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

Article excerpt

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 


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.


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


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.