Chemsol, LLC v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11844
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Chemsol and MC International (MCI) challenged CIT dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Investigation began in 2010 into possible transshipment of Chinese citric acid through Dominican Republic and India to evade duties.
- Chemsol and MCI filed suit in the CIT on December 16, 2011 seeking declarations that liquidation extensions were unlawful and that entries were deemed liquidated by operation of law.
- Customs extended liquidation periods up to three times (total four years) to determine country of origin and duty rates, with notice to the importers.
- CIT dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that relief was available under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) or, alternatively, that § 1581(i) was unavailable and the § 1581(a) remedy was adequate.
- Appellants appeal, arguing § 1581(i) provides jurisdiction for the deemed liquidation scenario and that § 1581(a) is inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1581(i) provides jurisdiction. | Chemsol argues Ford supports § 1581(i). | Chemsol could seek relief under § 1581(a) after protest; § 1581(i) not appropriate. | § 1581(i) not available where § 1581(a) relief exists. |
| Whether § 1581(a) relief is manifestly inadequate to redress injury. | Appellants claim § 1581(a) cannot remedy delay and uncertainty. | Four-year liquidation window and protest process provide adequate redress. | § 1581(a) adequate; § 1581(i) improper. |
| Whether the CIT correctly applied the time-frame for liquidation and extensions. | Extensions were appropriate and properly noticed to prevent deemed liquidation. | Extensions within four-year limit are permissible and merge into liquidation. | Extensions with notice fall within § 1504(b); review proper after liquidation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 286 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (protest review and residual jurisdiction under § 1581(a))
- Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 157 F.3d 849 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (earlier consideration of jurisdiction and extensions)
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 544 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (limits of residual § 1581(i) and adequacy of § 1581(a))
- Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. United States, 687 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (limits of residual jurisdiction when § 1581(a) is available)
- Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. United States, 532 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (merger of findings into liquidation; protest review)
- Utex Int’l Inc., 857 F.2d 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (merger doctrine in liquidation context)
- Xerox Corp. v. United States, 423 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (importance of administrative decision review before protest)