NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BEST KEY TEXTILES CO. LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1775

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:13-cv-00367-RKM, Senior Judge R. Kenton 

Musgrave.

______________________ 

Decided: August 15, 2016

______________________ 

 JOHN MICHAEL PETERSON, Neville Peterson LLP, New 

York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by RICHARD F. O’NEILL, RUSSELL ANDREW SEMMEL. 

 BEVERLY A. FARRELL, International Trade Field 

Office, United States Department of Justice, New York, 

NY, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

MARCELLA POWELL, AMY RUBIN; JEANNE E. DAVIDSON,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
2 BEST KEY TEXTILES CO. v. UNITED STATES

ton, DC; PAULA S. SMITH, Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection, United States Department of Homeland 

Security, New York, NY.

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. 

WALLACH, Circuit Judge. 

In February 2015, we held that the United States 

Court of International Trade (“CIT”) erred in asserting 

subject matter jurisdiction over a suit filed by Best Key 

Textiles Co. Ltd. (“Best Key”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1581(i)(4) (2012). See Best Key Textiles Co. v. United 

States (Best Key I), 777 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

In reaching that conclusion, we observed that the “proper 

‘avenue of approach’” to redress the harm alleged in Best 

Key’s action would have been a challenge under § 1581(a). 

Id. (quoting Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 544 

F.3d 1289, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Because Best Key had 

not properly invoked the CIT’s jurisdiction pursuant to 

§ 1581(a), we remanded “with instructions to dismiss for 

lack of jurisdiction.” Id. at 1357; see Hartford Fire, 544 

F.3d at 1292 (“[J]urisdiction under subsection 1581(i) may 

not be invoked if jurisdiction under another subsection of 

section 1581 is or could have been available, unless the 

other subsection is shown to be manifestly inadequate.” 

(citation omitted)).

When the suit returned to the CIT, Best Key filed a 

motion to transfer the action to the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia (“D.C. District Court”). 

The CIT denied Best Key’s motion as foreclosed by this 

court’s mandate in Best Key I and dismissed the action.1 

1 “Unless the court directs that a formal mandate 

issue, the mandate consists of a certified copy of the 

 
BEST KEY TEXTILES CO. v. UNITED STATES 3

See Best Key Textiles Co. v. United States (Best Key II), 

No. 13-00367, 2015 WL 3798041, at *2–3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 

June 18, 2015).

Best Key appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). We affirm.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review and Legal Framework

“[T]he interpretation by an appellate court of its own 

mandate is properly considered a question of law, reviewable de novo.” Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 115 F.3d 947, 

950 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

“The mandate rule . . . dictates that an inferior court 

has no power or authority to deviate from the mandate 

issued by an appellate court.” Banks v. United States, 741 

F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). “This rule is limited to 

issues actually decided” by the appellate court, “either 

explicitly or by necessary implication.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted); see SUFI Network 

Servs., Inc. v. United States, 817 F.3d 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 

2016) (“For an issue to be implicitly decided, it must be 

decided by necessary implication.” (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted)). When a trial court interprets a mandate from this court, “both the letter and the 

spirit of the mandate must be considered.” TecSec, Inc. v. 

Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 731 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 

2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

judgment, a copy of the court’s opinion, if any, and any 

direction about costs.” Fed. R. App. P. 41(a).

 
4 BEST KEY TEXTILES CO. v. UNITED STATES

II. The CIT Properly Held that Best Key I Implicitly 

Precluded Consideration of Best Key’s Motion to Transfer

Best Key argues that “the ‘mandate rule’ should not 

be interpreted as precluding the CIT from considering the 

question of transfer.” Appellant’s Br. 17 (capitalization 

omitted). That is so, Best Key continues, because “[t]he 

CIT’s power to transfer is statutory and derived from [28 

U.S.C.] § 1631[2]—not from this [c]ourt’s mandate.” Id. at 

18.

Although the transfer issue was not raised in Best 

Key I, we implicitly decided it. There, we held the CIT did 

not possess subject matter jurisdiction over Best Key’s 

suit pursuant to § 1581(i)(4)3 and that the “proper avenue 

of approach” to redress the harm alleged in Best Key’s 

action “is a challenge under § 1581(a).” Best Key I, 777 

2 In relevant part, § 1631 provides: 

Whenever a civil action is filed in a court . . . and 

that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other 

such court in which the action . . . could have been 

brought at the time it was filed. 

