The Honorable R. L eon Jordan, Uni t ed S t at es District Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Tenne ssee, sitting by

designation. NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR F UL L
- T E XT P UB L I CA T I ON

Fi l e N ame: 10a0320n. 06 N o. 09- 1786 UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT A M M E X , IN C ., ) ) P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, ) ) ON AP P E AL F RO M T HE v . ) UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT ) COURT F OR THE E AST ERN J OHN DU RA NT , WI L L I AM ) DI S T RI CT OF M I CH I GAN M O RA N D I N I , a nd J O H N D O ES, ) U nknow n A gent s of the U
. S. B ur eau of ) C us t om s and B or derPr ot ect i on, ) ) D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. )
B efor e: KENN ED Y and CO LE , C irc u it Ju d g e s; J ORDAN , D i s t r i ctJ udge. * LE ON J ORDAN , D istri ct Ju d g e. A p p ell an t A m m ex , Inc
. ap p ea ls th e d istri ct co u rt ’s di s m i s s al of i t s compl ai nt pur s uant t o R ul e 12( b) ( 6) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. A m m ex al l eges a Bi v e ns ca us e of a ct i on bas ed on the appe l l ees ’ deni al and s ubs equent
r evoca t i on of A m m ex’ s author i zat i on t o s el l dut y - fr ee m ot or fuel
. T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed t h e a p p e l l e e s ’ mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s b a s e d o n q u a l i f i e d i mm u n i t y . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w,
we a f f i r m.N o. 09- 1786

A m m ex , In c . v. D u ra n t, et a l. I. T hi s l ong- s t andi ng di s put e has gi ven r i s e t o atl eas ts i x publ i s hed opi ni ons : t hr ee by t he U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, t w o by t he U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s for t he Feder al C i r cui t , and one bya pr i orpanel of thi s cour t . M uch of the r el evantbackgr ound i s w el l
- s um m ar i zed i n t he Feder al C i r cui t ’ s s econd opi ni on. A m m e x o p e ra te s a d u ty-f re e s to re , i
. e. , a C l as s 9 C us t om s bonded w ar ehous e, and gas s t at i on , at A m bas s adorB r i dge betw een D etr oi t , M i chi gan and W in d so r, O n tar io . T h e g e o g ra p h yo f f e rs n o d ire c t p h y sic a l ro u te f o r p ro d u c ts s t or ed ors ol d att he store to ent erthe U ni t ed St at es . T hus , car s ent er i ng t he g a s s tatio n m u st p ro c e e d in to C a n a d a u p o n e x it. In o th e r w o rd s, th e p ro d u c ts s ol d i n t he s t or e mustbe export ed. A m m ex has l ong confr ont ed C us t om s overt he ques t i on of duty - fr ee i m por tof fuel s . I n l at e 1993 and ear l y 1994 A m m ex re ques t ed appr oval t o add gas ol i ne and di es el fuel t o i ts duty - fr ee of fer i ngs . I n J une 1994, C us t om s deni ed that requ est . C ust om s explai ned i n it s denial t hat fuel i s an “un i de n tifia b le f u n g ib le” g o o d th a t co u ld b e r e im p o rte d w ith o u t an yw a yf o r C u sto m s to coll ectdu t i es. A ft erC us t om s aff

i r m ed i t s deci s i on in a s econd opi ni on l ett er , A m m ex br oughtt he ca s e t o t he C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade. I n A ugus t2000, that cour tdecl ar ed unl aw ful C us t om s ' pr ohi bi ti o n o n s el l i ng fuel dut y - fr ee. T he cour tpoi nt ed out thatt he s t atut e thatgoverned duty - fr ee tr eatm entof w ar ehous ed mer chandi s e s peci fi cal l yexcl uded onl yper i s habl e art i cl es and ex p losive s, b u t n o t d iesel fu el an d g aso li n e. A m m ex I , 116 F. Supp. 2d at 1273. T he cour t r efus ed t o al l ow C us t om s t o expand t he s t atut oryexempt i on to excl ude “uni dent i fi ed fungi bl es . ” I d. T her efor e, on Sept ember5, 2000, C u sto m s g ra n ted A m m e x p e rm iss io n to b rin g its f u e l su p p lies w ith in its bonded w ar ehous e “i n or dert o fac i l i t at e the i m m edi at e ava i l abi l i t yof the b o n d e d f u e l f o r s a le .” In O c to b e r 2 0 0 0 , A m m e x a sk e d C u sto m s to c o n f irm th a t f

