28 U.S.C. § 1583
Counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party actions
In any civil action in the Court of International Trade, the court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to render judgment upon any counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party action of any party, if (1) such claim or action involves the imported merchandise that is the subject matter of such civil action, or (2) such claim or action is to recover upon a bond or customs duties relating to such merchandise.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: Sioux Honey Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Insurance
Sioux Honey Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Insurance (2012)
“The remaining jurisdictional provision in the Customs Courts Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1583 , confers a form of supplemental jurisdiction on the Court of International Trade, namely jurisdiction over any “counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party action” where the claim involves…”
International Fidelity Insurance v. Sweet Little Mexico Corp. (2011)
“28 U.S.C. § 1583 . 14 . Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 547 F.”
American National Red Cross v. S. G. (1992)
“The Red Cross is clearly granted the capacity to sue and be sued in all federal courts, so that it could appear, for example, as a party in a third-party action in the Court of International Trade, see 28 U. S. C. § 1583 , and in an action before the United States Claims Court,…”
United States v. Shabahang Persian Carpets, Ltd. (1997)
“In its summary judgment motion, Customs contends that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1583 (1994) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581 (i)(3) (1994).”
Old Republic Insurance v. United States (1990)
“The remaining section, 28 U.S.C. § 1583 , provides: In any civil action in the Court of International Trade, the court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to render judgment upon any counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party action of any party, if (1) such claim or action…”
Tomoegawa (U.S.A.), Inc. v. United States (1991)
“These motions raise questions that bear on the relationship of the Government’s statutory right to assert a counterclaim under 28 U.S.C. § 1583 and the effect of the court’s test case and suspension practice under USCIT R.”
Argosy Limited v. Franklin Hennigan, Individually and as Acting District Director of Customs (1968)
“) The Customs Court is given exclusive jurisdiction over customs matters by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1583 : “The Customs Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review on protest the decisions of any collector of customs, including all orders and findings entering into the same, as to…”
Cormorant Shipholding Corp. v. United States (2009)
“The court denies Plaintiffs motion because Customs’ counterclaims involve the same imported merchandise that is the subject of Plaintiffs protest action, giving the court jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. § 1583 . 3 BACKGROUND First enacted by Congress…”
Export Packers Co., Ltd. v. United States (1992)
“Similarly at issue is defendant’s counterclaim, under 28 U.S.C. § 1583 , challenging the liquidation of 32.”
United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc. (2006)
“) Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1583 (a) as controlling this issue.”
Rheem Metalurgica S/A v. United States (1996)
“) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1583 (1988), defendant asserts a counterclaim relying on this argument, asserting Customs improperly liquidated some of the subject merchandise at a rate of 9.”
United States v. Mizrahie (1985)
“MEMORANDUM OPINION RE, Chief Judge: The question presented in this case is whether a surety seeking indemnification on an import bond, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1583 (1982), may obtain a writ of attachment against an indemnitor’s real property located in California.”
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.