Slip O p. 08-53 UNITED STATES COUR T OF INTERNATIO NAL TRADE

Be for e: Gr egory W. Ca rma n,Ju dge CourtNo. 07-00318
[ Pl a int iff ’s m o ti o n fo r a te mpo ra ryres tra iningo rd er a nd apreli mina ryinjun ct io n de nied because the Court lacks juri sdiction over the entries whic h are the subject of the request. ] Maye r Brown L LP(A nd rewA. N i c el y, Si me on M . Kri esbe rg, a nd Je ffrey C . L ow e) fo r Plainti ff. Gre gory C. Kats as, Ac ting A s s i s tan t Attorn ey G en era l; Je anne E. D avi ds on, D i rec tor, Commerci al Li tigati on Branch, Ci vil D i vis i on, Uni ted S tate s Department of Justi ce (Edw ard F. K enny), and Yelena Slepak, o f couns el, Offi ce of Assi stant to Chi ef Counsel, Inter nati onal Trade Li tigati on, Department o f Homeland Securi ty, U .S. Customs and Bord er P rotec ti on, fo r D efen da nt. May 20, 2008 OPINIO N & ORDER Before t he Courti s the motion by Pl ainti ff, International Cus tom Pro ducts, Inc
. (“ICP”), f or a tempor ary restr aining or der (“TRO”) and a prelim inary injunc tion against Defendan t, United Stat es. ICP requests that the Co urt o rder the U.S . Bureau of Customs
an d B orde r P rotec ti on ( “C us tom s ”) to pl ac e 9 8 e ntri es of a p rodu c t c al le d “ w hi te Inter nati onal Custom Products, Inc.,

Plainti ff,
v. Uni ted S tate s, D efen da nt.Ct. No. 07-00318 Page 2

The gov ernment r efers to t he product as “dai ry spread.” Becaus e sever al 1 opin i ons have i ssu ed from the Co urt o f Internat i onal Trade re ferring to t he product as whi te sauce, and b ecaus e these semanti cs are not out come-determi nati ve, t he Courtwi ll c ont inu e to c al l th e p rodu c t w hi te s au c e. The parties di ffer on the number of entr i es at i ssu e here: I CP requests a TRO and 2 prelim inary injunc tion over 98 entries, whi le the go ver nment in i ts bri ef refers to 99 entries. Bec ause the party requestin g an i njuncti on contr ols the scope of i ts request, the Cou rt proc eed s w i th the un de rs tan ding tha t 98 en tri es are at i s s ue . A l tho ug h I C P l ist s 1 0 0 e nt r ie s in2 a t t a ch me nt s t o the su mm o ns , o ne o f w hic h is 3 entry numb er 180-0590029-7, the in clus i on of the ent ries as attachments to the summons does not satis fy the statut or y pre requis i tes to fi ling sui t, namely, thatCustoms has deni ed the pro test containing the entr y; thatthe im port er paid allli qui dated duties, c ha rges, or e xac ti ons fo r the en try; a nd , th at th e i mp orter fi le d as um mo ns li s ting e i the r the prote s t or en try numbe r w i thin 1 80 da ys of the de ni alof

the prote s t. Se e 2 8 U. S.C . §§ 26 36 (a ), 26 37(2 00 0) ; D ai ml erchrys le r Corp . v. Un i ted State s, 4 42 F.3 d 1 31 3 ( Fed . C i r. 2006). s au c e” in “ s us pe nd ed li qu i da ti on s tatu s ” d uring the pe nd en c y of thi s c as e. (M em . of 1 2 P. & A. in Supp. of Pl.’s Appl i cati on for a TRO & Mo t. for a Preli m. Inj. (“Pl.’s Mem.”) 1. ) The govern me nt o pp os es ICP ’s mo ti on, argu ing tha t th e Co urtc annotgran t a T RO
or a prelim inary injunc tion bec ause, fi rst, t he Courtlacks juris di cti on ov er t he entries,
an d, s ec ond, IC Pha s nots hown th at a n inju nc ti on i s w arra nte d in a ny e ven t. ( D ef .’s Mem. i n Opp’n to Pl.’s Appli cati on for TRO & Prelim . Inj. (“Def.’s Resp.”) .) Th e 9 8 e ntri es fo r w hi c h I CPreque s ts a T RO a nd a p rel i mina ry inju nc ti on a re n ot pa rt of thi s c as e: the re i s onl y 1 e ntryli s ted on the s um mo ns, e ntrynu mb er 18 0- 05 90 02 9- 7, an d IC Pac kno w le dge s tha t b ef ore fi ling s ui t, i t pa i d th e l i qu i da ted du ti es fo r onl y th at e ntryan d n o oth ers . (Se e P l. ’s Mem . 1 ; D ef .’sRes p. 13 n. 7. ) I n f ac t, 3Ct. No. 07-00318 Page 3

