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

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

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

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more