33 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1842
Ct. Int'l Trade2011Background
- Kairali Decan, Inc. imported Sri Lankan food products and used another's identity to facilitate entry signed by 'Khan' with entry number C28-0264041-0.
- FDA inspected the entry and sought details; the actual importer or responsible party was misidentified; Salman-Fariz admitted using Kairali Decan's name to import the goods.
- CBP issued a Notice to Redeliver and later a Notice of Liquidated Damages for the entry, which Kairali Decan did not respond to as to the redelivery notice.
- Kairali Decan disputed the liquidated damages and later paid the amount; the dispute was litigated in district court and transferred to the Court of Federal Claims for jurisdictional guidance.
- The Court of Federal Claims transferred the matter to the Court of International Trade (CIT) to determine jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581, particularly subsections (a) and (i).
- The CIT held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1581(i)(4) because § 1581(a) relief was available and not manifestly inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1581(i)(4) confer jurisdiction when § 1581(a) is available? | Kairali Decan asserts exclusive jurisdiction under § 1581(i)(4). | Government contends § 1581(i)(4) applies only if § 1581(a) is unavailable or manifestly inadequate. | No; § 1581(i)(4) not available because § 1581(a) remedy was available. |
| Was § 1581(a) relief manifestly inadequate for identity-theft entry? | Protest relief would be futile due to identity theft and lack of access to records. | Protest could raise identity-theft defenses and be pursued with discovery if denied. | No; § 1581(a) relief was not manifestly inadequate; protest could address identity-theft issue. |
| Could Kairali Decan protest as the 'importer shown on the entry papers'? | Kairali Decan was not the actual importer and thus could not protest; identity theft precluded protest. | Kairali Decan was the importer shown on the entry papers and could protest; identity theft could be raised in protest. | Yes; Kairali Decan was the importer shown on the entry papers and could file a protest under § 1514. |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Custom Prods. v. U.S., 467 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir.2006) (1581(i) relief requires manifest inadequacy of § 1581(a))
- Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States, 963 F.2d 356 (Fed.Cir.1992) (manifest inadequacy standard for § 1581(i))
- Pac Fung Feather Co. v. United States, 111 F.3d 114 (Fed.Cir.1997) (protest mechanism and remedies under § 1581(a))
- Autoalliance Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 29 CIT 1082, 398 F.Supp.2d 1326 (2005) (availability of discovery in § 1581(a) proceeding; adequacy of protest)