SEA F OOD EX P OR TER S AS SOC IA TIO N

OF INDIA, G OURMET F USION FOODS INC., and INTE RNATIONAL CREATIVE F OODS, INC. ,

Pla int if fs , v. UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, ROBERT C. BO NNER, CO M M ISSI ON ER , U NI TED STA TES CU STOM S AN D B OR

DE R P RO TEC TIO N, AN D U NI TED STA TES CU STOM S AN D B OR

DE R P RO TEC TIO N ,

De fe nd ants
. Slip Op. 07-37 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Before: Tim othy C. Stanceu, Judge Court No. 05- 00347

OP IN ION AN D O RD ER [De nyingde fe nd ants ’ m oti on to d ism iss fo r l a c k o f s ub je c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n a

nd fo r f a ilure to state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be g rante d] Dated: Ma rch 13, 2007 Kay e Sc ho le r LLP

( Julie C. Mendoza, D onald B. Cameron, R. W ill Planert, Jeffrey S. Grimson and Brad

yW . M ill s ) f or pla int if fs
. Peter D. Ke isler , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, JeanneE. Davidson , Direc tor, Patricia M. McCarthy , Assistant Director , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, United St ates Depa rtment of Just ice ( Stephen C. Tosini ); Chi S. Choy , Attorney , Offic e of the Assistant Chief Counsel for International Trade L itigation, B urea u of Customs and Borde r Protection, United State s D e pa

rtme nt o f H ome land

Se c ur ity , o f c ouns e l, f

or de fe nd ants
. Stanceu, Judge : Plainti ffs Sea food Exporters Association of India (“ SEAI ”), G ourmet F us ion F oo ds Inc . ( “ GF F ” ), and

Inte rn a tio na l Cr e a tiv e F oo ds , Inc . ( “ I CF ” ) ( c oll e c tiv e lyCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 2

“plaintiffs” ) cha lleng e “B ond Direc tive 99-3510-004,” as ame nded (“ Bond D irec tive”), which was issued by

the B urea

u of Customs and Borde r Protection (“ Customs ” or “ CBP”). The Bond Direc tive, which wa s issued by Customs headqua

rters, r equire s the various Customs port dir e c tor s thro ug ho ut t

he Un ite d St ate s to re vie w the su ff ic ie nc y of the lim its of

lia bil ity in continuous entry

bonds (“c ontinuous bonds”) used by importers of a g ricultural a nd aquac ultural
merc handise that is subject to antidumping or counte rvailingduty order s, and to requir e importers to obtain larg er bonds whe n nece ssary , acc ordingto a pre scribed f ormula. Plaintiffs challeng e as unla

wful the B ond Direc tive and the a pplication of the B ond Direc tive to the deter minations by

Customs of their individual bonding require ments. First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 14, 19, 28. Plaintiffs contend that Customs lacks the statutory authority to require bonds as
secur ity for the pa

y ment of antidumping duties that are alre ady secur ed by

cash de posits, that the promulg ation of the B ond Direc tive by Customs violated the Administrative Proce dure A ct (“A PA”), a

nd that the application of the Bond D irec tive to plaintiffs was ar bitrary , capr icious, an abuse of discretion, or othe rwise not in ac corda nce w ith law. Id. ¶¶ 3, 24, 26, 28. Def endants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amende d complaint for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction and for f

ailure to state a

claim upon which r elief c an be grante d, under U SCI T Rules 12(b)( 1) and 12( b)(5) , respe ctively . Def s.’ Mot. to Dismis s 1-2. With respect to subject matter jurisdiction, defenda

nts argue that plaintiffs’ c laims do not address a f inal ag ency

action and there fore are not ripe for

judicial revie w. Id. a t 9- 12 . Pl a int if fs la c k s tand ing , a c c or din g to defe ndants, bec ause the y

fail to demonstrate that they are adver sely

aff ecte d by an ag ency

action and that their inter ests are within the zone of interests protec ted under the statutes under

which they bringtheir cla im, 19 U.S.C . §§ 1623(a) , 1673e(a )(3) (2000). Id. at 12-18.Court No. 05- 00347 P age 3

