Gulf Coast Maritime Supply, Inc. v. United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14885
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Gulf Coast Maritime Supply held a tobacco export warehouse permit (tax-exempt) and separate TTB alcohol permits; both required reporting "any" ownership change and provided that failure to apply for a new permit within the statutory period causes automatic termination.
- Gulf Coast’s President (45% owner) died; his widow (already a 45% holder) obtained his shares and thereby became 100% owner, but Gulf Coast did not notify TTB or apply for new permits and continued using the deceased president’s signature stamp on filings.
- TTB sent letters asserting the unreported ownership change resulted in automatic termination of the tobacco and alcohol permits and warned of civil/criminal penalties; TTB later assessed unpaid tobacco excise taxes and penalties.
- Gulf Coast sued in district court under the APA seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to restore permits; district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding the Anti‑Injunction Act (AIA) barred the tobacco claim and the alcohol‑permit claim was not reviewable in district court.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed: AIA precludes Gulf Coast’s attempt to restore the tobacco permit (refund suit available instead); district court lacked jurisdiction over Gulf Coast’s alcohol‑permit claim under the FAAA/§204 scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AIA bars district‑court suit seeking restoration of terminated tobacco permit (to avoid tax liability) | Restoring the permit is an APA remedy that does not impede tax collection and is necessary because revocation (with due process) supposedly occurred | Restoration would retroactively eliminate tax liability and thus directly interferes with tax assessment/collection; refund suit is the available remedy | AIA bars the suit; plaintiff must seek refund litigation to contest tax liability |
| Whether the tobacco permit’s automatic termination is procedurally equivalent to revocation requiring APA notice/hearing | Gulf Coast: automatic termination is effectively a revocation and required APA procedures | Govt: automatic termination is distinct from revocation; revocation procedures (and APA process) do not apply to automatic termination | Court: distinction controls; automatic termination is separate and APA‑based pre‑enforcement relief to restore the permit is barred by AIA |
| Whether district court may review TTB’s action (or letter) concerning automatic termination of alcohol permits under the APA | Gulf Coast: TTB’s letter was a revocation/"final agency action" lacking APA notice/hearing, so district court has jurisdiction to review | Govt: FAAA/27 U.S.C. §204 provides the exclusive statutory review route (appeal in court of appeals from suspensions/revocations/denials); automatic termination challenges must follow the statutory new‑permit/appeal process | Held: district court lacked jurisdiction over Gulf Coast’s alcohol‑permit revocation claim; §204 displaces APA review for revocations and channels review to the courts of appeals; Gulf Coast forfeited alternative arguments about challenging automatic termination itself |
| Whether TTB’s April 2016 letter was final agency action reviewable in district court | Gulf Coast: letter is final agency action declaring permits revoked/terminated and imposing legal consequences | Govt: letter is advisory/notice of the agency’s view of automatic termination and warning of consequences; not a final agency action replacing the statutory denial/appeal process | Court: did not decide definitively because Gulf Coast framed its claim as a revocation challenge; rejected district‑court review of revocations under APA and affirmed dismissal (concurrence would treat letter as non‑final and §204 dispositive) |
Key Cases Cited
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) (AIA protects government’s ability to collect revenue; tax challenges must generally wait for enforcement)
- Alexander v. Americans United, Inc., 416 U.S. 752 (1974) (refund actions can raise the same questions as tax‑exempt status determinations)
- CSI Aviation Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 637 F.3d 408 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (agency warning letters can be reviewable where they state definitive legal positions and impose immediate burdens)
- Ciba‑Geigy Corp. v. EPA, 801 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (agency letters threatening enforcement for noncompliance may be reviewable when they create immediate legal consequences)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) (APA does not duplicate special statutory review schemes; such schemes can displace APA review)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 846 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (requires clear and convincing evidence of congressional intent for alternative review procedures to displace APA review)
- Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 324 F.3d 726 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (final agency action requires an agency to have taken a definitive position that fixes legal relations)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (defining final agency action for APA review)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard; disregard legal conclusions and conclusory labels)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires well‑pleaded factual allegations to support plausible claims)