28 U.S.C. § 2640

Scope and standard of review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Court of International Trade shall make its determinations upon the basis of the record made before the court in the following categories of civil actions:(1) Civil actions contesting the denial of a protest under section 515 of the Tariff Act of 1930.(2) Civil actions commenced under section 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930.(3) Civil actions commenced to review a final determination made under section 305(b)(1) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.(4) Civil actions commenced under section 777(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930.(5) Civil actions commenced to review any decision of the Secretary of the Treasury under section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, with the exception of decisions under section 641(d)(2)(B), which shall be governed by subdivision (d) of this section.(6) Civil actions commenced under section 1582 of this title.(b) In any civil action commenced in the Court of International Trade under section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930, the court shall review the matter as specified in subsection (b) of such section.(c) In any civil action commenced in the Court of International Trade to review any final determination of the Secretary of Labor under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 or any final determination of the Secretary of Commerce under section 251 or section 271 of such Act, the court shall review the matter as specified in section 284 of such Act.(d) In any civil action commenced to review any order or decision of the Customs Service under section 499(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the court shall review the action on the basis of the record before the Customs Service at the time of issuing such decision or order.(e) In any civil action not specified in this section, the Court of International Trade shall review the matter as provided in section 706 of title 5.(Added Pub. L. 96–417, title III, § 301, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1736; amended Pub. L. 98–573, title II, § 212(b)(5), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2984; Pub. L. 103–182, title VI, § 684(a)(4), Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2219.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 515 of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), is classified to section 1515 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

Section 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), is classified to section 1516 of Title 19.

Section 305(b)(1) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, referred to in subsec. (a)(3), is classified to section 2515(b)(1) of Title 19.

Section 777(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsec. (a)(4), is classified to section 1677f(c)(2) of Title 19.

Section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsec. (a)(5), is classified to section 1641 of Title 19.

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

Sections 223, 251, 271, and 284 of the Trade Act of 1974, referred to in subsec. (c), are classified to sections 2273, 2341, 2371, and 2395, respectively, of Title 19, Customs Duties. Section 2371 of Title 19 was omitted from the Code as terminated Sept. 30, 1982.

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

Prior Provisions

A prior section 2640, act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 982, authorized the division which had decided a case or the single judge who had decided an appeal for a reappraisement to grant a rehearing or retrial, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 91–271, title I, § 121, June 2, 1970, 84 Stat. 281. See section 2646 of this title.

Amendments

1993—Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 103–182 added subsec. (d) and redesignated former subsec. (d) as (e).

1984—Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 98–573 amended par. (5) generally, substituting “under section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, with the exception of decisions under section 641(d)(2)(B), which shall be governed by subdivision (d) of this section” for “to deny or revoke a customhouse broker’s license under section 641(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective 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

Subsecs. (a)(5), (c), and (d) of this section applicable with respect to civil actions commenced on or after Nov. 1, 1980, see section 701(b)(1)(B) of Pub. L. 96–417, set out as an Effective Date of 1980 Amendment note under section 251 of this title.

Subsec. (a)(6) of this section applicable with respect to civil actions commenced on or after the 90th day after Nov. 1, 1980, see section 701(c)(1)(A) of Pub. L. 96–417.

Application of 1993 Amendment

For purposes of applying amendment by Pub. L. 103–182, any decision or order of Customs Service denying, suspending, or revoking accreditation of a private laboratory on or after Dec. 8, 1993, and before regulations to implement 19 U.S.C. 1499(b) are issued to be treated as having been denied, suspended, or revoked under such section 1499(b), see section 684(b) of Pub. L. 103–182, formerly set out as a note under section 1581 of this title.

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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 493 cases (46 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). · cites it 2× “16, to 28 U. S. C. § 2640 (a), which provides that, in reviewing the ruling by the Customs Service, the Court of International Trade (CIT) "shall make its determinations upon the basis of the record made before the court.”

Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 811 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “US § 2640(a)(1), whereas § 1581(i) review is confined to the more limited record developed before Customs, see 28 U.S.C. § 2640 (e). While the existence of another adequate remedy does not necessarily bar a declaratory judgment, see, e.”

Int'l Custom Prods., Inc. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). · cites it 4× “28 U.S.C. § 2640 (a) (2000). 16 Such review is preceded by the creation of a record before this Court.”

United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). · cites it 7× “4 28 U.S.C. § 2640 (a)(6) (2000). The evidence must be relevant to the Court’s inquiry, which is whether or not the United States should be entitled to recover the imposed penalty.”

Heartland By-Prods., Inc. v. United States, & United States Beet Sugar Ass'n, 264 F.3d 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2640 (e) (1994), the court reviewed the revocation ruling under the standard of review of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.”

Mittal Steel Galati S.A. v. United States, 491 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 706 (2)(A) (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2640 (e) (2000). III. Discussion A.”

Suntec Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 857 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 1581 (i), whose language, as relevant here, confers jurisdiction over a civil action arising out of a law providing for duties on the importation of merchandise for reasons other than the raising of revenue or for “admin- istration and enforcement with respect to” such duties.”

Marubeni Am. Corp. v. United States, 35 F.3d 530 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “The CIT conducted a three week trial de novo, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2640 , that included test driving the Pathfinder and comparison vehicles, videotape viewing, and extensive presentation of both testimonial and documentary evidence.”

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. The United States & Zenith Radio Corp., 750 F.2d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “§ 1516a(b)(1)(B) provides: The court shall hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion found— it • it ik it it it (B) in an action brought under paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this section, to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not…”

Skf USA Inc. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 2× “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A). A Commerce Lawfully Sought to Obtain the Unaffiliated Supplier’s Data on Cost of Production During the review, Commerce requested that all respondents report COP data…”

Delgado v. United States, 491 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). · cites it 10× “The scope of the Court’s review of such a proceeding is set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2640 (a)(5) (2000), which provides for “Civil actions commenced to review any decision of the Secretary of the Treasury under section [1641], with the exception of decisions under section…”

Gilda Indus., Inc. v. United States, 622 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “See 28 U.S.C. § 2640 (e) (“In any civil action not specified in this section, the Court of International Trade shall review the matter as provided in section 706 of title 5.”

Show all 493 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(1) — 3 cases

Traveler Trading Co. v. United States, 713 F. Supp. 409 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).

Cyber Power Sys. (USA) Inc. v. United States, 2026 CIT 41 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2026).

Chrysler Corp. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).

— 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(5) — 1 case

Allen v. Regan, 9 Ct. Int'l Trade 615 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985).

— 28 U.S.C. § 2640(e) — 1 case

Nat'l Fisheries Inst., Inc. v. United States Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., 465 F. Supp. 2d 1300 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).

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.