(a) Generally. No ruling letter will be issued in response to a request for a ruling which fails to comply with the provisions of this part. Moreover, no ruling letter will be issued with regard to transactions or questions which are essentially hypothetical in nature or in any instance in which it appears contrary to the sound administration of the Customs and related laws to do so. No ruling letter will be issued in regard to a completed transaction.
(b) Pending litigation in the United States Court of International Trade. No ruling letter will be issued with respect to any issue which is pending before the United States Court of International Trade, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or any court of appeal therefrom. Litigation before any other court will not preclude the issuance of a ruling letter, provided neither the Customs Service nor any of its officers or agents is named as a defendant.
[T.D. 75-186, 40 FR 31929, July 30, 1975, as amended by T.D. 85-90, 50 FR 21430, May 24, 1985]
Notes of Decisions
Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. United States, 687 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Customs responded via email message on October 22, 2009, stating that pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177.7 (b), it would not issue a ruling with respect to any issue pending before the Court of International Trade and that therefore it would not rule on Jensen’s protests because of the…”
Otter Prods., LLC v. United States, 2014 CIT 154 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).
· cites it 4× “In the ruling, Customs stated that, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177.7 , 3 it would not respond to Otter’s Internal Advice Request and would not enforce the GEO against Otter because Otter’s appeal, Otter Prods.”
Vivitar Corp. v. United States, 593 F. Supp. 420 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1984).
“19 C.F.R. § 177.7 . 8 . Intervenor also contends that a number of plaintiffs factual allegations should not be considered due to the absence of certified copies of supporting documents.”
Nat'l Corn Growers Ass'n v. Baker, 636 F. Supp. 921 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
“According to 19 C.F.R. § 177.7 (b), no ruling letter will be issued with respect to any matter which is pending before this Court of International Trade.”
Depersia v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).
· cites it 2× “See 19 C.F.R. § 177.7 (a) (“Moreover, no ruling letter will be issued with regard to transactions or questions which are essentially hypothetical in nature or in any instance in which it appears contrary to the sound administration of the Customs and related laws to do so.”
Best Key Textiles Co. v. United States, 2013 CIT 148 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).
· cites it 2× “See 19 C.F.R. § 177.7 (a) (“no ruling letter will be issued with regard to transactions or questions which are essentially hypothetical in nature or in any instance in which it appears contrary to the sound administration of the Customs and related laws to do so”).”
Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. United States, 2011 CIT 15 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).
“Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,7 arguing that “an importer may not 6 In relevant part, 19 C.F.R. § 177.7 (b) (2010) provides that “[n]o ruling letter will be issued with respect to any issue which is pending before the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.