28 U.S.C. § 1581

Civil actions against the United States and agencies and officers thereof

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced to contest the denial of a protest, in whole or in part, under section 515 of the Tariff Act of 1930.(b) The Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced under section 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930.(c) The Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced under section 516A or 517 of the Tariff Act of 1930.(d) The Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced to review—(1) any final determination of the Secretary of Labor under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the eligibility of workers for adjustment assistance under such Act;(2) any final determination of the Secretary of Commerce under section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the eligibility of a firm for adjustment assistance under such Act;(3) any final determination of the Secretary of Commerce under section 273 11 See References in Text note below. of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the eligibility of a community for adjustment assistance under such Act; and(4) any final determination of the Secretary of Agriculture under section 293 or 296 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2401b) 1 with respect to the eligibility of a group of agricultural commodity producers for adjustment assistance under such Act.(e) The Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced to review any final determination of the Secretary of the Treasury under section 305(b)(1) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.(f) The Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action involving an application for an order directing the administering authority or the International Trade Commission to make confidential information available under section 777(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930.(g) The Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced to review—(1) any decision of the Secretary of the Treasury to deny a customs broker’s license under section 641(b)(2) or (3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, or to deny a customs broker’s permit under section 641(c)(1) of such Act, or to revoke a license or permit under section 641(b)(5) or (c)(2) of such Act;(2) any decision of the Secretary of the Treasury to revoke or suspend a customs broker’s license or permit, or impose a monetary penalty in lieu thereof, under section 641(d)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930; and(3) any decision or order of the Customs Service to deny, suspend, or revoke accreditation of a private laboratory under section 499(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930.(h) The Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced to review, prior to the importation of the goods involved, a ruling issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, or a refusal to issue or change such a ruling, relating to classification, valuation, rate of duty, marking, restricted merchandise, entry requirements, drawbacks, vessel repairs, or similar matters, but only if the party commencing the civil action demonstrates to the court that he would be irreparably harmed unless given an opportunity to obtain judicial review prior to such importation.(i)(1) In addition to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Court of International Trade by subsections (a)–(h) of this section and subject to the exception set forth in subsection (j) of this section, the Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced against the United States, its agencies, or its officers, that arises out of any law of the United States providing for—(A) revenue from imports or tonnage;(B) tariffs, duties, fees, or other taxes on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the raising of revenue;(C) embargoes or other quantitative restrictions on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the protection of the public health or safety; or(D) administration and enforcement with respect to the matters referred to in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of this paragraph and subsections (a)–(h) of this section.(2) This subsection shall not confer jurisdiction over an antidumping or countervailing duty determination which is reviewable by—(A) the Court of International Trade under section 516A(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)); or(B) a binational panel under section 516A(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)).(j) The Court of International Trade shall not have jurisdiction of any civil action arising under section 305 of the Tariff Act of 1930.(Added Pub. L. 96–417, title II, § 201, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1728; amended Pub. L. 98–573, title II, § 212(b)(1), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2983; Pub. L. 99–514, title XVIII, § 1891(1), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2926; Pub. L. 100–449, title IV, § 402(a), Sept. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 1883; Pub. L. 103–182, title IV, § 414(a)(1), title VI, § 684(a)(1), Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2147, 2219; Pub. L. 111–5, div. B, title I, § 1873(b)(2), Feb. 17, 2009, 123 Stat. 414; Pub. L. 114–125, title IV, § 421(b), Feb. 24, 2016, 130 Stat. 168; Pub. L. 116–113, title IV, § 423(a)(1), Jan. 29, 2020, 134 Stat. 65.)Amendment of Section

For termination of amendment by section 501(c) of Pub. L. 100–449, see Effective and Termination Dates of 1988 Amendment note below.

Editorial NotesPrior History of Court

The United States Customs Court, the predecessor of the Court of International Trade, was omitted in the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 96–417.

The predecessor of the United States Customs Court was the Board of General Appraisers which was created by the Customs Administrative Act of June 10, 1890. The Board was under the administrative supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury.