u e l s o ld a t it s A m bas s ador B r i dge faci l i t y w oul d not be subj ect t o t axes at t he t i m e of bonde d entr yi nt o t he U ni t ed St at es . C us t om s forw ar ded the r eques tt o t he I nt ernalN o. 09- 1786

A m m ex , In c . v. D u ra n t, et a l. R evenue Ser vi ce ( I R S)
. T he I R S decl i ned t o m ak e a form al rul i ng on t he ques t i on i n t he abs ence of a f or m al r eques t . I ns t ead, t he I R S offer ed A m m ex “gene r al i nform at i on [thatm ay ] be usef ul t o y ou. ” Thi s i nform at i on w as t hat “ S e c ti on 40 81 of the Int ernal R even ue C od e i m po ses a t ax o n cert a in re m o v a ls , e n tr ie s a n d s a le s o f ta x a b le f

u e l.” C us t om s i m m edi at el y r evoked i t s perm i s s i on forduty - fr ee s al es , beca us e “the i m por t ed gas ol i ne and di es el fuel i n i s s ue her e w as as s es s ed w i t h a t ax under 2 6 U
. S
. C
. 4 0 8 1
. . . . C o n seq u en tl ythat fu el do es n o t m ee t th e statuto ry d e f in itio n o f d u ty-f re e m e rc h a n d is e . . . .” A m m ex r eturned t o the U nit ed Stat es C ou rt of I nternati on al T rade, a sk in g it t o fi nd C us t om s i n cont empt forr evoki ng t he author i zat i on thatfol l ow ed the deci s i on i n A m m ex I
. T h e tr ial co ur tdeni ed thatm ot i on i n February , 2002. A m m ex, I

nc. v. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 9 3 F
. Supp. 2d 1325 ( C t . I nt ' l T r ade 2002) (A m m ex II

)
. O n appea l , t hi s cou r taff i rm ed the dec i s i on i n A m m ex II
. 334 F
. 3 d 1 0 5 2 (F ed
. C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ) ( A m m ex III

). A m m ex then br oughtt h e p r es entact i on i n t he C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C
. § 1 5 8 1 (i ) a n d th e A d m in is tr a tiv e P ro c e d u re s A c t, 5 U .S .C . § 706( 2) ( A )
. T he tr ial co ur tfound i n favorof A m m ex, r eas oni ng t hat“i tw as err orforC us t om s t o i s s ue the R evoca t i on R ul i ng w i t houtfi r s tas cert ai n i ng w h e th e r a n yta x e s h a d b e e n a s s e s s e d o n A m m e x ' s f u e l.” A m m ex, I

nc. v. U ni t ed Stat es , 3 4 1 F
. S u p p . 2 d 1 3 0 8 , 1 3 1 2 (C t. Int' l T rad e 2 0 0 4 ) ( A m m ex IV

).

. . .

