335 F. Supp. 3d 1327
Ct. Int'l Trade2018Background
- Industrial Chemicals imported 65 entries of organic chemicals from India between Aug 4, 2013 and Oct 22, 2014 that would have qualified for GSP duty-free treatment if GSP had remained in effect.
- GSP lapsed on July 31, 2013 and was later renewed by statute enacted June 29, 2015, which provided for retroactive liquidation/reliquidation for certain entries if a request was filed with Customs within 180 days of enactment (deadline Dec 28, 2015).
- Industrial Chemicals failed to meet the 180-day statutory deadline due to a misunderstanding with its customs broker; the broker submitted a refund request in February 2016.
- Customs returned the broker’s letter with a handwritten note stating it could not process the request because it was past the deadline; Customs later denied Industrial Chemicals’ protest as untimely under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3).
- Industrial Chemicals sued in the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) to contest Customs’ denial of the protest.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under USCIT Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6); the court granted dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) to review the protest denial | Industrial Chemicals contends Customs improperly denied its protest and that the court can review the denial under § 1581(a) | The United States argues the protest was untimely and thus not a contestable decision under § 1581(a) | Court: No jurisdiction because the protest was untimely under the statutory 180-day rule |
| Whether Customs’ handwritten refusal to process the late refund is a protestable decision | Industrial Chemicals treats Customs’ note/refusal as a reviewable decision denying relief | The United States contends the handwritten note is not a protestable decision and statute set a firm deadline; Customs had no discretion to extend it | Court: The handwritten note is not a protestable decision; statute imposed a fixed deadline, so refusal is not reviewable under § 1514(a)/§ 1581(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir.) (party invoking jurisdiction must allege facts establishing court’s jurisdiction)
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178 (U.S.) (plaintiff bears burden of establishing jurisdictional facts)
- Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir.) (party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it)
- Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir.) (court must draw reasonable inferences in non-movant’s favor on a motion to dismiss)