CIT Tosses Case Over Denied CBP Protests for Lack of Jurisdiction Under 1581(i)
The Court of International Trade doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear a case involving a textile company’s dispute with CBP, saying the company sought relief under the wrong statute, Judge Timothy Stanceu held in a March 10 opinion. The trade court found Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, didn’t show why the denied protest challenge should be filed under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction, and not Section 1581(a). Berger filed a notice of appeal the next business day.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Berger launched the case only two days earlier on March 8 to contest CBP's inaction on two protests involving Berger’s Canvas Banner Matisse coated fabric imports, which were assessed antidumping duties on artist canvas from China. The imports were not subject to the order, Berger said, and CBP should not have liquidated the entries and assessed duties because the Commerce Department had started a scope inquiry into Berger's coated fabric entries.
But Stanceu said the court didn’t have jurisdiction under Section 1581(i). The judge said CBP “denied the two protests on the ground” that it “made a final determination that the imported merchandise” is subject to the antidumping duty order. Berger “has not demonstrated that any remedy it might obtain” in a direct court challenge of the denied protest under Section 1581(a) “would be manifestly inadequate,” the judge said.
Berger had argued that Section 1581(a) was inadequate since it would not force CBP to wait to liquidate the entries until Commerce finished its scope inquiry. But Stanceu said commencing a court action under Section 1581(a) would halt liquidation.
Berger also said CBP doesn’t have scope ruling statutes that would provide adequate relief. "This argument is puzzling in light of plaintiff’s factual assertion that Customs already has made a 'final and conclusive' decision on the scope issue," Stanceu said. The judge added that starting a Section 1581(a) action would also not bar a separate case filed under Section 1581(c) to contest the scope ruling.
Stanceu also considered whether to consider Berger’s complaint as a Section 1581(a) challenge to a denied protest and allow the case to proceed, but declined. “An action to contest a protest denial by Customs is lawfully commenced only 'in accordance with the rules of the Court of International Trade.’ The action plaintiff has commenced does not conform to this Court’s rules for commencing an action to contest a denial of a protest," he said.
(Printing Textiles v. United States, Slip Op. 23-31, CIT #23-00056, dated 03/10/23, Judge Timothy Stanceu. Attorneys: Kyl Kirby for plaintiff Berger; Mikki Cottet for defendant U.S. government)