The Court r ecognizes that t he 84 not-yet -deni ed entries plu s the 13 entries that 4 have been deni ed does not equal 98 entr i es. It equals 97 entries . In i ts bri ef, Customs s tate s tha t ICPdi d n ot pro pe rly p rotes t 2 e ntri es, whi c h s ug ges ts tha t Cu s tom s ’s s tate me nt tha t th ere a re 9 9 re le van t en tri es mi ghtbe ac c ura te ( 84 + 1 3 +2 =99 ), tho ugh ICP has requested a TRO and injuncti on for o nly 98 of them. fo r 84 of the en tri es, C us tom s ha s yet to i s s ue i ts de c i s i on re gard ing I CP ’s prote s t. For another 13 entries, Cus toms has deni ed ICP’s prot est, but ICP has n ot paid the li qui dated duties, or fi led a complaint i n thi s Court challengi ng Customs’s deni al of the prote s t. 4 Be c au s e th e 9 8 e ntri es are notpa rt of thi s c as e, the Cou rt la c ks juri s di c ti on t o i s s ue aninju nc ti on c overing thos e en tri es . Am . Ai r P arc elForw ard ing C o., Ltd . v. Uni ted S tate s, 6 CIT 147, 150, 573 F. Supp. 117, 120 (1983) (d enyin g in juncti on becaus e “te nd er of

ad di ti ona l d ut i es de term ine d to b e d ue on l i qu i da ti on i s a c ond i ti on precedent to invok ing jur i sdi cti on of this court . . . . [Therefor e], thi s court lacks subject matter jurisdi cti on as to all entr i es for whi ch the addi tional du ties have notbeen pai d.”); Dexter v. United Stat es, 424 F. Supp. 1069, 1071 (Cust. Ct. 1977) (denying i njuncti on) (“[T ]hi s acti on i n reality only cov ers one speci fi c li qui dated entr y and has no legal
c onn ec ti on t o th e en tri es fo r w hi c h re li ef i s s ou ght
. . . . Un ti l th e en tri es are li qu i da ted
an d p rotes ts de ni ed thi s c ou rt ha s no ju ri s di c ti on o ver th em, n ot eve n b y w ay of i ts jurisdi cti on ov er anot her entr y of ex actly the same merchandi se.”); s ee alsoCt. No. 07-00318 Page 4

Whi le ICP presumes in i ts ini tial b rief that the Courthas juri sdi cti on ov er t he 98 5 en tri es fo r w hi c h i t s eek s a T RO a nd a p rel i mina ry inju nc ti on, i t i s onl y in i ts rep ly b ri ef tha t ICPpu ts fo rth a ny a rgu me nt o n th i s point. An d, w hi le the ini ti albri ef reque s ted inju nc ti ve rel i ef

