Ford Motor Co. v. United States
2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 130
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Ford seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) challenging Customs' authority to act on aging drawback entries deemed liquidated by operation of law under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2).
- Drawback is a duty refund for imported merchandise that was exported or destroyed; deemed liquidation occurs if Customs does not liquidate within a year, or upon deposit of estimated duties with a liquidation request.
- The action covers 17 drawback entries filed before December 3, 2004 that Customs had not affirmatively liquidated when suit was filed (Sept. 2, 2009); some entries were later liquidated by Customs after suit commenced.
- Plaintiff alleges Customs lacks authority to review or liquidate those deemed-liquidated entries and seeks to prevent any such action and to protect Ford from sanctions.
- Courts prior to this action recognized multiple routes to challenge deemed liquidations; Ford invokes 1581(i) to obtain a declaratory judgment regarding deemed liquidations and ongoing Customs actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ford presents a ripe case or controversy. | Ford asserts immediate harm from ongoing Customs review of deemed-liquidated claims. | Defendants argue non-ripe since some entries are unliquidated and harms are contingent. | Yes; controversy is ripe due to ongoing Customs actions and potential liabilities. |
| Whether the court has 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) jurisdiction over all entries, including unliquidated ones. | Ford contends § 1581(i) permits declaratory relief for deemed liquidations now. | Defendants contend § 1581(a) remedies are available, possibly rendering § 1581(i) inadequate or unnecessary. | Court maintains § 1581(i) jurisdiction over all relevant entries. |
| Whether jurisdiction under § 1581(i) is manifestly inadequate to bar jurisdiction under other subsections. | Declaratory relief is needed to prevent ongoing harassment and to secure certainty and finality. | Other remedies under § 1581(a) could suffice; § 1581(i) should be barred if inadequate. | § 1581(i) jurisdiction is not manifestly inadequate; appropriate to proceed. |
| Whether post-commencement liquidations affect the court's § 1581(i) jurisdiction over the claimed entries. | Post-commencement liquidations do not defeat jurisdiction; prior rulings support continuing review. | Subsequent liquidations could moot some claims under § 1581(i). | Court: jurisdiction remains over the entries at issue, despite post-commencement liquidations. |
Key Cases Cited
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (U.S. 2007) (ripe declaratory-judgment analysis governing Article III jurisdiction)
- Cherry Hill Textiles, Inc. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (protest not required to defend against deemed liquidation under § 1504)
- Int'l Custom Prods., Inc. v. United States, 467 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (jurisdictional constraints under § 1581(i) vs. other subsections)
- Washington Int'l Ins. Co. v. United States, 138 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (CIT 2001) (jurisdiction determined at time suit is filed; post-event changes do not oust)