28 U.S.C. § 1582
Civil actions commenced by the United States
Sections 592, 593A, 641(b)(6), 641(d)(2)(A), 704(i)(2), and 734(i)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in par. (1), are classified to sections 1592, 1593a, 1641(b)(6), 1641(d)(2)(A), 1671c(i)(2), and 1673c(i)(2), respectively, of Title 19, Customs Duties.
A prior section 1582, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 943;
1993—Par. (1). Pub. L. 103–182 inserted “593A,” after “592,”.
1986—Par. (1). Pub. L. 99–514 substituted “641(b)(6)” for “641(a)(1)(C)”.
1984—Par. (1). Pub. L. 98–573 inserted references to section 641(a)(1)(C) and 641(d)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930.
Amendment by Pub. L. 98–573 effective on close of 180th day after
Section applicable with respect to civil actions commenced on or after the 90th day after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 363
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: United States v. Maverick Mktg., LLC, 2018 CIT 84 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
United States v. Maverick Mktg., LLC, 2018 CIT 84 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “Letter Requesting Jurisdiction Briefing at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1582 ). In its supplemental brief on jurisdiction, Plaintiff argues that the Court has jurisdiction over its claim against Maverick and Good Times.”
Arthur J. Fritz, Jr. v. United States of Am., 535 F.2d 1192 (9th Cir. 1976). “The broad provisions of the Tucker Act must be construed in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. § 1582 (a), which provides: *1194 (a) The Customs Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions instituted by any person whose protest pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as…”
United States v. Robert E. Landweer & Co., 2012 CIT 17 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). “This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1582 (1) and therefore denies Defendant’s USCIT Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.”
United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “The United States (“Plaintiff’ or “govern *1342 ment”) brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1582 (1) against Defendant, UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc.”
Commodities Exp. Co., a Michigan Corp. v. U.S. Customs Serv., an Agency of the U.S. Gov't, 888 F.2d 431 (6th Cir. 1989). “We conclude that the District Court reached a legally erroneous conclusion in its interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1582 (2), and that it prematurely decided other issues without holding a hearing on Customs’ motion to dismiss.”
Alberta Gas Chemicals, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 467 F. Supp. 1245 (Cust. Ct. 1979). “In support of their cross-motion to dismiss, defendants insist that the statutory prerequisites for invoking the court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1582 have not been complied with.”
United States Ex Rel. Huangyan Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. Nature's Farm Prods., Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 993 (N.D. Cal. 2005). “” One statute providing for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade is 28 USC § 1582 , which vests exclusive jurisdiction in that court of “any civil action which arises out of an import transaction and which is commenced by the United States * * * to…”
United States v. Priority Prods., Inc., & Walter L. & Rosalie E. Huss, 793 F.2d 296 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “Huss, individually, in the Court of International Trade pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1582 . At the time of the filing of the complaint, Priority was in involuntary dissolution.”
Jerlian Watch Co., Inc. v. United States Dep't of Com. & United States Dep't of the Interior, 597 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1979). “The district court dismissed the action for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that exclusive jurisdiction lay in the Customs Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1582 (a). Because the challenged rules are substantially related to a traditional customs purpose, and because plaintiffs have…”
United States v. Utex Int'l Inc., & Sentry Ins. Co., 857 F.2d 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “In this action on a surety bond brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1582 (2), Sentry Insurance Company appeals the judgment of the United States Court of International Trade, *1409 awarding liquidated damages to the United States in the amount of $11,718.”
Int'l Fid. Ins. v. Sweet Little Mexico Corp., 665 F.3d 671 (5th Cir. 2011). “18 The CIT concluded that the combined jurisdictional grants *677 provided by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1582 and 1583 gave the CIT exclusive jurisdiction over the cross-claim for indemnification.”
The United States v. Commodities Exp. Co., & Old Repub. Ins. Co., 972 F.2d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “” Specifically this court must determine whether foreign goods in a bonded warehouse are “imported” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1582 (2). The statutes governing bonded warehouses repeatedly refer to warehouse goods as imports.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1582(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Horizon Prods. Int'l, Inc., 2017 CIT 68 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
United States v. E-Dong, USA, Inc., 2025 CIT 139 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
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.