Industrial Chems., Inc. v. United States , 335 F. Supp. 3d 1327 ( 2018 )

Slip Op. 18- 126
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
v.
Court No. 17-00177
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
OPINION
[Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.]
Dated: September 24, 2018
Robert T. Givens, Givens & Johnston, PLLC, of Houston, TX, for Plaintiff Industrial Chemicals,
Inc.
Jamie L. Shookman, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Department of Justice,
of New York, N.Y., for Defendant United States. With her on the brief were Chad A. Readler,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Amy M. Rubin, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the
brief was Beth Brotman, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Choe-Groves, Judge: Plaintiff Industrial Chemicals, Inc. (“Industrial Chemicals”) brings
this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (2012), contesting the denial of its protest by U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”). Plaintiff argues that Customs improperly denied
its protest regarding retroactive duty-free treatment for its merchandise under the Generalized
System of Preferences (“GSP”).
Before the court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant United States. See Def.’s
Mot. Dismiss, Jan. 19, 2018, ECF No. 12 (“Def.’s Mot.”). Defendant requests that the court
Court No. 17-00177 Page 2
dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under USCIT Rule 12(b)(1) and for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under USCIT Rule 12(b)(6). See id. at
1. For the following reasons, the court grants Defendant’s motion.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
GSP provides duty-free treatment for eligible articles from certain “beneficiary
developing countr[ies],” including India. 19 U.S.C. § 2461; see also General Note 4(a),
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2013) (listing India as a designed beneficiary
developing country for GSP purposes). GSP expired on July 31, 2013. See Pub. L. No. 112–40,
§ 1, 125 Stat. 401, 401 (2011). During the lapse of GSP, Industrial Chemicals imported several
entries of organic chemicals under Subheadings 2917.34.0150 and 2917.32.000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. See Compl. ¶ 6, Oct. 16, 2017, ECF No. 6.
Plaintiff imported the sixty-five entries of chemicals at issue from India between August 4, 2013
and October 22, 2014. See Summons, July 11, 2017, ECF No. 1; Compl. ¶ 9. If GSP had been
in effect at the time of entry, Plaintiff’s merchandise would have been eligible for duty-free
treatment. See Compl. ¶ 6.
Congress renewed GSP on June 29, 2015. See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015,
Pub. L. No. 114–27, § 201, 129 Stat. 362, 371 (2015). The statute states, in relevant part:
SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.
....
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—
....
Court No. 17-00177 Page 3
(2) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION FOR CERTAIN
LIQUIDATIONS AND RELIQUIDATIONS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 514 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other
provision of law and subject to subparagraph (B), any
entry of a covered article to which duty-free treatment
or other preferential treatment under title V of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.) would have
applied if the entry had been made on July 31, 2013,
that was made—
(i) after July 31, 2013; and
(ii) before the effective date specified in
paragraph (1), shall be liquidated or
reliquidated as though such entry occurred on
the effective date specified in paragraph (1).
(B) REQUESTS.—A liquidation or reliquidation may be
made under subparagraph (A) with respect to an entry
only if a request therefor is filed with U.S. Customs
and Border Protection not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act that contains
sufficient information to enable U.S. Customs and
Border Protection—
(i) to locate the entry; or
(ii) to reconstruct the entry if it cannot be located.
Id. The renewing legislation allowed importers to request retroactive application of GSP within
180 days after the date of the statute’s enactment, which was December 28, 2015. Id.
Due to a misunderstanding between Industrial Chemicals and its customs broker, World
Commerce, Industrial Chemicals did not submit its request for retroactive GSP treatment by the
deadline. See Compl. ¶¶ 12–19. World Commerce sent a letter to Customs requesting a refund
on February 2, 2016. See id. at ¶ 20; see also Compl. Ex. E. Customs returned the letter with a
handwritten note at the bottom, stating that the agency could not process the request because it
was submitted past the December 28, 2015 deadline. See Compl. Ex. F. Industrial Chemicals
Court No. 17-00177 Page 4
filed a protest, which Customs denied as untimely because it was not filed within 180 days after
the date of liquidation. See Compl. Ex. G. Plaintiff initiated this action. See Summons; Compl.
ANALYSIS
Defendant moves first to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to USCIT Rule 12(b)(1). See Def.’s Mot. 1.
The U.S. Court of International Trade, like all federal courts, is one of limited jurisdiction
and is “presumed to be without jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the
record.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1313, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (internal
quotations omitted). The party invoking jurisdiction must “allege sufficient facts to establish the
court’s jurisdiction,” id. (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178,
189 (1936)), and therefore “bears the burden of establishing it.” Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v.
United States, 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Court is empowered to hear civil
actions brought against the United States pursuant to the specific grants of jurisdiction
enumerated under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a)–(i). The court must draw all reasonable inferences in the
non-movant’s favor when deciding a motion to dismiss. See Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d
795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff pleads jurisdiction on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), see Compl. ¶ 3, which
grants this Court “exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced to contest the denial of a
protest, in whole or in part, under section 515 of the Tariff Act of 1930.” 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a).
The Tariff Act establishes a process for the administrative review of protests. A party may
protest a decision made by Customs within 180 days after the date of liquidation or reliquidation
of the merchandise. 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)(a). The statute directs Customs to assess the protest
Court No. 17-00177 Page 5
in a timely manner. 19 U.S.C. § 1515. If a party requests accelerated disposition of a protest,
Customs has thirty days to render a final decision. Id.; see also 19 C.F.R. § 174.22. A party
may protest specific actions taken by Customs, as enumerated in the statute. 19 U.S.C.
§ 1514(a).
The question of jurisdiction turns on whether Plaintiff challenges a protestable decision
made by Customs. Defendant proffers two arguments to support its motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent that Plaintiff contests the liquidation of its entries, its
protest was untimely because it was not filed within 180 days of liquidation of its entries. The
court does not have jurisdiction over the invalid protest. In the alternative, Plaintiff contests
Customs' refusal to issue the refund, as indicated in the handwritten note. The handwritten note
is not a protestable decision. Although Customs makes certain decisions related to the
liquidation or reliquidation of merchandise, the plain language of the statute does not appear to
give Customs discretion in administering refunds for this particular lapse in GSP. The statute
clearly states that importers must submit requests for retroactive application of GSP over certain
entries by December 28, 2015. Plaintiff missed this deadline. Because Customs' refusal to
process Plaintiff’s refund is not a protestable decision under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a), the court does
not have jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1581(a), and this action is dismissed.
Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
under USCIT Rule 12(b)(6) is moot.
Court No. 17-00177 Page 6
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the court concludes that it does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). This action is dismissed.
/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: September 24, 2018
New York, New York