Ford Motor Co. v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16773
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Ford Motor Company imported Jaguar-brand cars from the UK; Ford filed nine reconciliation entries seeking refunds of overpaid duties; CBP had not liquidated the entries by filing; Ford invoked 28 U.S.C. §1581(i) residual jurisdiction; CBP later auto-liquidated some entries post-complaint; the Court of International Trade dismissed Ford’s claims and Ford appealed.
- Ford sought declaratory judgment that CBP failed to liquidate within statutory time; the government argued §1581(i) could be defeated by post-complaint action under §1581(a).
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and non-justiciability; Ford’s Second Amended Complaint asserted jurisdiction under §1581(i)(4); on appeal, the Federal Circuit reviews jurisdiction de novo.
- Post-complaint CBP actions did not erase §1581(i) jurisdiction; jurisdiction is determined at filing; the case concerns whether §1581(i)80(4) provides jurisdiction when no other §1581(a)-(h) remedies were available.
- The court reverses the ITC’s dismissal as to post-complaint liquidations, vacates mootness/discretionary dismissals, and remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1581(i)(4) provides jurisdiction here | Ford relied on §1581(i)(4) since no §1581(a)-(h) remedies were available at filing | Government urged §1581(i) cannot be used where post-complaint actions open §1581(a) avenues | Yes, §1581(i)(4) provides jurisdiction at filing. |
| Do post-complaint CBP actions defeat jurisdiction | Post-complaint liquidations cannot defeat jurisdiction under §1581(i) | Post-complaint actions can affect jurisdiction | No; post-complaint actions did not defeat §1581(i) jurisdiction. |
| Whether Ford’s concessions mooted the case | Ford did not concede the challenged extensions; Dismissal relied on misreading | Court treated Ford’s statement as a concession | Dismissal reversed; mootness finding reversed as to first cause of action. |
| Whether ITC properly dismissed remaining claims as non-justiciable | Claims other than the first could proceed on proper grounds | Dismissal consistent with jurisdictional defects | Vacate ITC’s discretionary dismissals and remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rockwell Intl., v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (post-complaint amendments can establish jurisdiction in federal-question cases)
- Mollan v. Torrance, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 537 (U.S. 1824) (jurisdiction depends on state of things at time of filing)
- Davis v. Federal Election Comm'n, 554 U.S. 724 (U.S. 2008) (case-or-controversy must exist at outset and remain through review")
- Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (allowing amendment to establish jurisdiction in some federal question cases)
- GAF Bldg. Materials Corp. v. Elk Corp., 90 F.3d 479 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (jurisdictional requirements must be met at filing and persist)
- Int'l Custom Prods., Inc. v. United States, 467 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (limits on invoking §1581(i) when other §1581 remedies could apply)
- Conoco, Inc. v. U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones Bd., 18 F.3d 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (supports time-of-filing considerations in jurisdictional analysis)