Shah Bros., Inc. v. United States, 770 F. Supp. 2d 1367

Shah Bros. challenges CBP's classification and taxation of gutkha under HTS 2403.99 (tariffs and excise taxes).
Prior Shah Bros. I (2010) ended with CBP re-liquidating gutkha as chewing tobacco; court entered judgment in Jan 2010 for re-liquidation.
In this action, Shah Bros. asserts Counts 1-2 (CBP classification/taxation) and Counts 3-4 (TTB administration/enforcement) mirror Shah Bros. I.
Plaintiff argues a 2009 amendment to 19 U.S.C. § 1514 divests CBP of final authority on tax collection, removing § 1581(a) review for Counts 3-4.
Defendant contends the 2009 amendment affects only tax-collection time limits and does not alter CBP’s final authority or § 1581(a) review.
Court agrees with defendant: amendment does not change CBP’s final authority; § 1581(a) remains the adequate remedy, and Counts 3-4 are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2009 § 1514 amendment divests CBP of final authority to tax gutkha.	Shah Bros. argues amendment removes final review under § 1581(a).	CHIPRA amendment only changes time limits for tax assessments, not final agency authority.	Amendment does not alter CBP's final authority; § 1581(a) remains available.
Whether § 1581(a) provides an adequate remedy for Counts 3-4.	§ 1581(a) is unavailable due to amendment removing protestable tax assessments.	§ 1581(a) remains available for CBP decisions; Counts 3-4 fall outside final authority.	§ 1581(a) remains the adequate remedy; Counts 3-4 are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether Counts 1-2 and Counts 3-4 are governed by different jurisdictional rules.	All counts mirror Shah Bros. I; should be cohesive under 1581(i).	Counts 3-4 involve TTB actions, not final agency decisions, so § 1581(i) inappl.	Counts 1-2 fall under § 1581(a); Counts 3-4 remain outside § 1581(i) jurisdiction.

Shah Bros. v. United States, CIT , 751 F.Supp.2d 1303 (2010) (CTI decision; CBP/TTB jurisdiction over classification and taxation; finality under §1581(a))
United States v. Stone & Downer Co., 274 U.S. 225 (1927) (foundational rule on not placing res judicata in classification disputes)
Avenues in Leather, Inc. v. United States, 317 F.3d 1399 (Fed.Cir.2003) (new entry, new day in court for classification issues)
Schott Optical Glass v. United States, 750 F.2d 62 (Fed.Cir.1984) (public policy on relitigation of construction of the classifying statute)
Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exchange Service, 846 F.2d 746 (Fed.Cir.1988) (jurisdictional burden on proving facts to establish standing)
KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U.S. 269 (1936) (cites jurisdictional principles for agency actions)
Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092 (Fed.Cir.1999) (support for jurisdictional fact pleading and proof)
Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442 (1942) (burden of proof for jurisdiction; plaintiff bears burden)