaintiff all of the retaliatory duties (described herein) collected on Gilda’s toasted bread imports from Spain between July 29, 2007 and March 23, 2009. See Shinyei Corp. of America v. United States, 355 F.3d 1297 (Fed.Cir.2004) . 1 . The plaintiff's motion for summary
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a physical or theoretical possibility that the government actor would repeat challenged actions is insufficient to demonstrate that the challenged action is capable of repetition
B. holding that reliquidation is not prohibited where a decision of customs is not being challenged
C. holding that it is not
D. holding that a sentencing decision will be affirmed if challenged factor is permissible and other factors are not challenged
E. holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.