. . . [T]he j udgm entof t he C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade [A m m ex IV ] . . . is aff i r m ed. A m m ex, I

nc. v. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 1 9 F
. 3 d 1 3 4 2 , 1 3 4 3 -44 , 1 3 4 6 (F ed
. C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ) (“A m m ex V ”). A ppel l ee John D ur ant i s t he for m er D i r ect orof the C om m er ci al R ul i ngs D i vi s i on of t he U ni t ed St at es B ur eau of C us t om s an d B o r derPr ot ect i on ( “C us t om s ”) , and appe l l ee W il li am M o ran d ini i s a f o rm er D istri ct D ir ec tor o f C u stom s. B ya D ec em b er 1 9 9 3 let ter, M or andi ni s oughtaddi t i onal i nform at i on fr om A m m ex r egar di ng i t s r eques t t o s el l dut y - fr eeN o. 09- 1786

A m m ex , In c . v. D u ra n t, et a l. f u e l. M o r a n d in i w a s “ n o t aw a re o f a n yc u rre n t b o n d e d o p e ra tio n s w h ich d isp e n se f u e l to t rucks and aut om obil es,” and he a dvi s ed thatt he r eques t ed i nform at i on w oul d be

“ f o rw a rd [ e d ] f

o r l e g a l r e v ie w .” A f ter re c e iv in g A m m e x ’s r e sp o n se , M o ra n d in i su b m itt e d a d e taile d m e m o ra n d u m to t he C us t om s O ffi ce of

R egul at i ons and R ul i ngs “r eques t [i ng] i nt ernal advi ce c oncerni ng a pr opos al t o s el l ‘ dut yfr ee’ gas ol i ne and di es el fuel
. . . . I tw as deci ded t o r eques tt hi s i nt ernal advi ce s i nce ther e i s pr es ent l yno otherfac il it y , along ei t hert he N or t hern bor derorthe Sout hern bor der , di s pens i ng dut yfr ee f uel
. ” I n J u n e 1 9 9 4, D ur anti s s ued a f i ve- page
r es pons e mem or andum concl ud ing t hatfuel cannotbe s ol d dut y - fr ee. A m m ex s ought
r econs i der at i on i n 1995, 1996, and 1997. I n February1998, D ur anti s s ued a e i ght
- page l ett er
cons i der i ng A m m ex’ s ar gum ent s butul t i m at el y r eaf fi r m i ng C us t om s ’ pr i or deni al
. D ur ant b a s e d h i s ru l i n g s o n t h e “ u n i d e n t i f i a b l e f u n g i b l e s ” r a t i o n a l e s u b s e q u e n t l y r e j e c t e d b y A m m ex I
. It w a s a lso D u ra n t w h o , in r e lian c e o n th e p o st-A m m ex I IR S let ter, rev o k ed A m m ex ’s perm i s s i on t o s el l dut y - fr ee f uel
. B ynot i ce da t ed J une 1, 2001, he s oughtcomm enton t hat pr opos ed dec i s i on. D ur antm ade the r evoca t i on fi nal bynot i ce da t ed N ovember1, 2001. I n addi t i on t o t he l i t i gat i on t aki ng pl ace i n t he C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade and the Feder al C i r cui t , i n 2000 A m m ex fi l ed s ui tagai ns tt he I R S i n di s t r i ctcour t . A m m ex s ought to rec o v er o v er $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0
. 0 0 in fu el e x cise taxe s p aid th rou g h m id-1 9 9 9
. T h e d istri ct co u rt grant ed sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or o f t he IR S , ho l ding t hat A m m ex lacked st and i ng becau seN o. 09- 1786

A m m ex , In c . v. D u ra n t, et a l.

A Bivensclaim see ks money damag es ind i v i dually

from a f ederal ag ent for injurie s 1 resultingfrom a constituti onal vi olation cause d by the ex erc ise of the ag ent’s fe deral authority
. See Dolan v. United States , 514 F.3d 587, 594 n.2 ( 6th Cir. 2008). th e e x c is e ta x e s a t is s u e w e re a c tu a lly p a id b ya s u p p lie r ra th e r th a n b y A m m e x . See Am m ex, I nc. v. U ni t ed Stat es , N o . 0 0 -C V -73 3 8 8 , 2 0 0 2 W L 3 2 0 6 5 5 8 3 (E
. D
. M ich
. J u ly 3 1 , 2 0 0 2 ). A p ri o r p a n e l o f

