930 F.3d 1370
Fed. Cir.2019Background
- In 2014 Hymer imported 149 vehicles from Canada; Customs liquidated the entries in 2015 under HTSUS 8703.24.00 (2.5% ad valorem). Hymer protested, claiming duty-free treatment under HTSUS 9802.00.50 / NAFTA Article 307.
- Hymer filed a protest (including a CF‑19 Protest Form). A Customs Import Specialist checked the Protest Form box “Approved,” but no refund check or reliquidation occurred, and the protest was contemporaneously marked suspended at Hymer’s request pending related litigation (Roadtrek/Pleasure‑Way).
- Pleasure‑Way litigation addressing the same classification issue produced an adverse decision for importers, which this court later affirmed. Hymer’s protest remained suspended awaiting application of that decision.
- Hymer sued in the Court of International Trade (CIT), invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) and seeking mandamus to compel reliquidation and issuance of a refund check as an ‘‘allowed’’ protest allegedly shown by the checked box.
- The CIT upheld its § 1581(i) jurisdiction and rejected Hymer’s claim that the checked box constituted an automatic allowance requiring reliquidation; it granted the Government judgment on the agency record.
- The Federal Circuit reversed, holding the CIT lacked § 1581(i) jurisdiction because § 1581(a) (jurisdiction to contest denial of protests) was available and its remedies were not manifestly inadequate; remanded with instructions to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CIT properly invoked § 1581(i) residual jurisdiction | Hymer: action seeks enforcement of an "allowed" protest (checked "Approved") and relief for unlawfully withheld refund; not a protest denial | Gov't: Hymer should proceed under § 1581(a) to challenge protest denial or use § 1515(b) accelerated disposition, both leading to § 1581(a) review | Held: § 1581(a) was available; § 1581(i) improper because § 1581(a) remedy is not manifestly inadequate; dismiss for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether checking "Approved" on Protest Form constituted an allowance triggering mandatory reliquidation and refund | Hymer: the checked box is an allowance under 19 U.S.C. § 1515(a) obligating Customs to refund excess duties | Gov't: the administrative marking did not effectuate an allowance or trigger non‑discretionary reliquidation; protest remained pending/suspended | Held: Court did not need to decide merits because jurisdictional defect was dispositive; CIT’s substantive view that a checked box alone did not compel reliquidation was accepted as permissible but not reached as final by Federal Circuit due to dismissal |
| Whether Customs can reconsider an apparent allowance or otherwise restore a protest to suspended status | Hymer: marked approval was final and cannot be rescinded without issuing refund | Gov't: agencies have authority to reconsider internal administrative actions; suspension at importer’s request can continue | Held: Customs may reconsider or restore suspension; protest suspension maintained and administrative routes remain available |
| Availability of accelerated disposition under 19 U.S.C. § 1515(b) as a remedy | Hymer: unavailable because Customs already allowed the protest | Gov't: Hymer could request accelerated disposition; if deemed denied, it could litigate under § 1581(a) | Held: Accelerated disposition remained an available administrative option, undercutting § 1581(i) jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 688 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (§ 1581(i) cannot be invoked when another § 1581 subsection is available unless that remedy is manifestly inadequate)
- Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. United States, 687 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (availability of accelerated disposition under § 1515(b) precludes § 1581(i) jurisdiction)
- Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (party asserting § 1581(i) bears burden to show other subsections unavailable or manifestly inadequate)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (agencies possess inherent authority to reconsider decisions subject to limits)
- Hitachi Home Elecs. (Am.), Inc. v. United States, 661 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (accelerated disposition availability undermines § 1581(i) invocation)
- Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (importers may challenge Customs classification and liquidation via protest)
- Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States, 963 F.2d 356 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (limits on § 1581(i) to prevent swallowing specific jurisdictional grants)