With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to expand the Federal Circuit’s decision in Pentax, into a holding that mismarking, which makes goods further dutiable or inadmissible, if timely recognized by Customs, is completely immaterial for purposes of 19 U.S.C. § 1592, unless but for the mismarking the goods would have been inadmissible or subject to other duties. See United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 134-37 (2d Cir.1999) (rejecting “but for” test of materiality for 18 U.S.C. § 542 and adopting “natural tendency” approach that a “false statement is material ... if it has the potential significantly to alter the integrity or operation of the importation process as a whole ....”) (quoting United States v. Holmquist, 36 F.3d 154, 159 (1st Cir.1994)); see also Rockwell, 10 CIT at 42, 628 F.Supp. at 210 (<HOLDING>) (quotation omitted). If 19 C.F.R. Part 171,

A: holding that a statement is material if it has the natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing a decision making process showing of actual influence unnecessary to prove materiality
B: holding that a statement made by a sixyearold to a fouryearold carries no indicia of reliability when the declarant denies ever making the statement the listener has no recollection of when or under what circumstances the statement was made and the listener is related to the defendaniappellant
C: holding that a hearsay statement can itself be considered in first determining if a conspiracy existed when the statement was made
D: holding that the standard for determining whether false statement is material under 19 usc  1592a is whether statement has a natural tendency to influence or was capa ble of influencing the decision of the tribunal in making a determination required to be made
D.