The c ourt conc ludes that plaintiffs’ c laims are r ipe for r eview. T he ac tions Cus toms took to apply the B ond Direc tive to plaintiffs are fit for judicial de cision beca use of the c onsequenc es to p la int if fs ’ b us ine sse s th at th e se a c tio ns are a lle g e d to have c a us e d a nd be c a us e of the ha rd sh ip that w ou ld r e su lt f

ro m w ithho ldi ngc ourt

c on sid e ra

tio n o f p la int if

fs ’ c la ims
. The c ourt conc ludes that plaintiffs have standing to bring this action. Plainti ffs GF F a nd I CF a lle g e inj ur

y in f a c t f ro m th e inc re a se d c oll a te ra l r e qu ir e me nts , h ig he r p re mium pa y me nts , and los t bu sin e ss o pp or

tun iti e s th at th e y

a ttr ibute to t

he B on d D ir e c tiv e a s a

pp lie d to the ir businesses. Fir st Am. Compl . ¶ 22; Pls.’ Opp’n to Def s.’ Mot. to Dismis s 4 (“Pls.’ Opp’n” ). The interests that these pla intiffs seek to prote ct ar e within the zone of intere sts protected by or regulated by

19 U.S.C. § 1623, under which Customs is authoriz ed to re quire c ontinuous bonds in a mou nts ne c e ssa

ry to p ro te c t th e re ve nu e and e ns ur e c omp lia

nc e wi th t he tari ff laws . F ir st Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24, 28; Pl s.’ Opp’n 14- 18. Pla int if f S EA Iha s me t a sso c iatio na l st and ingre qu ir e me nts , w hic h r e qu ir e that at le a st one member

of the a ssociation be able to sue in its own right, that the a ssociation seek to prote ct an intere st centra l to its purpose, a nd that the re lief soug ht not require individualized testimony by me mbe r p la int if

fs . F ir st A m. C omp l. ¶

1; W ar th v . S e ldi n , 4 22 U. S. 4 90 , 5 11 (1 97 5) ; Hunt v. W ashington Stat e Apple Adv er. Comm’n , 432 U.S. 333, 343-44 (1977). SEAI has demonstrated that some of its members would be able to sue in their own rig ht by alleg ing that these member s have inc urre d specific harm fr om the application of the Bond D irec tive to their import activities. F ir st A m. C omp l. ¶

9. SEA Iha s p le a de d th a t it se e ks to p ro te c t in te re sts that are c e ntr a l to its purpose a s an assoc iation, including e nsuringthe ability of its members to import shrimp and
reme dying its member s’ injuries due to the B ond Direc tive. Id. ¶¶ 1, 9. F inally , the re lief SEAICourt No. 05- 00347 P age 4

seeks, i.e. , that the cour

t declar e the B ond Direc tive contra ry to law and e njoin its continued application, does not include damag es and w ould not necessa rily require individualiz ed testimony
. Id. at 14. There are no g rounds to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a c laim on which relief can be g rante d. Def

endants off

er no a rgument in support of such dismissal bey ond the arguments it makes on standing , which ar e unava iling. B eca use plaintiffs’ ple ading s are sufficie nt to state a cla im upon which relief can be g rante d and plaintiffs have demonstrated the ri pe ne ss o f t

he ir c la ims fo r j ud ic ia l r e vie w a nd sta nd ingto b ri ngtho se c la ims , d e fe nd ants ’ motion mus t be denied. I. B ACKG ROUND GFF and I CF ar e U.S. importers of se afood f rom India, including frozen wa rmwate r shrimp. First Am. Compl. ¶ 1. SEAIis an association of some three hundred c ompanies that export seafood fr om I ndia, including frozen wa rmwate r shrimp, or import Indian sea food into the United States. Id. ¶ 1 & Ex. 1 (l ist ing31 3 SE AI me mbe rs a s o f M arc h 3 1, 20 05 ). De fe nd ants admit that at least seve n SEAImembers a re importer s of shrimp for whic h Customs deeme d bonds insufficient. De fs.’ Reply Br . in Supp. of Their Mot. to Dismiss 4 (“D efs.’ Reply Br .”);
seeFirst Am. Compl. ¶ 1 & E x . 1. Bond D irec tive 99-3510-004, or igina lly issued by Customs as Dire ctive 3510-04 on J uly 23, 1991, set forth guidelines under which port direc tors must assess the sufficie ncy of an importer’s c ontinuous bond. See Mo ne tar yGu ide lin es fo r S

e tti ng Bo nd Am ou nts , Cu sto ms Direc tive 3510-04 (July

23, 1991), available at http:// cbp.g ov/linkhandler/cg ov/toolbox /leg al/direc tives/3510-004.ctt/3510-004.tx t. Prior to theCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 5