th is c o u rt a f

f ir m e d th a t ru lin g . See A m m ex, I nc. v. U ni t ed Stat es , 367 F. 3d 5 3 0 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). I n 2008, Am m ex br oughtt he pr es entact i on pur s uantt o B i vens v. Si x U nknow n N

am ed A gent s of Feder alB ur eau of

N ar cot i cs , 4 0 3 U .S . 3 8 8 (1 9 7 1 ), a lleg in g th a t th e a p p e llee s, v ia t he i ni t i al deni al and the s ubs equentr evoca t i on, had vi ol at ed A m m ex’s r i ght s underthe E xpor t C l aus e and t he Fi fth A m endment t o s el l duty - fr ee f uel
. T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed the 1 appel l ees ’ R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s on the bas i s of qual i fi ed i m m uni t y , hol di ng t hat A m m ex’ s r i ght s w er e notcl ear l yes t abl i s hed atthe t i m e of the al l eged vi ol at i on: D ur antand M or andi ni , t he def endantC us t om s offi ci al s , m ade thei rdeci s i on t o r evoke A m m ex' s author i zati o n to s el l dut y - fr ee ga s i n r el i ance on a l et t er fr om t he I R S. T he Feder al C i r cu it s t at ed thatC us t om s ' deci s i on t o r evoke A m m e x 's a u t h o r i t y t o s e l l d u t y- f r e e g a s w a s r e a s o n a b l e b e c a u s e o f th e I R S 's gui dance
. . . . I n addi t i on, defe ndant s r evoked A m m ex' s autho ri tyi n a pr ocedur al l yt r ans par entand open w ay , fol l ow i ng C us t om s ' publ i s hed not i ce. D i s cr et i on i s gi ven t o D ur antan d M or andi ni byt he Tar i ff A ctw hi ch they i nt erpr et ed. T he C ou rtof I nternati on al T rade st at ed that t his case present ed “u nique facts ” and “un i qu e ci rcum st ances, ” and t his C ou rt agrees. T his i s no t t he type of case w h e re a n y r e a s o n a b le o f f icia l w o u ld k n o w h e o r sh e w a s v io latin g a c lea rly e sta b lish e d rig h t.N o. 09- 1786

A m m ex , In c . v. D u ra n t, et a l. A m m ex, I

nc. v. D ur ant , N o. 08- C V
- 13120, 2009 W L 1124470, at*5- 6 ( E
. D
. M i ch. A pr . 23, 2009)
. A m m ex now appea l s t hatdeci s i on. II. We r e v i e w de novo a d istri ct co u rt ’s dism issal o f a c o m p la int un d er R u le 12 (b)(6 ). See Sc ot tv. A m bani , 577 F. 3d 642, 646 ( 6th C i r . 2009)
. A di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ng of qual i fi ed i m m uni t yi s al s o r evi ew ed de novo
. See B l och v. R i bar , 1 5 6 F
. 3 d 6 7 3 , 6 7 7 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ). III . G overnm ent al offi ci al s per form i ng di s cr et i onaryfunct i ons ar e gene r al l ygr ant ed q u a lifie d im m u n ity“ f

ro m liab ili tyf

o r c iv il d a m a g e s in so f

a r a s th e ir c o n d u c t d o e s n o t v io late cl ear l yes t abl i s hed s t atut or yorcons t i tut i onal r i ght s of w hi ch a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d have know n. ” H

a rlo w v . F itzg e ra ld , 457 U
. S. 800, 818 ( 1982)
. I n deci di ng cl ai m s of qual i fi ed i m m uni t y , w e consi der w hether , “t aken i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the part yas s ert i ng t he i n j u r y , d o t h e f

