28 U.S.C. § 1584
Civil actions under the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement or the USMCA
The United States Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action which arises under section 777(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and is commenced by the United States to enforce administrative sanctions levied for violation of a protective order or an undertaking.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1982–2006 · leading case: Ontario Forest Indus. Assoc v. United States, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
Ontario Forest Indus. Assoc v. United States, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “28 U.S.C. § 1584 . If no review is requested before a NAFTA binational panel, parties may seek review of the determi *1313 nation before the Court of International Trade so long as an action is commenced within thirty days following expiration of the stay defined in 19 U.”
United States v. Biehl & Co., 539 F. Supp. 1218 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1982). “To the contrary, where a party errs in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, the salutary 28 U.S.C. § 1584 (b) provides for transfer of the action to the appropriate district court, in the interest of justice.”
Bar Bea Truck Leasing Co., Inc. v. United States, 546 F. Supp. 558 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1982). “The transfer order was entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1584 (a) without prejudice to retransfer those causes of action outside the jurisdiction of this Court back to the New Jersey District Court when appropriate.”
Bar Bea Truck Leasing Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Int'l Trade 104 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1982). “Rather, "where a party errs in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, the salutary 28 U.S.C. § 1584 (b) provides for the transfer of the action to the appropriate district court, in the interest of justice”.”
Kidco, Inc. v. United States, 4 Ct. Int'l Trade 103 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1982). “2178 (WCC); it is hereby Ordered that in the interest of justice, defendants’ oral motion to dismiss is denied and this action is sua sponte transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in conformity with 28 U.S.C. § 1584 (b), where 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.