Court of International Trade Decisions during 2011 under 28 U.S.C. [Section] 1581(i) Residual Jurisdiction

By Ellis, Neil R.; Caiazzo, Jill | Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall 2012 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Court of International Trade Decisions during 2011 under 28 U.S.C. [Section] 1581(i) Residual Jurisdiction


Ellis, Neil R., Caiazzo, Jill, Georgetown Journal of International Law


TABLE OF CONTENTS    I. INTRODUCTION  II. OVERVIEW OF THE COURT'S RESIDUAL JURISDICTION III. DECISIONS CONCERNING THE SCOPE OF THE COURT'S RESIDUAL      JURISDICTION      A. Decision Interpreting the Language of Section 1581(i)      B. Decisions Choosing Among Section 1581 Jurisdictional         Grants         1. Section 1581(a) Versus Section 1581(i)             i. Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. United States            ii. Kairali Decan, Inc. v. United States         2. Section 1581(c) Versus Section 1581(i)            i. Advanced Technology & Materials Co. v. United               States           ii. Aisin Holdings of America, Inc. v. United States  IV. DECISIONS CONCERNING TIMELINESS: JURISDICTIONAL OR      MERITS-BASED?      A. Ocean Duke Corp. v. United States      B. French Feast, Inc. v. United States and Optimus, Inc.         v. United States      C. C.B. Imports Transamerica Corp. v. United States   V. MERITS DECISIONS PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S RESIDUAL      JURISDICTION      A. Merits Decisions Concerning the CDSOA         1. Furniture Brands International, Inc. v. United States         2. Five Rivers Electronics Innovation, LLC v. United            States      B. Merits Decisions in Actions Seeking to Compel Commerce         Action         1. Kinetic Industries Inc. v. United States         2. Advanced Technology & Materials Co. v. United States         3. Aisin Holdings of America, Inc. v. United States  VI. CONCLUSION 

I. INTRODUCTION

Cases brought under 98 U.S.C. [section] 1581(i) constituted a relatively small portion of the docket of the U.S. Court of International Trade in 2011, with only eleven dispositive decisions issued under this jurisdictional basis out of 159 total slip opinions. Nonetheless, these decisions addressed several challenging issues. With respect to the scope of the Court's residual jurisdiction, the Court explored the types of administrative actions redressable pursuant to section 1581 (i) and analyzed the availability of alternative jurisdictional bases. In the cases that reached the merits, the Court addressed aspects of U.S. trade remedies law that repeatedly have given rise to hotly contested litigation. In stun, while 2011 was a relatively quiet year for section 1581 (i), cases brought under that provision continued to present some of the most interesting questions of statutory interpretation and procedure confronted by the Court.

This Article surveys these questions in four parts, not including the introduction and conclusion (Parts I and VI, respectively). Part II consists of an overview of section 1581(i), providing context for file Court's 2011 decisions pursuant to its residual jurisdiction. Part III discusses the decisions that addressed the scope of the Court's residual jurisdiction, hi 2011, as in years past, the Court demonstrated significant restraint in the exercise of its jurisdiction pursuant to this authority. Nonetheless, the Court did not decline to exercise its residual jurisdiction when deemed appropriate even when faced with the highly unusual scenario of a plaintiff moving to dismiss its own cause of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under section 1581(i). Part IV addresses decisions by the Court that considered whether the statute of limitations applicable to cases brought under section 1581 (i) is part of the jurisdictional inquiry or the analysis of a claim's merits. These decisions reveal a split among the Court's judges on this issue. Part V reviews the Court decisions in cases that survived jurisdictional challenge to reach the merits. The Court denied the plaintiffs' claims in all of these cases, reinforcing the perception that section 1581(i) is no plaintiff's panacea, even for plaintiffs that manage to survive the jurisdictional gauntlet.

II. OVERVIEW OF THE COURT'S RESIDUAL JURISDICTION

The Court is one of limited jurisdiction, like all other federal courts born of Article III of the U.S.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Court of International Trade Decisions during 2011 under 28 U.S.C. [Section] 1581(i) Residual Jurisdiction
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?