Salmon Case Continues Upstream Battle

The effort to force Customs and Border Protection to enforce the requirements of the Endangered Species Act with respect to certain salmon imported from Canada has been a tough swim upstream against a swift procedural current.  [Note to self: no more extended metaphors.] Here, I reported on the Federal Circuit decision requiring the Court of International Trade to determine whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the issue.

The CIT has now done that.  The question presented is whether the Endangered Species Act prohibition on the importation of these fish constitutes an embargo for purposes of engaging the Court's jurisdiction.  An embargo is a government-imposed cap of zero on the importation of some merchandise.  But, an embargo is not based on a private party's right to prohibit importation (e.g., where Customs seizes counterfeit trademarks to enforce a private right). Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act does not create an embargo.  Rather, it creates an obligation for federal agencies to consult regarding enforcement of the Act.  The ESA consultation requirement is also unlike embargoes that are put in place to promote government policy considerations (think Cuba), morality (think lottery tickets), or safety (pick any dangerous thing you can't import).  No embargo, no jurisdiction in the CIT.

Next, there was a question as to whether the ESA section 11 conflicts with the CIT's exclusive jurisdiction over actions brought against the U.S. involving import transactions.  Section 11 permits individuals to bring suits in the district courts under the ESA.  On this point, the Court quickly found there to be no conflict because the CIT falls within the meaning of district court for purposes of the ESA.  Style points go to Judge Barzilay for using the "concinnity" to reach that conclusion.

In the end, the case was dismissed from the CIT and transferred back to Washington, where it had originally spawned.  [Metaphor -- D'Oh!]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more