For further discussion of the Amendment a nd other subseque nt modifications of the 1 Bond D irec tive, please see the court’s opinion in Nat’l Fisheries Inst. Inc. v . United States Bu re au of C

us tom s a nd

Bo rd e r Pro t. , 30 CI T __, Slip Op. 06-166 (Nov. 13, 2006). amendment by

Customs in 2004, the Bond D irec tive set a non-disc retionar y , minimum continuous bond amount at $50,000 and e stablished a for mula by which “the bond limit of liability amount shall be fixed in mult iples of $10,000 [or $100,000] near est to 10 perc ent of duties, tax es and f

ees pa id by

the importer or

broker actingas importer of

rec ord duringthe cale nder year

prec edingthe date of

the [bond] application.” Id. (provided at “Ac tivity 1 - Importer or

Br oker - Continuous”). Whether the bond limit was fix ed in multiples of $1 0, 00 0 o r $ 10 0, 00 0 d e pe nd e d u po n whe the r o r n ot t

he imp or te r’ s to ta l duty

and ta x lia bil ity duringthe ca lender

y ear prec edingits bond application exceede d $1,000,000. Id. ; seeF ir st A m. Compl. ¶ 12 n.3. Customs , on J uly

9, 2004, posted on its website the ame ndment to the Bond D irec tive that g ave r ise to this case (the “Amendme nt”). The Amendment re quired a ll Cust oms port direc tors “to re view continuous bonds for importe rs who import ag riculture/a quaculture
merc handise subjec t to antidumping/counter vailing duty

case s and obtain larg er bonds whe re
nece ssary .” See Am e nd

me nt to B on d D ire c tiv e 99 -3 51 0- 00 4 fo r Ce rta in M e rc ha nd iseSu bje c t to Antidumping/Count ervailing Duty Cases (Jul y 9, 2004), available at http:// www.c bp.g ov/x p/cg ov/import/carg o_summary /bonds/07082004.x ml (“

Amendm ent ” ); see First Am. Compl. ¶ 14. The Ame ndment established new formulas for

calc ulating minimum lia bil ity lim its fo r t

he se c on tin

uo us bo nd s. Un de r t

he ne w f or mul a s, the min imum li a

bil ity lim its
we re su bs tanti a lly

highe r t ha n th os e re qu ir e d p re vio us ly
. Th e Am e ndme nt d ir e c te d th a t “ in 1 fix ing the limit of liability amount,” port dire ctors will calc ulate the pr oduct of a n importer’sCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 6

antidumping or

counter vailing duty

rate and the va lue of mer chandise subject to antidumping or counter vailing duties imported by that importer duringthe pre vious y ear . Amendm ent (setting forth the f ormula as the “ [antidum ping or counter vailing duty] rate at Or der [multipl ied by the] value of imports of mercha

ndise subject to the ca se by the importer dur ing the previous y ear .”). Thus , in ste a d o f a

fo rm ula ba se d g e ne ra lly

on te n p e rc e nt o f t

he imp or te r’ s to ta l dutie s p a id duringthe pre vious y ear , the new f ormula re quired a

minimum bond set at 100 per cent of the antidumping duties that would have bee n paid on the princ ipal’s imports during the pre vious y ear , had those imports bee n subject to the antidumping duty marg in require d by

the orde r. The formula did not include in its calc ulation a re duction for c ash deposits that would be made , as require d under the antidumping law s, as sec urity for f uture a ntidumping duty

liability on entries made f ollowing the publica

tion of an orde r. See19 U.S.C. § 1673e(a) (3) ( direc ting that a n antidumping duty

order require the deposit of estimated a ntidumping duties on entries of subject
merc handise). The Ame ndment also applied to pre -orde r entrie s, i.e. , entries subjec t to provisional antidumping mea sures in plac e prior to the publication of an antidumping duty order , by
re qu ir ingthat “ [i]f, at any tim e a ft e r [the U. S. D e pa rtme nt o f C omm e rc e (“ Comme rc e ” )] i ssu e s a pr e lim ina ry a ff ir mativ e de te rm inatio n in

an a g ri c ult

ur e /a qu a c ult

ur e c a se , [Cu sto ms] d e te c ts sudden cha

ng es in dec lare d values, c laimed country of orig in, or dec lare d classification, etc., [C ustoms] will consider such c hang es to ref lect an inc rea sed risk.” Amendm ent . The Amendment, in that eve nt, require d port direc tors to determine the amount of a c ontinuous bond by calc ulating the product of the importer’s de posit rate in ef fec t on the date of

entry and the value of merc handise imported dur ing the previous y ear . See id. (setting forth the f ormula as theCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 7