From 1890 to 1926, the Board of General Appraisers had jurisdiction over all protests from decisions of the collectors of customs and appeals for reappraisement under sections 13 and 14 of the Customs Administrative Act of June 10, 1890, ch. 407, 26 Stat. 136.

The Customs Court was established by act May 28, 1926, ch. 411, §§ 1, 2, 44 Stat. 669, sections 405a and 405b of Title 19, Customs Duties, and said act transferred to it all the jurisdiction and powers of the former Board of General Appraisers. The Tariff Act of June 1930, ch. 497, title IV, § 518, 46 Stat. 737, section 1518 of Title 19, continued the Customs Court as constituted on June 17, 1930 with, however, several important changes.

References in Text

Section 515 of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsec. (a), is classified to section 1515 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Section 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsec. (b), is classified to section 1516 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Sections 516A and 517 of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsec. (c), are classified to sections 1516a and 1517 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

The Trade Act of 1974, referred to in subsec. (d), is Pub. L. 93–618, Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 1978, which is classified principally to chapter 12 (§ 2101 et seq.) of Title 19, Customs Duties. Sections 223, 251, 293, and 296 of the Act are classified to sections 2273, 2341, 2401b, and 2401e, respectively, of Title 19. Section 273 of the Act, formerly classified to section 2371b of Title 19, was repealed by Pub. L. 112–40, title II, § 222(a)(1), Oct. 21, 2011, 125 Stat. 411. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see References in Text note set out under section 2101 of Title 19 and Tables.

Section 305(b)(1) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, referred to in subsec. (e), is classified to section 2515(b)(1) of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Section 777(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsec. (f), is classified to section 1677f(c)(2) of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsec. (g)(1), (2), is classified to section 1641 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Section 499(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsec. (g)(3), is classified to section 1499(b) of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Section 305 of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsec. (j), is classified to section 1305 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 1581, act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 943, related to powers of the Customs Court generally, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 96–417. See section 1585 of this title.

Amendments

2020—Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 116–113, § 423(a)(1)(A), (B), (D), designated existing provisions as par. (1), redesignated former pars. (1) to (4) as subpars. (A) to (D), respectively, of par. (1), added par. (2), and struck out former concluding provisions which read as follows: “This subsection shall not confer jurisdiction over an antidumping or countervailing duty determination which is reviewable either by the Court of International Trade under section 516A(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 or by a bi­national panel under article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement or the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement and section 516A(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930.”

Subsec. (i)(1)(D). Pub. L. 116–113, § 423(a)(1)(C), substituted “subparagraphs (A) through (C) of this paragraph” for “paragraphs (1)–(3) of this subsection”.

2016—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–125 inserted “or 517” after “516A”.

2009—Subsec. (d)(3), (4). Pub. L. 111–5 substituted “273” for “271” in par. (3) and added par. (4).

1993—Subsec. (g)(3). Pub. L. 103–182, § 684(a)(1), added par. (3).

Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 103–182, § 414(a)(1), inserted “the North American Free Trade Agreement or” before “the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement” in last sentence.

1988—Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 100–449 temporarily inserted at end “This subsection shall not confer jurisdiction over an antidumping or countervailing duty determination which is reviewable either by the Court of International Trade under section 516A(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 or by a binational panel under article 1904 of the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement and section 516A(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930.” See Effective and Termination Dates of 1988 Amendment note below.

1986—Subsec. (g)(1). Pub. L. 99–514 substituted “(3)” for “(3) or (c)”.

1984—Subsec. (g)(1). Pub. L. 98–573 amended par. (1) generally, substituting “a customs broker’s license under section 641(b)(2) or (3) or (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, or to deny a customs broker’s permit under section 641(c)(1) of such Act, or to revoke a license or permit under section 641(b)(5) or (c)(2) of such Act” for “or revoke a customhouse broker’s license under section 641(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930”.

