Rulings, remedies and court proceedings for customs and trade professionals

CAFC Rejects Injunction Bid in Case Over Denied CBP Protests, Not Swayed on Jurisdiction Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 15 rejected a textile company's expedited motion for a temporary injunction that would have required CBP to return its entries of imported coated fabric to unliquidated status or suspend the company's protests. Judge Evan Wallach said the company, Printing Textiles, doing business as Berger Textiles, "failed to persuade the court of the likelihood that jurisdiction under" Section 1581(a) would be manifestly inadequate, establishing jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), as claimed by Berger (Printing Textiles, dba Berger Textiles v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1576).

Start A Trial

"I also conclude that there is inadequate time to assemble a panel of more than one judge to consider the motion within the timeframe that Berger itself requests, and therefore I decide this motion as a single judge," Wallach added.

Berger launched the case at the Court of International Trade on March 8 to fight CBP's inaction on Berger's requests to void two denied protests involving the company's Canvas Banner Matisse coated fabric imports, which were hit with antidumping duties on artist canvas from China. Berger, filing the case under Section 1581(i), said the imports were not subject to the order and CBP should not have liquidated the entries with the duties since the Commerce Department had started a scope inquiry on the company's entries.

The trade court dismissed the case two days after it was filed for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Berger had not shown that any remedy it could obtain in a suit under Section 1581(a) would be manifestly inadequate (see 2303130038). The importer immediately appealed to the Federal Circuit and filed its motion for an injunction a day prior to Wallach's ruling.