“[Comm erc e] deposit rate in ef fec t on date of e ntry

[m ultipli ed by

the] value of imports of
me rc ha nd ise su bje c t to the c a se by

the imp or

te r d ur ing the pr e vio us y e ar. ” ). F or imp or te rs wi th no prior history

of importing a g ricultural or aquac ultural merc handise, the Amendment provided that a suff

icient bond amount will be deter mined by calc ulating the product of the importer’s cash de posit rate in ef

fec t on the date of

entry and the “ estimated annua l import value” of the subject imports. Id. ( s e t t i n g f o rthth e f o r mu l a a s th e “ [ an t i d

u mp i n g o r

c o un t e r v a i l i n g d u ty] deposit rate in e ffe ct on date of entry [m ultipli ed by

the] estimated annual import value of the g oods subject to the ca se.”)
. As rea sons for the substantially highe r bond re quirements, Customs cited an “inc rea sing
c on c e rn re g ard ingthe c oll e c tio n o f a nti dumpi ngand

c ounte rv a ili ngdutie s, the imp a c t of the se collections on the amount of disbursements pursuant to the Continued Dumpingand Subsidy Offse t Act [of 2000, 19 U.S.C. § 1675c (2000) (“ By rd Amendme nt”)] . . . , and continued vigilanc e by

[C ustoms] to ensure c ollection of all appr opriate a ntidumping and c ounterva iling duties[.] ” Amendm ent ; seeFirst Am. Compl. ¶ 13. Customs cited spec ifically the under

collection of a

ntidumping duties on imports of fre sh g arlic a nd cra wfish from China a s a re ason for c hang ing the formula. Amendm ent ; seeFirst Am. Compl. ¶ 13. The Ame ndment was not subjected to the e stablished notice and c omment proce dures pr ovided for unde r the APA a nd was not published in either the F eder al Reg ister or the Customs Bulletin. See5 U.S.C. § 553 (2000). On J anuar

y 24, 2005, Customs posted on its website a doc ument entitled “Curre nt Bond For mulas,” which c ontained, inte r a lia , the formulas de scribed in the A mendment. Current Bond Formulas (Jan. 24, 2005), available at http:// www.c bp.g ov/x p/cg ov/import/communi cations_to_trade /pilot_progra m/ (“ Current BondCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 8

See Noticeof Am. Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fai r Value and 2 An tid um ping D uty

Or de r: Ce rta in F

roze n W ar mw ate r S hr im p from Braz il , 70 Fe d. Reg . 5143 (F e b. 1, 20 05 ); Notice of Am. Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Ce rtain Frozen W armwater Shrimp From the People ’s Republic of China , 7 0 F e d. Re g . 5 14 9 ( F e b. 1, 20 05 ); Not ic e of A m. Fi na l D e te rm ina tio n o f Sa le s a t Le ss Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen W armwater Shrimp from Ecuador , 7 0 F e d. Re g . 5 15 6 ( F e b. 1, 20 05 ); Not ic e of A m. Fi na l D e te rm ina tio n o f Sa le s a t Le ss Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen W armwater Shrimp from Thailand , 7 0 F e d. Re g . 5 14 5 ( F e b. 1, 20 05 ); Not ic e of A m. Fi na l D e te rm ina tio n o f Sa le s a t Le ss Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen W armwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam , 70 Fe d. Reg . 5152 (F eb. 1, 2005). Formulas ” ); seeFirst Am. Compl. ¶ 12. The doc ument, which wa s not published in the Fede ral Reg ister or the Customs Bulletin, also states that “[a] new compr ehensive [C ustoms] Direc tive will be issued at a late r date .” Current Bond Formulas at 1. On Fe bruar

y 1, 2005, Commerce issued a n antidumping duty

order on cer tain frozen
war mwater shrimp from India. Not ic e of A m. Fi na l D e te rm ina tio n o f Sa le s a t Le ss T ha n F air Va luean d A nti du mp ing

Du ty Or de r: Ce rta in F

roze n W ar mw ate r S hr im p from In dia , 70 Fe d. Reg . 5147 (F eb. 1, 2005) ( “ Order ” ). On the same date , Co mme rc e iss ue d a nti dumpi ngduty order s on cer

tain shrimp from five othe r countrie s. Commerce de termined mar g ins rang ing 2 from 4.94 to 15.36 per cent f or three individual I ndian produc ers. Id. at 5148. All other produce rs wer e subjec t to the weig hted ave rag e rate of 10.17 pe rce nt. Id. Plaintiffs claim that
a ft e r t he pu bli c atio n o f t

he anti dumpi ngduty

or de r, Cus tom s is su e d n oti c e s r e qu ir ingthe m to post new entry

bonds pursuant to the Amendme nt. First Am. Compl. ¶ 19. Plainti ffs a lleg e that Customs , in applying the new f ormula, ca lculated the ne w minimum l imits of liability by multipl ying the value of

the importer’ s entries of subje ct frozen wa rmwate r shrimp in the twelve
months pr oc e e din g the pu bli c atio n o f t

he anti dumpi ngduty

or de r b y the a pp lic a ble marg in established in the antidumping duty order , i.e., 10.17 perc ent for most Indian produc ers. Id.Court No. 05- 00347 P age 9

