Chemsol, LLC v. United States
2013 WL 1136798
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- Plaintiffs MC International, LLC and Chemsol, LLC challenge CBP’s extensions of the liquidation period for citric acid entries.
- Customs extended the liquidation period based on an ICE investigation into possible transshipment to evade duties; RFIs and NOAs were issued.
- The entries span 2009–2010 with numerous consumption entries from India and the Dominican Republic.
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that extensions were unlawful and that entries have been deemed liquidated under 19 U.S.C. §1504(a).
- Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1581(i) or for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(5).
- Court holds that §1581(i) jurisdiction is not appropriate here because final agency action has not occurred and an adequate remedy exists under §1581(a) after liquidation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1581(i) provides jurisdiction for a challenge to ongoing liquidation extensions | Plaintiffs argue §1581(i) may authorize review | Defendant argues §1581(i) is inappropriate where other jurisdiction exists | §1581(i) not appropriate; remedy under §1581(a) after liquidation |
| Whether the case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim | (Not explicitly stated separately in the excerpt) | §1581(i) jurisdiction inadequate; §1514 protests after liquidation are the proper path | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; proceed under §1581(a) after liquidation |
| Whether Ford Motor Co. controls whether 1581(i) is available | Ford supports §1581(i) where inaction prolonged liquidation | Ford is distinguishable; here there is affirmative extension and ongoing investigation | Ford does not control; §1581(a) adequate after liquidation |
| Whether ongoing Customs investigation and extensions are consistent with agency discretion and proper review | Extensions are improper and devoid of adequate remedy | Extensions are within Customs discretion and are remediable only after liquidation | Court defers to agency process; proceed under §1581(a) after liquidation |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 543 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (residual jurisdiction not to be used if other sections are available)
- Int'l Custom Prods., Inc. v. United States, 467 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (limits of §1581(i) when other remedies exist)
- Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 688 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (control of §1581(i) jurisdiction; distinguishable facts)
- Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 286 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Ford II; inaction vs. affirmative liquidation context)
- Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (discusses timing of liquidation where initially suspended)
- Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (approach to reviewing true nature of action for review channel)
- U.S. v. Utex Int'l, Inc., 857 F.2d 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (finality of liquidation; merge findings into liquidation)
- Dal-Tile Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 939 (2000) (liquidation-related protest mechanics in CIT)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. United States, 6 F.3d 763 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (presumption of correctness in Customs decisions)
- Hilsea Investment Ltd. v. Brown, 18 CIT 1068 (1994) (protest review of liquidation-related actions)