a c t s a l l e g e d s h o w t h e o f f i c e r ’ s c o n d u c tv i o l a t e d a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t ?” Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 5 3 3 U .S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 (2 0 0 1 ), m odi f i ed on othergrounds by P ears on v. C al l ahan , 1 2 9 S . C t. 80 8 (2 0 0 9 ). W e m u st a lso c o n sid e r w h e th e r th e rig h t w a s c lea rly
e s ta b l i s h e d a t th e tim e o f th e a lle g e d v io la tio n . Sauci er , 533 U
. S. at201. I ti s “oft en appr opr i at e, ” butno l ongerm andat ory , t o anal y ze Sa u cier’s tw o p ro n g s in th e o rd e r se t f o rth
a b o v e . P ears on , 129 S. C t . at818. T he “c l ear l yes t abl i s hed” i nqui r y“mustbe under t aken i n l i ght of t he s peci fi c cont ext of t he cas e, ” consi der i ng t he obj ect i ve re as onabl enes s of t he ac t or ’ s conductatt he t i m e theN o. 09- 1786

A m m ex , In c . v. D u ra n t, et a l.
e v e n ts o c c u rr e d
. S e e Sa uci er , 5 3 3 U
. S. at201- 07. “The cont our s of the r i ghtm us tbe
s uffi ci ent l y cl ear t hat a r eas onabl e off i ci al w oul d under s t and thatw hathe i s doi ng vi ol at es t hatr i ght
. ” I

d. at202 ( quot i ng A nders on v. C r ei ght on , 4 8 3 U
. S
. 6 3 5 , 6 4 0 (19 8 7 )). T h e E x p o rt C lau se o f th e U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n p ro v id e s, “ N o T a x o r D u tysh a ll be l ai d on A r t i cl es expor t ed fr om any St at e. ” U
. S. C ons t . art . 1, § 9, cl
. 5. D uty - fr ee goods
a re s o ld “ f

o r e x p o rt f

ro m th e c u s to m s te rr ito ry” a n d a re n o t s u b je c t to f e d e ra l d u ty o r t a x . See 19 U
. S. C
. § 1555( b) ( 1)
. B as ed on t hes e const i tut i onal and s t atut orypr ovi s i ons , t he di s tr i ct
c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t A m m e x h a s a rig h t to se ll d u ty -f re e f u e l. D i s m i s s a l o f t h e c o m p l a i n t w a s b a s e d o n A m m e x ’ s f a i l u r e t o s a t i s f

y Sa u cier’s s econd pr o n g , that t he r i ghtw as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed att he t i m e of the al l eged vi ol at i ons . “The
s t andar d i s one of obj ect i ve re as onabl enes s , anal y zi ng cl ai m s of i m m uni t yon a fa ct - s peci fi c,
cas e- by
- cas e bas i s t o det erm ine w hethera r eas onabl e off i ci al i n t he def

endant ’ s pos i t i on coul d have be l i eved thathi s conduct w as l aw ful , i n l i ght of cl ear l yes t abl i s hed l aw and the i nform at i on he pos s es s ed. ” P r ay v. C i t y of Sandus ky , 4 9 F
. 3 d 1 1 5 4 , 1 1 5 8 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ). T he cont our s of the r i ghtm us tbe s uffi ci ent l ycl earthat a r eas onabl e off i ci al w oul d under s t and t hat w hathe i s doi ng vi ol at es thatr i ght
. T hi s i s nott o s ay t hatan off

i ci al act i on i s pr ot ect ed byqual i fi ed i m m uni t yunl es s t he veryact i on i n quest i on has pr evi ous l ybeen he l d unl aw ful , buti ti s t o s aythati n l i ghtof pr e- exi s t i ng l aw t he unl aw ful nes s m us t be appar ent . [O ] ffi ci al s can s t i l l be on n o t i c e t h a t t h e i r c o n d u c t v i o l a t e s e s t a b l i s h e d l a w e v e n i n n o v el fac t ual ci rcum st ances. T o d et erm i ne w hethera ri gh t i s “cl earl yest abli shed,” w e m ust firstloo k to d ec isi o n s o f th e S u p rem e C o u rt , then to d ec isi o n s o f th is C o u rt and cou rt s w i t hin this C i rcui t , and l astt o d eci si on s of other ci rcui t s.N o. 09- 1786

