Carbon Activated Corp. v. United States
36 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 896
Ct. Intl. Trade2014Background
- Carbon Activated sues under the Court's jurisdiction after Customs liquidated three entries in 2008.
- Plaintiff argues the liquidations were premature and unlawful and argues timely protest could not be brought until after Hebei decision.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) or, alternatively, 12(b)(5).
- Plaintiff alleged § 1581(i) jurisdiction because other provisions were inadequate, claiming timely challenge was not available.
- Court notes importer has a duty to monitor liquidations; plaintiff’s protest was filed three years after liquidation.
- Court concludes § 1581(a) provides the proper remedy and that plaintiff’s protest was untimely, so § 1581(i) jurisdiction is not available; motion to dismiss granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 1581(i) jurisdiction available when § 1581(a) remedy exists? | § 1581(i) is appropriate because other provisions are inadequate. | If § 1581(a) could remedy the claim, § 1581(i) cannot be invoked. | No; § 1581(i) not available where § 1581(a) remedy exists. |
| Was plaintiff’s protest timely under § 1581(a)? | Protest within two years of liquidation would be timely given later Hebei dates. | Protest was filed three years after liquidation, untimely under § 1581(a). | Protest untimely; § 1581(a) remedy not exhausted timely. |
| Does importer duty to monitor liquidation affect timeliness of remedies under § 1581(a)? | Duty to monitor justifies late awareness and timing. | Duty to monitor does not excuse untimely protest; timely remedy exists regardless. | Duty to monitor does not render the remedy manifestly inadequate; untimely protest defeats § 1581(i) jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 303 U.S. 178 (1938) (threshold jurisdiction requirement; burden on plaintiff)
- Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (protest remedy timeline under § 1581(a) governs jurisdiction)
- Miller & Co. v. United States, 824 F.2d 961 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (§ 1581(i) only when other provisions are manifestly inadequate)