Th e Cla ri fi c atio n li sts the fo llo wi ngc ri te ri a : 3 1. Previous collection proble ms conce rninga spec ific ca se or industry involved; 2. The similarity

to previous ca ses or industries experienc ing unc ollected r evenue problems; 3. Whether the mer chandise in question had very low duty rate s or was On August 10, 2005, after the filing of plaintiffs’ f

irst amended c omplaint on May 23, 2005, Customs posted on its website a c larification to the Bond Dire ctive as modified by the Amendment (the “Clarific ation”). Clarif ication to July 9, 2004 Ame nded Mone tary Guidelines for Setting Bond Amounts for Special Categories of Merchandise Subjec t to Antidumping and/ or Countervailing Duty Cases (Aug . 10, 2005), available at http:// www.c bp.g ov/x p/cg ov/import/carg o_summary /bonds/07082004.x ml (“ Clarif ication ”). Acc ordingto the Clarification, “Special Categ ories of me rcha ndise ca n be desig nated whe re additional bond require ments in the form of g reater c ontinuous entry bonds or other se curity , may be re quired.” Id. Th e Cla ri fi c atio n d e signate d o nly a g ri c ult ur a l/a qu a c ult

ur a l me rc ha

nd ise a s a “Specia l Categ ory .” Id. Th e Cla ri fi c atio n e xpla ine d th a t “ [t]he te rm Cov e re d Ca se s r e fe rs to
merc handise within a pre viously desig nated Spec ial Categ ory wher e diffe rent standa

rds or formulas for

deter mining the bond amount will be applied.” Id. B e c a us e Cus tom s c on fi ne d it s

“ Cov e re d Ca se s” de signatio n to shri mp s ub je c t to anti dumpi ngor

c ounte rv a ili ngduty pr oc e e din g s, imp or

te rs of c e rt a in f ro zen wa rmwate r s hr imp (“ su

bje c t shri mp” ) f

ro m B ra zil, China, Ecuador , India, Thailand a nd Vietnam, as spe cified in the sc ope of the six antidumping duty or de rs c ite d a

bo ve , w e re ma de su

bje c t to the ne w b on d r e qu ir e me nts se t f or th b y Cus tom s in the Amendment a

nd the Clarification. See id. Th e Cla ri fi c a tio n s e t f

or th c ri te ri a that Cu sto ms i s to consider in dete rmining whether imports designated as Spec ial Categ ory or Covere d Cases should be subject to incre ased bond r equire ments. Id. The Clarific ation also established the 3Court No. 05- 00347 P age 10

duty -fr ee pr ior to initi ation of an a ntidumping or c ounterva iling duty case ; 4. The projec ted ability

of the industry

to pay future duty

liabiliti es; 5. L ow ca

pitaliz ation of the industry

involved such that newor incre ased duty liabiliti es cr eate incre ased risk; 6. Whether the industry involved is highly

lever ag ed such that new or incre ased duty

liabiliti es cr eate incre ased r isk; 7. Any other fa ctors that ar e de e me d r e le va

nt. Clarif ication
. proce dure f

or notice, timing , and appe al of incr ease d bond demands made by Customs for importers of Spec ial Categ ory and Covere d Cases merc handise. Id. The Clarific ation was not the subject of a

notice and c omment proce edingand wa s not published in the Fede ral Reg ister or the Customs Bulletin. On Oc tob e r 2 4, 20 06 , Cu sto ms p ub lis he d a F e de ra l Re g ist e r n oti c e (t he “ No tic e ” ) “ to provide a dditional information on the proce ss used to determine bond a mounts for importations involving ele vated c ollection risks and to seek public c omment on that proce ss.” Mo ne tar y Gu ide lin es fo r S

e tti ng Bo nd Am ou nts for

Im p. Su bje c t to En ha nc e d B on ding R e qu ire me nts , 71 Fe d. Reg . 62,276, 62,276 (Oc t. 24, 2006) (“ Notice ”). The Notice a

nnounced c hang es to the pr oc e ss d isc us se d in

the Am e ndme nt a

nd the Cla ri fi c a tio n a

nd , a lth ou g h invit ingpu

bli c comment, made the chang es in the proc ess ef fec tive upon publication. Id. (stating that “[t] he proce ss published in thi s Notice is in eff ect.” ). The N otice re tained the same basic f ormulas as those set forth in the Ame ndment and the Clarif ication for c alculatinglimit s of liability for the continuous bonds require d of importers of merc handise in Specia l Categ ories. Id. at 62,277. The Notice a nnounced, how ever , that Customs will provide for public notice and comment on the desig nation of newSpecial Categ ories, which w ill occur a ccor ding to spe cified c riteria, a nd that Customs also will provide for public notice of the re moval of a de signation. Id.Court No. 05- 00347 P age 11