A m m ex , In c . v. D u ra n t, et a l. C i m i ni l l o v. Str ei cher , 4 3 4 F
. 3 d 4 6 1 , 4 6 8 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ati o n s an d q u o tat ion s o m itted). R a th e r th a n “ a lleg in g v io latio n o f e x tre m e lya b stra c t rig h ts[ ,] . . . th e se d e c isio n s m u st b o th p o in t u n m ista k a b lyto th e u n c o n stitu tio n a lityo f th e c o n d u c t co m p lain e d o f a n d b e so c lea rly f o re sh a d o w e d b ya p p lica b le d ire c t au th o ritya s to lea v e n o d o u b t in th e m in d o f a re a so n a b le
o f f ic e r t h a t h is c o n d u c t, if

c h a lle n g e d o n c o n s titu tio n a l g ro u n d s , w o u ld b e f o u n d w a n tin g .” O hi o C i vi lSer v. E m

pl oyee s A s s ’ n v. Sei t er , 858 F. 2d 1171, 1177 ( 6th C i r . 1988) ( ci t i ng and q u o tin g in p a rt A nders on v. C r ei ght on , 4 8 3 U
. S
. 6 3 5 , 6 3 9 (19 8 7 )). T he author i t i es ci t ed byA m m ex w oul d nothave “ poi nt [ed] unm i s t akabl yt o t he
u n c o n s titu tio n a lity o f th e c o n d u c t co m p la in e d o f ” in th is d is p u te . A
. G
. Sp aldi ng& B rothers
v. E dw ar ds i nvol ved a W ar R evenue A ct t ax l ai d on bas ebal l bat s expor t ed fr om N ew Y or k, 262 U
. S. 66 ( 1923) , and U ni t ed Stat es v. U

ni t ed Stat es Shoe C or

p. i nv o lved a H arbor M ai nt enanc e Tax on goods e xpor t ed fr om por t s . 523 U
. S. 360 ( 1998) ( opi ni on pos t dat es M o ra n d in i’ s c o n d u c t)
. U ni t ed Stat es v. I

nt er nat i onalB us i nes s M achi nes i nvol ved a t ax on i ns ur ance pr emi um s pai d t o for ei gn expor ti ns ur er s . 517 U
. S. 843 ( 1996) ( opi ni on pos t dat es M o ra n d in i’ s c o n d u c t)
. Tham es & Mers ey Mar i ne Ins ur ance C o. v. U ni t ed Stat es i nvol ved a W ar R evenue A ct s t amp t ax on export i ns ur ance pol i ci es , 237 U
. S. 19 ( 1915) , and C ypr us A m ax C oalC o. v. U

ni t ed Stat es inv o lved ex cise tax es o n co al. 2 0 5 F
. 3 d 1 3 6 9 (F ed
. C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ) (op inion p o stda tes M o ran d ini’ s co n d u ct). In s u m , th e c ase s cit ed b yA m m ex are i nappos i t e t o t he i s s ue of w hetherfuel can be s ol d duty - fr ee.N o. 09- 1786

A m m ex , In c . v. D u ra n t, et a l.

