DOJ Seeks to Dismiss Pressure Switches Case Over Jurisdictional Issues
A Court of International Trade case concerning imported pressure switches should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and timeliness, the government said in a July 15 brief opposing Environment One's motion to amend its summons. Alternatively, the government has asked the court to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted (Environment One Corporation v. United States et. al., CIT # 22-00124).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The case concerns 31 entries filed at either the Port of Newark/New York or the Port of JFK between October 2019 and July 2020. Environment One entered the items under subheading 8536.50.7000, HTSUS, which is a duty-free provision subject to Section 301 duties. CBP liquidated the entries between September 2020 and June 2021, classifying the merchandise under subheading 8536.50.7000 and assessing Section 301 duties. In May 2021, plaintiff filed protest challenging the liquidation with assessed Section 301 duties.
Environment One said in April that the government doesn't have the authority to require protests as a prerequisite to qualifying for Section 301 refunds on goods retroactively excluded from the duties (see 2204180023).
The government calls the summons "jurisdictionally defective" for not specifically identifying the protests that Environment One sought to challenge and then amended the summons beyond what the government claims is the 180 day limit. Further, the Complaint alleges jurisdiction pursuant to sections 1581(a) and (i) of 28 U.S.C., which the government argues is incompatible and therefore the court lacks jurisdiction.
DOJ said that because the plaintiff’s summons failed to identify any protests, the jurisdictional allegations were inadequate, noting that Environment One filed an incorrect summons form. "When an action is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), jurisdiction is predicated upon a denied protest of a CBP decision."
The plaintiff’s second motion to amend sought to provide a “clearer listing of the entries in the case and Plaintiff’s claims with respect to those entries,” which demonstrate that the summons did not "put the government on notice of what protest decisions are being contested,” DOJ said. Also, it said that Environment One cannot amend its summons because filing is now time-barred due to the 180-day limit from the denial of a protest.