D.C. District Court Dismisses Attempt to Release Seized Shipments as Filed in Wrong District
The D.C. federal District Court dismissed PRP Trading’s attempt to gain release of several shipments of aluminum extrusions it contends were mistakenly seized for lack of country of origin markings. The Court of International Trade had transferred the case to the District Courts in October, after finding it had no jurisdiction because the shipments had been seized before PRP Trading filed suit (see 12100331). But according to the D.C. court, PRP Trading requested the case be transferred to the wrong district -- it should have brought suit in Puerto Rico -- and in any case the company didn’t complete all required actions at the administrative level before CBP.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
In October, rather than directing CIT to transfer the case to the District Court in Puerto Rico to challenge the seizure, PRP Trading instead requested CIT to transfer the case to the D.C. district. The company did so to challenge CBP headquarters’ decision at the administrative level to exclude the merchandise; CBP’s headquarters are located in the D.C. court’s jurisdiction. But the D.C. court said CIT had already said the shipments had been seized. The correct place to file the challenge, then, was in Puerto Rico, the district where the seizure occurred.
The D.C. District Court expressed sympathy for the importer: “The seizure of the shipments at issue has resulted in significant hardship to the plaintiff, who has been understandably frustrated at the slow pace of the administrative proceedings,” the court said. But even PRP Trading acknowledged that it had not completed all required steps to challenge the seizure. Quoting the company’s brief, it said “the plaintiff does not dispute the fact that it ‘chose the administrative procedure to avoid having to pay $65,000 in cost bonds to move the thirteen seizures into district court.’” And to hear the case as a challenge to actions taken by CBP at the administrative level would in effect be overturning CIT’s decision, something the D.C. court could not do, it said.
Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of the court’s ruling.