In fac t, the meaning of the term “asse ssment” has g enerated lengthy explan at i o n(and 2 debate ) by

the Supreme Court a s rec ently as 2004. See H

ibbs v. W inn , 542 U. S. 8 8, 10 0- 02 (m a jority opinion), 114-17 (four

Justices in dissent). F u rth e r, th e lit ig a tio n h isto ryo f th is d isp u te sh o w s th a t th e c o u rts h a v e g ra p p led w ith th e d u ty-f

re e is s u e . C o m

p a re A m m ex III

, 334 F. 3d at1058 ( “[T] he po sit i on of the I R S on t h e t a x i s s u e p r o v i d e d a r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s f o r Cus t o m’ s a c t i o n . I n s h o r t , a n a g e n c ym ay change i t s pol i cypos i t ion b ased on a r eas onabl e expl anat i on, and the I R S rul i ng pr ovi ded
s u c h a b a s is .” ), a n d

A m m ex IV

, 341 F. Supp. 2d at 1310 ( “[O ] n O ct ober23, 2000, A m m ex
s ol i ci t ed anotherl et t erfr om C us t om s t o cert i fy t hat fuel s ol d i n A m m ex’ s dut y - fr ee s t or e w as
exem pt from futur e t axes, w hich r equ estC ust om s u n d e rs ta n da b ly forw ar ded t o t he [I R S]
. ”) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ), w ith A m m ex IV , 341 F. Supp. 2d at1314 ( “The cour tcannotuphol d a R evoca t i on R ul i ng bas ed on a nonbi ndi ng, i nform at i onal , gener al l ett erfr om t he I R S bear i ng
no s peci fi cs per t ai ni ng t o A m m ex’ s s i tuat i on. T o d o s o w oul d be t o r at i fya cl earerr orof j u d g m e n t . ” )
. C u s t o m s ’ r e v o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n w a s r e v e r s e d b y A m m ex IV and V based o n those
cour t s ’ anal y s i s of the di s t i nct i on betw een the conc ept s of t ax “i m pos i t i on” and t ax

“ a s s e s s m e n t” u n d e r th e In ter n a l R e v e n u e C o d e , w h ich is n o t a e lem e n tar yiss u e . W h ile 2 D uran t’ s u n d er s t andi ng of thes e conc ept s ul t i m at el yturned outt o be i n err or , m er e err or
a lo n e o n th e f

a c ts of th is ca se d o e s n o t m e a n th a t D u ra n t co u ld n o t “h a v e b e liev e d th a t h is
c o n d u c t w a s l a w f

u l, in lig h t o f

c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d la w a n d th e in f o rm a tio n h e p o s s e s s e d .” P r ay , 49 F. 3d at1158.N o. 09- 1786

A m m ex , In c . v. D u ra n t, et a l. A l s o, ourpr i orpanel concl uded thatA m m ex i s notan “e xpor t er , ” and ther e w as d isa g re e m e n t am o n g th o se ju d g e s a s to w h e th e r A m m e x e v e n h a d sta n d in g in th a t tax a p p e a l. See Am m ex, I

nc. v. U ni t ed Stat es , 367 F. 3d 530, 536- 37 ( 6th C i r . 2004)
. T he pr i orcas es i l l us t r at e thatt he r i ght s and i s s ues i nvol ved i n t hi s l ong- s t andi ng di s put e have been l es s t han
u n m ist ak ab lyclea r. A s not ed byt he di s t r i ct cour t , D ur ant and M or andi ni del i ber at ed, obt ai ned advi ce, and
s o u g h t c o m m e n t. N o t a ll g o o d s c a n b e s o ld d u ty-f re e u n d e r t h e la w . See, e. g. , 19 U
. S. C
. §§ 1555( b) ( 8) ( E ) , 1557( a) ( 1) ; 19 C
. F. R
. § 19. 35( a)
. T he appel lees’ co nducts i m pl yw as not
o b je c tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See, e. g. , G raw ey v. D rury , 567 F. 3d 302, 309 ( 6t h C i r . 2009)
. W e conc l ude, as di d t he di s t r i ctcourt , thatA m m ex’ s r i ght s w er e not clea rl yestab li sh ed at the t im e of the all eg ed v iolati o n s. “T h is i s n o t th e typ e o f c ase w h ere
a n y re a s o n a b le o f