28 U.S.C. § 1631.

3 “Section 1581(i) provides the CIT with residual jurisdiction over civil actions that arise from import transactions.” Hutchison Quality Furniture, Inc. v. United 

States, No. 2015-1900, 2016 WL 3668030, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 

July 6, 2016) (citation omitted). Section 1581(i)(4) specifically provides the CIT with “exclusive jurisdiction” over 

“any civil action commenced against the United 

States . . . providing for . . . administration and enforcement with respect to the matters referred to in” 

§ 1581(a)–(i)(3).

 
BEST KEY TEXTILES CO. v. UNITED STATES 5

F.3d at 1362 (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Section 1581(a) provides the CIT with “exclusive jurisdiction” over matters that fall within its purview, such as the denial of a protest concerning the 

appropriate classification of (and the attendant duty rate 

that applies to) imports. See 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (providing the CIT with “exclusive jurisdiction” over “any civil 

action commenced to contest the denial of a protest, in 

whole or in part, under” 19 U.S.C. § 1515 (2012)); see also

19 U.S.C. § 1514(a) (listing protestable decisions). Because the CIT would possess exclusive jurisdiction over 

any such denied protest, the CIT did not err in finding 

Best Key’s transfer request implicitly foreclosed by Best 

Key I. See K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 485 U.S. 176, 

182–83 (1988) (Federal district courts are “divested of 

jurisdiction . . . if th[e] action [falls] within one of the 

specific grants of exclusive jurisdiction to the [CIT].”); 

Conoco, Inc. v. U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones Bd., 18 F.3d 

1581, 1586 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (discussing same); accord 

Nippon Miniature Bearing Corp. v. Weise, 230 F.3d 1131, 

1135–39 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing same); Miami Free 

Zone Corp., Inc. v. Foreign Trade Zones Bd., 22 F.3d 1110, 

1111–13 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (discussing same); Trayco Inc. v. 

United States, 967 F.2d 97, 98–99 (4th Cir. 1992) (discussing same).

Best Key also contends that, because we permitted 

the CIT to consider transferring an action to a federal 

district court in a prior appeal, it was appropriate for the 

CIT to do so on remand. Appellant’s Br. 18 (citing Schick 

v. United States, 554 F.3d 992 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Schick 

does not necessitate a different result. Schick involved a 

cause of action for which no provision of § 1581 provided 

the CIT with exclusive jurisdiction. See 554 F.3d at 994–

95. Because the CIT did not possess exclusive jurisdiction 

over the question presented, we instructed the CIT to 

consider on remand whether a federal district court would 

have jurisdiction. See id. at 995–96. By contrast, Best 
6 BEST KEY TEXTILES CO. v. UNITED STATES

Key I found that the CIT would have exclusive jurisdiction

over the harm alleged in Best Key’s action pursuant to 

§ 1581(a). See 777 F.3d at 1362. Thus, Schick is inapposite.

Best Key next avers that “it would be reasonable to 

expect that this [c]ourt would have expounded on the 

[transfer] issue, or sought briefing from the parties concerning [the] same if, as the CIT surmises, this [c]ourt 

considered the question of transfer in formulating its 

mandate.” Appellant’s Br. 22–23. But Best Key overlooks 

the consequences that flow from a finding that the CIT 

possesses subject matter jurisdiction over an action pursuant to § 1581(a). When an action falls within the ambit 

of § 1581(a), the CIT has “exclusive jurisdiction” over the 

suit. See K Mart, 485 U.S. at 182–83. Because the CIT 

would have exclusive jurisdiction over the harm alleged in 

Best Key’s action, no federal district court could properly 

assert jurisdiction over the action. There was no reason 

to address the transfer issue in Best Key I. 

Finally, Best Key argues that judicial review pursuant to § 1581(a) would be unavailable or otherwise manifestly inadequate, so the CIT should have decided 

whether to transfer its action to the D.C. District Court. 

See Appellant’s Br. 3; Appellant’s Reply 7. We rejected

these arguments in Best Key I, see 777 F.3d at 1362–63 

(rejecting Best Key’s argument that “§ 1581(a) is neither 

available nor adequate”), and Best Key has not identified 

a valid reason for revisiting that determination, see 

Banks, 741 F.3d at 1276 (explaining that, “[u]nder the 

mandate rule, a court below must adhere to a matter 

decided in a prior appeal unless . . . (1) subsequent evidence presented at trial was substantially different from 

the original evidence; (2) controlling authority has since 

made a contrary and applicable decision of the law; or 
BEST KEY TEXTILES CO. v. UNITED STATES 7

(3) the decision was clearly erroneous” (citation omitted)).4 We decline to revisit that holding.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Best Key’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the final judgment of the United States Court of International Trade is

AFFIRMED

4 After we issued Best Key I, Best Key did not seek 

panel rehearing or rehearing en banc of that decision 

before the mandate issued.