The Notice did not announce that Custom s was cha ng ing the curr ent desig nation of
a qu a c ult ur a l me rc ha

nd ise a s a Spe c ia l Cate g or

y or the c ur re nt d e signatio n o f t

he shri mp
anti dumpi ngduty

or de rs a s Co ve re d Ca se s, but it ind ic a te d th a t Cu sto ms n o lo ng e r w ill de signate Covered Ca ses. Id. “[Cust oms] will continue to evaluate on an industry wide basis those ty

pes of me rc ha nd ise wh e re a dd iti on a l bo nd re qu ir e me nts may

be ne e de d. Ho we ve r, be c a us e imp or te rs are on ly

a ff e c te d w he n me rc ha

nd ise is s ub

je c t to dif fe re nt b on d r e qu ir e me nts , [C ustoms] will only

desig nate Spec ial Categ ories, that is, merc handise for which an e nhance d bond amount may

be re quired.” Id . The Notice stated, fur ther, that importer s of Special Categ ory merc handise “ will be offe red the opportunity to submitinformation on their fina ncial condition relate d to the risk of non-c ollection for that importer and [Cust oms] will determine bond amounts based on that infor mation, the importer’s c ompliance history and other rele vant information ava ilable to [C ustoms] .” Id . T he No tic e ind ic a te d, ho we ve r, that a bs e nt a submissi on by

the importer, Customs would determine the bond a mount accor ding to the formulas provide d in the Notice. Id. The Notice announce d a new proce dure that Custom s would apply when c onsidering whether to impose a new bond r equire ment on an importer of Special Categ ory

merc handise. Id. at 62,278. The ne w proc edure would allow the princ ipal thirty day s to respond and to provide evidenc e supportinga lower bond amount, including f inancial infor

mation releva

nt to the importer’s a

bility to pay , such as f

inancial state ments and tax returns. Id. The Notice stated that Cus tom s w ou ld c on sid e r t his inf or matio n a lon g wi th t

he fa c tor s id e nti fi e d in

the a pp lic a ble Customs regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 113.13(b), in deter mining a ne w bond re quirement. Id. Th is new bond r equire ment “w[ould] not take ef fec t with respec t to a principal until 14 day s after theCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 12

date of [C ustoms’] reply

to the principal’s r esponse.” Id. Th e No tic e ind ic a te d th a t Cu sto ms intends to ex erc ise discre tion in setti ngnew bond amounts. “I f [Cust oms] deter mines that the principal ha s a re cord of

compliance with customs laws and re g ulations and that the principa l has demonstrated a

n ability to pay , [C ustoms] may

decide not to require a

n incre ased bond a

mount even thoug h the principa l imports S pecia l Categ ory merc handise.” Id. The Notice , howeve r, also stated that “[a]t any

time after

[C ustoms] deter

mines a bond amount for

a princ ipal below that provided by

the formula, if

the principa l fails to remain c ompliant with customs l aws a nd regulations, [ Customs ] wil l rec alculate the principa l’s bond amount in acc ordanc e with the formulas outlined in this notice.” Id. Plaintiffs challeng e the B ond Direc tive on sever al g rounds. Fir st, plaintiffs maintain that the B ond Direc tive exceeds Customs’ statutory authority by requiringsecur ity

for the pa

y ment of
anti dumpi ngdutie s in

e xce ss o f t

hat pr ov ide d und e r 1 9 U .S. C. § 16 73 e (a )( 3) . F ir st A m. C omp l. ¶ 24. Plaintiffs further

alleg e that the B ond Direc tive constitutes a substantive rule tha t was promulg ated in violation of notice a nd comment re quirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553 (setting forth notice a

nd comment proc edure s for a g ency rulemakingactions) a

nd under 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c) (se tting for th proce dures f

or modification or r evocation of interpre tive ruling s and dec isions of Cust oms). Id. ¶ 26. F inally , plaintiffs alleg e that the B ond Direc tive and its a pp lic a tio n to pla int if