Subsec. (g)(2). Pub. L. 98–573 amended par. (2) generally, substituting “any decision of the Secretary of the Treasury to revoke or suspend a customs broker’s license or permit, or impose a monetary penalty in lieu thereof, under section 641(d)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930” for “any order of the Secretary of the Treasury to revoke or suspend a customhouse broker’s license under section 641(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2020 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 116–113 effective on the date on which the USMCA enters into force (July 1, 2020), but not applicable to certain determinations under section 1516a of Title 19, Customs Duties, or binational panel reviews under NAFTA, see section 432 of Pub. L. 116–113, set out as a note under section 1516a of Title 19.

Effective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–125 effective 180 days after Feb. 24, 2016, see section 421(c) of Pub. L. 114–125, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1517 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Effective Date of 2009 Amendment

Except as otherwise provided and subject to certain applicability provisions, amendment by Pub. L. 111–5 effective upon the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on Feb. 17, 2009, see section 1891 of Pub. L. 111–5, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2009 Amendment note under section 2271 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Effective Date of 1993 Amendment

Amendment by section 414(a)(1) of Pub. L. 103–182 effective on the date the North American Free Trade Agreement enters into force with respect to the United States [Jan. 1, 1994], but not applicable to any final determination described in section 1516a(a)(1)(B) or (2)(B)(i), (ii), or (iii) of Title 19, Customs Duties, notice of which is published in the Federal Register before such date, or to a determination described in section 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi) of Title 19, notice of which is received by the Government of Canada or Mexico before such date, or to any binational panel review under the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement, or to any extraordinary challenge arising out of any such review, that was commenced before such date, see section 416 of Pub. L. 103–182, formerly set out as an Effective Date note under former section 3431 of Title 19.

Effective and Termination Dates of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–449 effective on date United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement enters into force (Jan. 1, 1989), and to cease to have effect on date Agreement ceases to be in force, see section 501(a), (c) of Pub. L. 100–449, set out in a note under section 2112 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–573 effective on close of 180th day after Oct. 30, 1984, see section 214(d) of Pub. L. 98–573, set out as a note under section 1304 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Effective Date

Chapter effective Nov. 1, 1980, and applicable with respect to civil actions pending on or commenced on or after such date, see section 701(a) of Pub. L. 96–417, set out as an Effective Date of 1980 Amendment note under section 251 of this title.

Subsecs. (d) and (g) to (i) of this section applicable with respect to civil actions commenced on or after Nov. 1, 1980, see section 701(b)(1)(A) of Pub. L. 96–417.

Application of 1993 Amendment

Pub. L. 103–182, title VI, § 684(b), Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat 2219, which provided a rule regarding the application of the amendments made by section 684(a) of Pub. L. 103–182 to accreditations of private laboratories, was repealed by Pub. L. 116–113, title VI, § 601, Jan. 29, 2020, 134 Stat. 78, effective on the date the USMCA entered into force (July 1, 2020).

Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the United States Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury, including functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 203(1), 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6. For establishment of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland Security, treated as if included in Pub. L. 107–296 as of Nov. 25, 2002, see section 211 of Title 6, as amended generally by Pub. L. 114–125, and section 802(b) of Pub. L. 114–125, set out as a note under section 211 of Title 6.