f ic ia l w o u ld k n o w h e o r sh e w a s v io la tin g a c le a rl y e s ta b l i s h e d ri g h t.” A m m ex, I

nc. v. D ur ant , N o. 08- C V
- 13120, 2009 W L 1124470, at*6 ( E
. D
. M i ch. A pr . 23, 2 0 0 9 ). I V. A m m ex’s B i vens act i on i s al s o barr ed by 19 U
. S. C
. § 1513 w hi ch pr ovi des i n m at er i al par t , “N o cus t om s offi cers hal l be l i abl e i n any w ay to any per s on f o r o r o n a c c o u n t o f

. . . a n yo th e r m a tter o r th in g a s to w h ich a n yp e rso n m ig h t u n d e r th is c h a p ter [ C h a p ter 4 o f T itl e 19 of the U ni t ed S tat es C o de] be ent i t l ed t o pr ot es torappea l fr om t he dec i s i on of s uch offi cer . ” 19 U
. S. C
. § 1513( 3) ( emphasi s added)
. A m m ex as s ert s r i ght s unders ect i ons 1555N o. 09- 1786

A m m ex , In c . v. D u ra n t, et a l.

Purportedly

contra ry authority relied upon by

Ammex i s not at al l o n -p o i nt. Ra nk in 3 Gilmour &Co. v. Newton on ly a dd re sse d c omm on

law rights and

did no t d iscu ss § 15 13 or

its prede cessor . See270 F. 332, 333- 34 (S.D.N.Y. 1920). and 1557 of Chapt er4, and A m m ex appe al ed C us t om s ’ adver s e rul i ngs t o t he C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade a nd t he C our tof A ppeal s forthe Feder al C i r cui t as au tho ri zed by29 U
. S. C
. § 1581( i )
. T he fa ct s of the p rese n t ca s e thus fal l s quar el yw i t hi n t he pr ot ect i on offe r ed bys ect i on 1513.

T he Supr eme Court has hel d t hat t he s i m i l ar l y - w or ded pr edec es s orver s i on of s ect i on 1 5 1 3 b a rr e d s u it a g a in s t a c o lle c to r f o r t h e a lle g e d ly u n la w f u l a s s e s s m e n t o f

d u tie s . See Schoenf eld v. Hendr i cks , 1 5 2 U .S . 6 9 1 (1 8 9 4 ). L ik e w ise , the S u p re m e C o u rt q u ite re c e n tly
n o t e d t h a tt h e b r e a d t h o f t h e wo r d “ a n y ” i n a n i mmu n i t y p r o v i s i o n o f t h e F e d e r a l To r tCl a i ms A c t su p p o rte d th e c o n c lu sio n th a t B i vens a c tio n s w e re b a rre d , ev e n th o u g h th e sta tu te pr edat ed B i vens . See H ui v. C as taneda , N o. 08- 1529, 2010 W L 1740524, at *5 ( U
. S. M ay 3, 2010)
. W e ther efor e conc l ude that 19 U
. S. C
. § 1513 pr ovi des an al t ernat e bas i s for

3 d is m is s a l. See A l l en v. D i ebold, I nc. , 3 3 F .3 d 6 7 4 , 6 7 6 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (n o tin g o u r p o w e r to
a f f irm o n a ltern a te g ro u n d s n o t re a c h e d b yth e lo w e r c o u rt). S e c tio n 1 5 1 3 (3 ) p lain lyp ro tec ts M or a n d i n i a n d Dur a n tf r o m l i a b i l i t y“ i n a n ywayt o a n yp e r s o n ” u n d e rt h e c i r c u ms t a nces pr es ent ed her ei n.N o. 09- 1786

A m m ex , In c . v. D u ra n t, et a l. V. For t he re as oni ng ar t i cul at ed i n t hi s opi ni on, w e AF F I RM the d ism issal of A m m ex ’s
c o m p lain t.