24 F.4th 1072
6th Cir.2022Background
- Ammex operates a duty-free gas station at the foot of the Ambassador Bridge in Wayne County, placed beyond the CBP "exit point" so its fuel is treated as exported and sold duty-free under federal customs law.
- Michigan adopted the "Summer Fuel Law" (incorporated into the SIP and the CFR) requiring a 7.0 psi RVP limit for gasoline at "dispensing facilities" in specified counties, including Wayne, from June 1–Sept 15 each year.
- MDARD tested Ammex fuel in 2012, found RVP >7.0, issued a stop-sale, and litigated enforcement; Ammex previously prevailed in Court of International Trade (Ammex I) securing duty-free retail sales of fuel.
- Ammex sued to enjoin MDARD, alleging (1) dormant Foreign Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause violations (preserved from prior appeal), (2) that the RVP rule does not apply to "export only" fuel, and (3) that the customs/warehousing statutes conflict with the RVP regulation.
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the Summer Fuel Law unambiguously applies to Ammex and that no conflict with federal customs law exists.
Issues
| Issue | Ammex's Argument | MDARD's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Do Ammex's dormant Foreign Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause claims state a claim? | Ammex contends state enforcement of the RVP rule burdens foreign commerce and is preempted. | MDARD relies on prior panel decision rejecting Ammex's claims. | Court: Claims fail for reasons set out in prior opinion (Ammex II); dismissal affirmed. |
| 2. Does the Summer Fuel Law apply to Ammex's "export-only" duty-free fueling operations? | Ammex invokes a 1989 EPA notice saying exported gasoline is not covered and says its fuel never enters domestic commerce. | MDARD: statute plainly covers all "dispensing facilities" in Wayne County; the law is unambiguous and applies to Ammex. | Court: Statute unambiguously covers dispensing facilities in Wayne County; Ammex's exemption claim fails. |
| 3. Does 19 U.S.C. § 1557 (Withdrawal Statute) or the duty-free scheme preclude enforcement of the RVP standard (preemption/conflict)? | Ammex reads § 1557 and related customs law as granting a right to sell "any merchandise subject to duty of every description" duty-free, so EPA limits conflict with customs law. | MDARD: § 1557 describes warehousing/withdrawal procedures, not an affirmative right to sell free of other federal regulation; no incompatibility. | Court: No conflict; § 1557 does not grant an unconstrained right to sell dutiable merchandise free of concurrent regulation, so the RVP rule can be applied. |
| 4. Are 7.0 and 9.0 RVP gasolines different "merchandise descriptions" for customs/HTS purposes such that regulation alters customs rights? | Ammex argues RVP levels are different varieties and § 1557 protects sale of every "description." | MDARD: HTS does not distinguish RVP levels; § 1557 operates at class level, not micro-variations, so regulation does not defeat customs scheme. | Court: Doubts that RVP differences constitute distinct dutiable descriptions under HTS or § 1557; no clear statutory conflict shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ammex, Inc. v. Wenk, 936 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2019) (prior panel decision rejecting Ammex's Commerce/Supremacy claims)
- Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 24 C.I.T. 851 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000) (Ammex I) (CIT held CBP wrongly prohibited duty-free retail sale of gasoline)
- Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) (courts should not look beyond a regulation's text if it is unambiguous)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) (statutory/regulatory conflict analysis — regulations contrary to statute must give way)