US Says No CIT Jurisdiction in Case on Excluded Tires Since DOT Called the Shots

The U.S. on May 13 moved to dismiss a lawsuit challenging CBP's exclusion of two rubber tire entries, claiming that CIT has no jurisdiction because the entries were excluded at the behest of the Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As a result, the exclusions were not protestable decisions made by CBP, so the Court of International Trade had no subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1581(a) (Inspired Ventures v. United States, CIT # 24-00062).

Importer Inspired Ventures imported the pair of entries in November 2023. CBP put them on hold since they "were at a high potential risk for tariff evasion" given that the company was a new importer and the goods were subject to antidumping and countervailing duties and Section 301 duties. Upon review, CBP determined the goods "may be in violation of DOT regulations concerning tires."

A CBP import specialist deferred to NHTSA on whether Inspired Venture's imports complied with U.S. laws. The agency in December 2023 said the tires didn't comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, leading CBP to seize one of the entries. Customs was in the process of seizing the second when Inspired Ventures filed suit.

The government moved to dismiss the suit because the entries weren't excluded by operation of law under 19 U.S.C. Section 1499(c) -- an action which would give rise to Section 1581(a) jurisdiction. The U.S. argued that Congress only meant for Section 1499(c) to apply to admissibility decisions made by CBP, noting that whether CBP made the admissibility decision "hinges on whether another agency has taken responsibility for determining the legality of the merchandise, even if the agency does not necessarily have separate authority to detain or exclude the merchandise."

The U.S. cited the 2018 CIT decision Andritz Sundwig v. U.S,, where the court found it didn't have Section 1581(a) jurisdiction to hear a case challenging an order from CBP telling the importer to re-export or destroy pest infested cargo and packaging material. The court said that since the order was made pursuant to agricultural laws and not customs laws, it didn't have subject matter jurisdiction.

In Andritz, "the Court inherently recognized that when CBP’s actions or decisions are taken or made on behalf of, or at the behest of, other agencies and reflect those agencies’ efforts to enforce non-customs laws and regulations for which they have or share responsibility, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the ministerial actions of CBP," the U.S. said.

The government also cited the legislative history of the Customs Informed Compliance and Modernization Act to show that Section 1499(c) wasn''t meant to apply "when another agency with authority over the subject matter has taken responsibility for determining whether a given importation is legal and thus admissible."

As a result, since NHTSA was responsible for the decision here, CIT doesn't have jurisdiction, the brief said. "It was NHTSA, and not CBP, that evaluated whether the subject tires violate NHTSA’s regulations (they do) and whether the tires are admissible (they are not)."

The U.S. lastly noted that CIT can't review CBP's actions here anyway regarding the lone entry that was seized since the court "does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review seizures."