fo r al l 9 8 e ntri es, IC P i s s i le nt in i ts rep ly b ri ef w he the r i t m ainta ins i ts request to i ssu e a TRO and prelim inary injunc tion for the 84 entr i es for whi ch Cus toms has not yeti ssu ed a deci si on reg ardin g ICP’s pro tests. (See Pl.’s Reply Mem. 15.) D ai ml erchrys le r Corp . v. Un i ted State s , 4 42 F.3 d 1 31 3 ( Fed . C i r. 2 00 6) (c ou rt la c ks jurisdi cti on ov er ent ries not inc luded on su mmons) . ICP atte mpts to convinc e the Co urt t hat pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1367(a) (2000) , the Cour t can exer ci se su pplemental juris di cti on ov er, atleast, the 13 entr i es for whi ch Cu s tom s ha s de ni ed ICP ’s prote s t. (Se e P l. ’s Rep ly Me m. 8- 12 .) Sec ti on 1 36 7( a) gran ts 5 di s tri c t c ou rts s up pl em en taljuri s di c ti on o ver a llc la i mstha t are pa rt of the s am e c as e or
co nt r o v e r sy a s a cl a im w ithinthe d ist r ictco ur t ’ s o r ig ina l j ur isd ict io n. F o r e x a mp l e , this
c ou rt c ou ld exe rc i s e s up pl em en taljuri s di c ti on o ver atakingsc la i m whe re a n a c ti on challen gin g an i mportembargo was proper ly before t he court pursuant to or i gin al jurisdi cti on. B-West Imps., Inc . v. United Stat es, 19 CIT 303, 315, 880 F. Supp. 853, 864 (1995), aff’d, 75 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Thi s cas e i s not analogo us. ICP ac knowledges that t hi s Court would i mm ed i ate ly h ave ori gina l ju ri s di c ti on o ver th e 1 3 d en i ed en tri es pu rs ua nt t o 28 U.S. C. § 1 5 8 1 (a ) (j ud icia l r e v ie w o f a d e nie d p r o t e st ) if I C P c o ul d a ff o r d t o p a y $ 2 8 mil l io n in li qui dated duties . In fact, ICP brought t hi s very case challenging a deni ed prot est of one entry under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). Teaching from t he Courtof Appeals for the F ederalCt. No. 07-00318 Page 5

ICPs tate s tha t i t as ked Cu s tom s to pl ac e th e 1 3 d en i ed en tri es in s us pe nd ed 6 l iquid a t io n s t a t us , bu ttha tC us t o ms d e nie d the r e que stbe ca us e the a g e nc y “ be l ie v e s it i s powerless to corr ect i ts err or . . . becau se the li qui dations purpor tedly hav e become fina l .
. . .” (P l. ’s Rep ly 7 .) Th e Co urtma kes no s tate me nt a s to th e va li di ty of Cu s tom s ’s purpor ted beli ef. Ci rc ui t i s c le ar th at apl ainti ff c annotavoi d th e inc onve ni en c e of pa ying l i qu i da ted duti es by artful pleading. See , e.g., Int ’l Custom Prods., Inc. v. Uni ted S tate s, 467 F.3d 1324, 1326-27 (Fed. Ci r. 2006). Accordin gly, t he Courtholds that supplem ental juri s di c ti on c annotbe us ed as a b as i s to gran t aninju nc ti on o ver th es e en tri es . Albe rta Ga s Ch em s ., In c . v. Un i ted State s , 4 96 F. Su pp . 1 33 2, 13 35 (C us t. C t. 1 98 0) (c ou rt’s “equi ty po wer can apply only to matter s wi thi n a court’s jur i sdi cti on and cann ot be
exer ci sed in di sregar d of the mandator y r equi rements of the j uri sdi cti onal statute.”) (internal quot ation marks remov ed). Yet, notal l i s los t f or ICP . C us tom s rep res en ted to th e Co urttha t i t ha s “oni ts own placed [ 84 of the] entr i es into a suspended l i qui dation s tatus pending the
r e so l ut io n o f t his ca se . ” (D e f. ’ s M e m. 1 5 n. 8 . ) T he C o ur te x p e ct s C us t o ms t o , a s it 6 st a t e s, “ co nt inu e t o ha nd l e [I C P’ s] e nt r ie s inthe fa ir a nd a p p r o p r ia t e ma nn e r in w hic h it processes all other im port ers’ go ods,” and interpr ets this commi tment to mean that C us t o ms wil l su sp e nd the p r o t e stp r o ce ss fo r the 8 4 e nt r ie s u nt il a fin a l d e cis io n is reached in thi s cas e, that is, u nti l all appeals have been exhausted.Ct. No. 07-00318 Page 6 CON CL USION Be c au s e th e Co urtla c ks juri s di c ti on o ver th e 9 8 e ntri es w hi c h a re th e s ubjec t of ICP ’s reque s t, i t i s he reb y ORDERED that ICP’s motion for a TRO and a pre li minary injunc tion i s DE NIED.
_/s/_Gregor y_W._Car man____ Grego ry W. Carman Dated: May 20, 2008 New York, NYERRATA Inter nati onal Custom Products, Inc. v. Uni ted S tate s, Ct. No. 07-00318

Slip Op. 08-53 ( May 20, 2008) On p age 1, in th e te xt i de nti fy ing c ou ns elfo r the pa rti es, re pl ac e “ Je ffrey C . L ow e” w i th “Jeffery C. Lowe”. Dated: May 27, 2008