fs is a rb itr ary , c a

pr ic iou s, an a

bu se of dis c re tio n, or

oth e rw ise no t in
acc ordanc e with law a

nd that it therefor e constitutes an unlaw ful ag ency action pursua

nt to the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (2000). Id. ¶ 28. As discussed pre viously , defe ndants move to dismiss pl aintiffs’ f irst amended c omplaint purs ua nt t o U SCI T Ru le 12 (b )( 1) fo r l a c k o f s ub je c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n a

nd purs ua nt t o Ru leCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 13

In p e rt ine nt p art , 2 8 U .S. C. § 15 81 (i ) p ro vid e s: 4 In addition to the jurisdiction conferr ed upon the Court of International Trade by subsections (a) -(h) of [§ 1581,] . . . the Court of International Trade shall have e xclu siv e jur isd ic tio n o f a ny c ivi l a c tio n c omm e nc e d a g a ins t th e Un ite d St a te s, its ag encie s, or its office rs, that ar ises out of any law of the United States providing for– (1) r evenue from imports or tonnag e; (2) tar iffs, duties, fe es, or other taxes on the importation of mercha ndise for rea sons other than the r aising of re venue; . . . or 12(b)( 5) for

failure to state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be g rante d. Def

s.’ Mot. to Dismis s 1-2. Def endants a rgue that plaintiffs’ c laims are not r ipe for judicia l reviewbeca use the B ond Direc tive is not a final ag ency action. Id. at 9-12. De fenda nts also argue that plaintiffs lac k standing beca

use they fail to demonstrate that they are adver sely

aff ecte d by an ag ency

action and fail to demonstrate that the intere sts they seek to prote ct ar e within the zone of intere sts protected by the re levant statutes, 19 U.S.C. §§ 1623(a) and 1673e( a)( 3). Id. at 12-18. F or the re asons discussed in this opinion, t he cour t denies def

endants’ motion. II. D I S CUS S I ON Pla int if fs inv ok e the c ourt ’s jur isd ic tio n und e r 2 8 U .S. C. § 15 81 (i ) ( 20 00 ). F ir st A m. Compl. ¶¶ 4-7. Def

endants do not conte st that § 1581(i) g ener ally descr ibes the subject matter of plaintiffs’ ac tion but ins tead ba se their c halleng e to subject matter jurisdiction on an alleg ed lac k of ri pe ne ss a

nd an a lle g e d la c k o f s tand ingby pla int if fs to b ri ngthe c a se . D e fs .’ Mo t. t o Dismiss 6, 12. The c ourt revie ws ag ency action under

28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) only when r eview is not available under one of the other subsections of 28 U.S.C. § 1581 or when the reme dy aff orded by another subsection would be “ manifestly inadequate.” Miller &Co. v. United States , 824 F.2d

4Court No. 05- 00347 P age 14

(4 ) a dmi nis tr atio n a

nd e nf or c e me nt w ithre sp e c t to the matte rs re fe rr e d to in p ar a g r a p h s ( 1 )

- ( 3 ) o f

[§ 1 5 8 1 ( i) ] an d

s u b s e c ti o n s ( a )

- ( h ) o f

[§ 1 5 8 1 ]. 961, 963 (F ed. Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs’ c halleng e to the administrative a ctions by Customs does not fall within the specific matters desc ribed in subsec tions (a) throug h (h) of § 1581. See ge ne ra lly 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a)-( h). The c ourt conc ludes that the subject matter of this case falls within the jurisdiction g ra nte d b y § 1 58 1( i) (4 ) a s it

re late s to § 1 58 1( i) (1 ) a

nd (i )( 2) . In § 15 81 (i )( 4) , th e c ourt is provided e x clusive jurisdiction over a ny civil action commenc ed ag ainst the United States that
ari se s o ut o f a

ny law o f t he Un ite d St ate s p ro vid ingfo r “ a dmi nis tr a tio n a nd e nf or c e me nt w ith respe ct to the matters r efe rre d to” in § 1581(i)(1) -(3) . 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4). Subsection (i)( 1) of § 1581 re fer s to laws of the United States pr oviding f or “r evenue from imports or tonnag e”; subsection (i)( 2) re fer s to laws of the United States pr oviding f or duties “on the importation of
merc handise for

rea sons other than the r aising of re venue.” Id. § 1581(i)(1) -(2) . This case arises under 19 U .S.C. § 1623, which, in authorizi ng Customs to require importers to obtain various bonds, is a law of the United States providing for a dminist ration of the ta riff pr ovisions under which re venue is c ollected f rom imports and also providingfor a dminist ration and e nforc ement
o f th e t ar i f f l aw s g e n e r a l l y. A. De fe nd ants ’ M oti on

