Best Key Textiles Co. Ltd. v. United States
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1645
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- Best Key appeals a CIT decision denying its Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record.
- CIT dismissed Best Key I for lack of jurisdiction and later, on rehearing, granted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4) in Best Key II, then reached the merits to sustain the Revocation.
- Best Key sought pre-importation and post-importation review of Customs rulings classifying yarn and a Johnny Collar pullover.
- Customs initially ruled yarn as metalized yarn (HTSUS 5605.00.90) with higher duty, and Johnny Collar pullover as non-metalized polyester (HTSUS 6110.30.3053).
- Customs revoked the Yarn Ruling (lowering duties) and replaced/conflicted Johnny Collar rulings, prompting Best Key to sue.
- CIT ultimately vacated and remanded, holding lack of jurisdiction under several provisions; this court now reviews that jurisdictional ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CIT had jurisdiction under §1581(h) or §1581(i)(4). | Best Key argues §1581(i) permits its challenge; initially, §1581(h) suffices. | Government contends no §1581(h) or §1581(i)(4) jurisdiction because remedy is to challenge garment classifications or pursue §1581(a). | CIT lacked jurisdiction; vacated. |
| Whether Best Key may invoke residual jurisdiction §1581(i) despite access to §1581(a). | Remedy is inadequate under §1581(a) for reversing the Yarn Revocation to protect its benefits. | Residual §1581(i) should not be used where other avenues exist; jurisdiction inappropriate here. | Residual §1581(i) cannot be used when §1581(a) remedies are available; not manifestly inadequate. |
| Whether Best Key’s harms are suffered by itself or merely by its customers; standing to bring §1581(i) action. | Best Key seeks to vindicate its entitlement to the Yarn Ruling for its customers. | Harm is borne by garment importers, not Best Key; §1581(i) cannot be used to protect remote interests. | Remedy and standing do not support §1581(i) jurisdiction. |
| Did the CIT properly rely on Best Key II's “presumption” of jurisdiction under §1581(i)(4) for merits review? | Best Key relied on Best Key II’s reasoning to proceed on the merits. | Presumption was improperly invoked; jurisdiction not established. | Improper to presume §1581(i)(4) jurisdiction; vacate. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Air Parcel Forwarding Co. v. United States, 718 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (requires pre-importation review prerequisites for §1581(h) and related limits)
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 544 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (caution against overbroad application of residual §1581(i))
- Chemsol, LLC v. United States, 755 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (caution against expansive use of §1581(i) as a catch‑all)
- Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 688 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (text clarifies limitations on jurisdictional avenues under §1581)
- Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 717 F. Supp. 847 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989) (illustrates §1581(i) not to create new causes of action)
- Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. United States, 687 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (discusses limits of residual jurisdiction in context of §1581)