Jensen follows Hitachi


Remember the Hitachi decision in which the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Court of International Trade decision that Customs and Border Protection is under no legal obligation to decide a protest within the two-year period provided in the statute and regulations? We discussed it here.

A related issue was addressed in Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. United States, which we discussed here.
The Federal Circuit has now decided the appeal in Jensen. And, in what is probably not a surprise, has affirmed the dismissal of the case. Jensen is different than Hitachi in that Jensen tried to force Customs to decide the protest via a legal tool known as a writ of mandamus. Jensen brought its case under 28 U.S.C. 1581(i), which is the residual provision giving the Court of International Trade jurisdiction to review decisions relating to the administration and enforcement of the collection of revenue on imports, provided there is no other adequate means of securing judicial review. In most customs cases, the other adequate means is via the review of a denied protest under 28 U.S.C. 1581(a). Because there has been no decision on the protest and the two-year period has expired, Jensen went to Court under (i) to force Customs to approve or deny the protest.

In response, the Government moved to dismiss the case. The government argued that 1581(i) was not the proper basis for jurisdiction. The Government would have Jensen wait for, or force, a decision on the protest. The Court of International Trade agreed and dismissed the action.

On appeal, Jensen argued that forcing a decision via a request for accelerated disposition is not an adequate remedy because it will inevitably lead to a denied protest and further litigation. Rather, its goal in seeking a writ of mandamus is to force Customs to consider the protests and issue a reasoned decision.
The Federal Circuit did not agree. According to the Court, a request for accelerated disposition under 19 U.S.C. 1515(b) would result either in a reasoned decision from Customs or in a deemed denial. Assuming the protest was not approved, either a deemed denial or a denied protest would provide the Court of International Trade with jurisdiction to review the protested liquidations under 1581(a).

Jensen also argued that it had a statutory right to an immediate decision because of the passing of the two-year period. This argument, however, did not hold up following Hitachi, which held that the two-year period was not a meaningful deadline. The fact that Jensen was only seeking a decision from Customs—as opposed to Hitachi, which asked the Court to hold that the protests were automatically approved—was not a meaningful distinction. As a result, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision to dismiss the case.

All of which is interesting background given that Hitachi has filed a petition for review in the U.S. Supreme Court. As in all cases, the chances of the Supreme Court granting review are slim. That may be exacerbated by the fact that this issue can only come up in the Court of International Trade and Federal Circuit. On the other hand, Supreme Court watchers tell me that the Court may look more closely at Federal Circuit decisions because the issues raised there cannot be worked out in other circuits. We shall have to wait and see.

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