Effect of Termination of USMCA Country Status

For provisions relating to effect of termination of USMCA country status on sections 401 to 432 of Pub. L. 116–113, see section 4601 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3,863 cases (387 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: Trs. in Bankr. of North Am. Rubber Thread Co. v. United States, 593 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Trs. in Bankr. of North Am. Rubber Thread Co. v. United States, 593 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 26× “The CIT found that it had jurisdiction over the challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 1581 (i)(4) and that NART was not precluded by the doctrine of judicial estoppel from bringing its challenge.”
Washington Int'l Ins. v. United States, 138 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001). · cites it 45× “On all counts, Washington International submits this Court possesses jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581 (a) or, alternatively, 28 U.”
Hutchison Quality Furniture, Inc. v. United States, 827 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 15× “The United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) dismissed Hutchison’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that because Hutchison could have pursued a remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 1581 (a) (2012), it could not invoke jurisdiction pursuant to § 1581(i)(4).”
Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 145 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). · cites it 22× “Plaintiff initiated this action on December 3, 2015, under 28 U.S.C. § 1581 (i) (2012), 8 challenging CBP’s collection of cash deposits and the suspension of liquidation that resulted from CBP requiring Plaintiff to file its entries as type “03” entries.”
K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 485 U.S. 176 (1988). · cites it 18× “A Petitioner's first theory is that § 526(a) imposes an "embarg[o]" within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1581 (i)(3), which grants the Court of International Trade exclusive jurisdiction over suits against the Government arising out of federal laws that provide for "embargoes or…”
Env't One Corp. v. United States, 2023 CIT 49 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023). · cites it 33× “OPINION AND ORDER [Granting Plaintiff’s motion to amend summons; denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the 23 entries for which the court’s jurisdiction is claimed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581 (a); granting Defendants’…”
One World Tech., Inc. v. United States, 357 F. Supp. 3d 1278 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 32× “For the reasons explained below, the court grants Defendants' partial motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiff's claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1581 (h) and issues a preliminary injunction with respect to Plaintiff's claim under 28 U.”
Canadian Wheat Bd. v. United States, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). · cites it 31× “Assuming plaintiffs establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581®, 5 summary judgment is proper with respect to their substantive claims if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Shinyei Corp. of Am. v. United States, 355 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2004). · cites it 10× “28 U.S.C. § 1581 (i)(a) (2000). Section 515 of the Tariff Act provides for the administrative review of protests filed under section 514 of the Tariff Act, which in turn provides for protests of decisions of Customs.”
Consol. Bearings Co., Plaintiff-Cross v. United States, 348 F.3d 997 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 8× “1 Because no other subsection of 28 U.S.C. § 1581 was or could have been a basis for jurisdiction in this case, trial court was correct in finding jurisdiction under section 1581(f).”
Coalition to Preserve the Integrity of Am. Trademarks v. United States of Am., 790 F.2d 903 (D.C. Cir. 1986). · cites it 21× “1 The issue is whether actions of this sort may properly be brought in federal district court or whether they must in all cases be initiated in the Court of International Trade, with appellate jurisdiction in the Federal Circuit.”
Int'l Custom Prods., Inc. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). · cites it 19× “On May 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed a summons and complaint with this Court, alleging jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581 (h) (2000). 5 Plaintiff requested — among other things — a declaratory judgment that the Notice of Action is null and void because Customs failed to follow…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) — 14 cases
CPC Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 978 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).
Milin Indus., Inc. v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 1454 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 403 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
Inner Secrets/Secretly Yours, Inc. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 281 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).
Jinxiang Huameng Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, 2017 CIT 57 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) — 12 cases
Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
Negev Phosphates, Ltd. v. United States Dep't of Com., 699 F. Supp. 938 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
Thuan an Prod. Trading & Serv. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2018 CIT 152 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
LMI—La Metalli Industriale, S.P.A. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 959 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).
Jtekt Corp. v. United States, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1581(d) — 1 case
Former Employees of Shaw Pipe, Inc. v. U.S. Sec'y of Labor, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1282 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1581(d)(1) — 2 cases
Former Employees of Mortg. Guar. Ins. v. United States Sec'y of Labor, 572 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008).
Former Employees of Gen. Elec. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 14 Ct. Int'l Trade 608 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1581(h) — 1 case
XYZ Corp. v. United States, 2017 CIT 88 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) — 15 cases
Nufarm Am.'s, Inc. v. United States, 398 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005).
LG Elec. U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1421 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).
Holford USA Ltd. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 1486 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).
Int'l Maven, Inc. v. McCauley, 678 F. Supp. 300 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 2014 CIT 65 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(2) — 1 case
ABC Int'l Traders, Inc. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 787 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(3) — 2 cases
Milin Indus., Inc. v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 1454 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
Seaside Food, Inc. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 189 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4) — 1 case
Shinyei Corp. of Am. v. United States, 524 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(l) — 1 case
Am. Stevedoring Inc. v. U.S. Customs Serv., 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 331 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
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.