Gulf Coast Maritime Supply, Inc. v. United States of America
218 F. Supp. 3d 92
D.D.C.2016Background
- Gulf Coast Maritime Supply, a long-time holder of TTB alcohol and tobacco permits, continued operating after the death (Aug 2013) of its primary owner, Salem Geller, which increased his wife's shares from 45% to 90%.
- TTB concluded that this change in ownership/control triggered automatic termination of Gulf Coast’s alcohol and tobacco permits under federal statute/regulation and notified Gulf Coast in April–May 2016 that it lacked valid permits and faced ~$7.8 million in excise taxes, penalties, and interest.
- Gulf Coast did not file new permit applications within the statutory 30-day period, did not pay assessed taxes, and posted a $200,000 bond but continued operations.
- Gulf Coast sued in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction to restore its permits, alleging inadequate notice and procedural protections before termination.
- The Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the Anti‑Injunction Act bars the tobacco claim and 27 U.S.C. § 204(h) vests exclusive review of alcohol permit revocations in the courts of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Anti‑Injunction Act (AIA) bars Gulf Coast’s suit seeking restoration of its tobacco permit | Gulf Coast says it challenges procedural deprivation (permit termination), not tax assessment, and AIA exceptions apply because it lacks adequate alternative remedies | Government says restoring the permit would restrain assessment/collection of excise taxes already triggered by receipt of untaxed tobacco, so AIA bars the suit | Held: AIA bars the tobacco-permit claim; relief would interfere with tax assessment/collection and Gulf Coast has an adequate refund remedy |
| Whether the district court can review alleged revocation/automatic termination of alcohol permits | Gulf Coast contends TTB’s April 2016 action amounted to revocation without due process and is reviewable in district court under the APA | Government contends permits terminated automatically by statute/regulation or, if revoked, review lies exclusively in the courts of appeals under 27 U.S.C. § 204(h) | Held: District court lacks jurisdiction — automatic termination applies or, if revocation, exclusive appellate jurisdiction bars district-court suit |
| Whether Gulf Coast is entitled to a preliminary injunction restoring permits pending adjudication | Gulf Coast claims imminent irreparable harm and procedural violations make success on merits likely | Government stresses jurisdictional barriers and argues automatic termination was a reasonable statutory interpretation; Gulf Coast did not apply for new permits | Held: Even if jurisdiction existed, Gulf Coast is unlikely to succeed on the merits; injunction denied |
| Availability of alternative remedies (refund suit / reapplication) | Gulf Coast claims refund route won’t restore permit and thus is inadequate | Government points to administrative refund procedures and the ability to apply for new permits and appeal denials to courts of appeals | Held: Adequate alternative remedies exist (administrative refund then refund suit; new permit application and appellate review) |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Lotto Fund v. Va. State Lottery Dep’t, 20 F.3d 589 (4th Cir. 1994) (AIA applies regardless of how claim is labeled if relief would restrain tax collection)
- RYO Machine, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 696 F.3d 467 (6th Cir. 2012) (AIA bars premature APA challenges that interfere with tax assessment/collection)
- South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367 (1984) (AIA does not apply when plaintiff has no alternative remedy)
- Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1 (1962) (narrow, merits‑based exception to AIA: only where government cannot prevail)
- United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1 (2008) (clarifies the Enochs exception’s exacting standard)