DOT Can't Order Seizures By Itself, Tire Importer Says

A tire importer opposed a motion to dismiss its case for lack of jurisdiction June 7, arguing that the Court of International Trade could preside because CBP had made a relevant protestable decision -- the decision to delay an admissibility determination (Inspired Ventures, LLC v. U.S., CIT # 24-00062).

Importer Inspired Ventures brought its case to CIT in March contesting CBP’s refusal to release two tire entries (see 2403140043). In response, the U.S. in May argued that, because the entries were ordered seized by the Department of Transportation, CBP had made no protestable decision that could be challenged at the trade court (see 2405140063).

But CBP made a decision to postpone its admissibility determination past the time limits required by statute, which is something CIT can hear, Inspired said.

And DOT only recommended seizure, and doesn’t have independent authority to order seizure on its own, it said. Therefore, it must have been CBP that made the final decision regarding Inspired’s entries, the importer said.

CBP is “abdicating” its responsibility to DOT “retroactively” with this justification, it said.

The House Report cited by the government in its own motion -- discussing the 30-day time limit for admissibility decisions under 19 U.S.C. 1499(c) -- supports this position, the importer said. That reads the 30-day limit “can apply ‘where Customs has the responsibility and authority to determine the admissibility of the merchandise, and such procedures and remedies are agreed to by the other agency,’” it said. Otherwise, the importer would have no means available to it to appeal the seizure, it noted.

“This statement addresses the exact circumstances before the court here,” it said.

CBP has held Inspired’s entries for six months despite recommending seizure after two weeks, it said, and the agency even told the importer to pay antidumping duties after ordering seizure.

The customs agency claimed that the delay was because the merchandise was valued over $100,000 and seizure required approval by Commerce, but “CBP’s excuse that it was waiting on guidance from Customs Headquarters because of the domestic value of the merchandise does not justify the delay,” it said.

“This would undermine and render meaningless the detailed notification and protest scheme set forth in section 1499(c) and leave importers powerless to contest CBP’s indefinite detention of their goods,” it said.