Sears Holdings Management Corp. v. United States

Slip Op. 12-106
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
SEARS HOLDINGS MANAGEMENT
CORP.,
Plaintiff, Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge
v. Court No. 11-00027
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
OPINION
[Motion to dismiss granted.]
Dated: August 10, 2012
Robert J. Leo, Meeks, Sheppard, Leo & Pillsbury, of New York, NY for Plaintiff
Sears Holdings Management Corp.
Aimee Lee, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, of New York, NY for Defendant United States. With her on the
brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, and Barbara S. Williams, Attorney-In-
Charge. Of counsel on brief was Paula S. Smith, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel,
International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Gordon, Judge: In this action Plaintiff, Sears Holdings Management Corp.,
challenges the classification of imported merchandise within the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) by U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(“Customs”). Defendant moves to dismiss pursuant USCIT Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, contending that Plaintiff failed to timely commence its action
Court No. 11-00027 Page 2
“within one hundred and eighty days after the denial of a protest.” 28 U.S.C. § 2636(a)
(2006). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.
Background
Upon liquidation Customs classified Plaintiff’s imported boots under subheading
6404.19.20, HTSUS, as “Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather, or
composition leather and uppers of textile materials.” Plaintiff protested this decision,
arguing that the proper classification is subheading 6402.91.40, HTSUS, as “Footwear
with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics.” With its protest Plaintiff included
invoices and sketches of the merchandise, as well as a copy of ruling NYRL N050140
(July 6, 2009), available at 2009 WL 427215, which appears to classify comparable
merchandise under subheading 6402.91.40.
Customs denied the protest on November 16, 2009. Plaintiff then submitted a
voidance request pursuant to Section 515(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
19 U.S.C. § 1515(d) (2006),1 which Customs rejected on August 13, 2010. Sears
attempted to protest Customs’ rejection of its voidance request, which Customs
rejected, explaining that the statute and regulations do not contemplate or authorize the
protest of a rejected voidance request. Plaintiff commenced this action on February 9,
2011, within 180 days of the rejection of voidance request, but more than 180 days after
Customs’ denial of the original protest.
1
Further citation to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant provisions of
Title 19 of the U.S. Code, 2006 edition.
Court No. 11-00027 Page 3
Discussion
“Plaintiffs carry the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction exists.”
Techsnabexport, Ltd. v. United States, 16 CIT 420, 422, 795 F. Supp. 428, 432 (1992)
(citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). In deciding
a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court assumes “all factual
allegations to be true and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor.” Henke v.
United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Defendant’s motion to dismiss raises a simple issue: whether Plaintiff’s voidance
request tolls the statute of limitations for the commencement of an action under
28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). See generally, Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 392, (1995) (“As
construed in [I.C.C. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 482 U.S. 270, 284 (1987)] both the
APA and the Hobbs Act embrace a tolling rule: The timely filing of a motion to
reconsider renders the underlying order nonfinal for purposes of judicial review. In
consequence, pendency of reconsideration renders the underlying decision not yet final,
and it is implicit in the tolling rule that a party who has sought rehearing cannot seek
judicial review until the rehearing has concluded.”). Unfortunately for Plaintiff, it does
not.
Although one might assume that tolling the statute of limitations would advance
the purpose of 19 U.S.C. § 1515(d) by enabling Customs “to rectify erroneous denials of
applications for further review and protests without recourse to the judicial system,” H.R.
Rep. No. 103-361(I) at 118 (1993), such an assumption is definitively foreclosed by the
clear Congressional direction that “[a]ll denials of protests are effective from the date of
Court No. 11-00027 Page 4
original denial for purposes of [the statute of limitations].” 19 U.S.C. § 1515(c); see also
H.R. Rep. No. 103-36(I) at 118 (“[A]ll administrative action pertaining to a protest or
application for further review will terminate when an action is commenced in the Court of
International Trade arising out of such protests or applications and that any
administrative action taken subsequent to the commencement of an action shall be null
and void.”). Congress therefore provided a non-tolling 180 days for parties to contest
the denial of a protest in the Court of International Trade. During the 180 days following
the protest denial, parties are free to seek administrative remedies under section 1515
that may resolve their issues and obviate the need for judicial review, but they need to
proceed quickly because if Customs has not provided the desired relief within 180 days
of the original protest denial, they need to commence their actions in the Court of
International Trade. In this case Plaintiff failed to heed the 180-day time period, and the
court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claim.
Plaintiff advances an alternative theory for jurisdiction predicated on its failed
attempt to protest Customs’ rejection of its voidance request. The court does not
believe this alternative basis for jurisdiction has any merit. It appears instead to be an
effort to skirt the clear requirements and time periods required for review under
28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). When rejecting Plaintiff’s attempted protest of Customs’ rejection
of Plaintiff’s voidance request, Customs correctly explained that the statute and
regulations do not contemplate such a protest. As a non-protestable decision under
19 U.S.C. § 1514(a), it is unreviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). Playhouse Imp. &
Exp., Inc. v. United States, 18 CIT 41, 44 (1994); see also, Mitsubishi Elecs. Am., Inc. v.
Court No. 11-00027 Page 5
United States, 44 F.3d 973, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Section 1581(a) provides no
jurisdiction for protests outside [the exclusive categories of 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)].”).
Without a direct statutory claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), Plaintiff argues that
the court’s residual jurisdiction provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), supplies jurisdiction to
review Customs’ rejection of Plaintiff’s voidance request. Plaintiff, in essence, asserts
an Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) claim challenging “final agency action for
which there is no other adequate remedy.” 5 U.S.C. § 704 (2006). This APA provision
is reflected in the court's residual jurisdiction case law, which prescribes that section
1581(i) supplies jurisdiction only if a remedy under another section of 1581 is
unavailable or “manifestly inadequate.” Miller & Co. v. United States, 824 F.2d 961, 963
(Fed. Cir. 1987). Although Plaintiff does not have an available remedy under section
1581(a) to challenge Customs’ rejection of the voidance request, Plaintiff’s APA claim
nevertheless must fail because Customs’ rejection of Plaintiff’s voidance request (which
Plaintiff predicated on material error in the original protest decision) constitutes non-
reviewable agency action. See I.C.C. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 482 U.S. 270, at
278-279 (1987) (agency’s denial of party’s reconsideration request predicated on
material error in the original decision is unreviewable agency action committed to
agency discretion). Plaintiff’s APA claim therefore challenges “agency action . . .
committed to agency discretion by law,” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2), a jurisdictional limitation
for APA claims that applies to the general grant of jurisdiction contained in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1581(i). Cf. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 482 U.S. at 282, (noting that the limitation of
Court No. 11-00027 Page 6
5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) applies to “the general grant of jurisdiction contained in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331”).
Conclusion
Plaintiff failed to commence its action within 180 days of the original protest
decision. The court therefore does not have jurisdiction over this action. The court will
enter judgment accordingly.
/s/ Leo M. Gordon
Judge Leo M. Gordon
Dated: August 10, 2012
New York, New York