to D ism iss Pur su ant t o U SCI T Ru le 12 (b )( 1) fo r L a c k o f R ipe ne ss Ac c or din g to d e fe nd ants , th e a g e nc y a c tio n b e ingc ha lle ng e d in thi s c a se mus t c on sti tut e “fina l” ag ency

action within the meaningof the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 704 (2000), in orde r for pla int if fs ’ c a se to b e ri pe fo r j ud ic ia l r e vie w. De fs .’ Mo t. t o D ism iss 9- 11 . T he APAsu bje c ts t o judicial revie w “[a]ge ncy action made revie wable by statute and fin al ag ency

action for

whichCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 15

the re is n o o the r a de qu ate re me dy in a c ourt [.]” 5 U .S. C. § 70 4 ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . D e fe nd ants maintain that the B ond Direc tive, as ame nded on Jul y 9, 2004, “is not final ag ency action,” that “[i] t merely

provides guidelines to port direc tors to assist them in fix ing the limit of liability for continuous entry

bonds,” and that “[u] nder r egulation, the sufficie ncy of bonds is determined separ ately .” De fs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 9 (citing 19 C.F.R. § 113.11). D efe ndants argue that the Amendment itself inflicts no injury and in this respec t is not m ater ially differ ent from B ond Direc tive 99-3510-004 a s it ex isted prior to the Amendme nt, which was involved in Carolina Tobacco Co. v. Bure au of Customs and Border Protection , 402 F.3d 1345 ( Fe d. Cir. 2005). Id. at 10. Def

endants state that the “Jul y 2004 memorandum ne ither marks the consummation of the ag ency ’s dec ision-making pr ocess nor constitutes an ac tion by

which rig hts or obligations have be e n d e te rm ine d o r f

ro m w hic h le g a l c on se qu e nc e s w ill fl ow [,]” a dd ingthat “ pla int if fs fa il t o establish undue har dship that would justi fy interfe ringwith a continuing administrative proc ess.” Id . at 4. Be cause it relies for subje ct matter jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), plaintiffs’ c ause of action ca n be desc ribed a s arisingunder the APA. See Shinyei Corp. of Am. v. United States , 355 F .3 d 1 29 7, 13 04 -0 6 ( F e d. Cir . 2 00 4) . A c c or din g ly , th e c ourt a g re e s w iththe fi rs t po int in defe ndants’ ripe ness ar g ument, i.e. , that plaintiffs’ suit is not ripe for judicial re view unless the action beingchalleng ed is “fina l” within the meaningof 5 U.S.C. § 704. Nor does the c ourt take issue with defe ndants’ cha rac terization of the B ond Direc tive as a “ continuing a dminist rative proce ss.” SeeDef

s.’ Mot. to Dismis s 4, 6-12. The pr ocedur es and policie s underlying the various issuance s comprising the B ond Direc tive, under which Customs has addresse d the qu e sti on of bo nd ingre qu ir e me nts fo r s hr imp imp or ts s ub je c t to the anti dumpi ngduty or de rs ,Court No. 05- 00347 P age 16

appea r to have chang ed over

time. These policies a

ppear to have c hang ed af

ter issuanc e of the Amendment on Jul y

9, 2004, and in par

ticular upon publication of the Notice in Oc tober 2006, which occ urre d afte r plaintiffs brought this action. The c ourt is unable to ag ree with the rema inder of de fenda nts’ ripene ss argument, which construes pla intiffs’ complaint solely as a judicia l challeng e to the ame nded B ond Direc tive. Def endants a rgue that “[a]lthough plaintiffs’ r esponse to our motion to dismis s clarif ies that plaintiffs, in fac t, seek to cha lleng e fina l bond determinations, the first amended c omplaint does
no t r e fl e c t pl a int if

fs ’ c ur re nt p os iti on

and , th e re fo re , f

a ils to e sta

bli shthe Court ’s jur isd ic tio n to
e nte rt a in t his matte r. ” De fs .’ Re ply B r. 2. De fe nd ants argue that th e c ourt mus t c on str

ue on ly the alleg ations in the complaint, not those in the plaintiffs’ re sponse to the motion to dis miss. Id. For this argument, defe ndants rely on Calif ornia Motor Trans

port Co. v. Trucking Unlimited , 404 U.S. 508, 515 (1972). See id. De fe nd ants ’ r ipe ne ss a

rgume nt i s b a se d o n a

n o ve rl y na rr owint e rp re tatio n o f t

he c la ims in plaintiffs’ complaint. Def endants’ a

rgument overlooks that plaintiffs’ a ction, even when construed a ccor ding to the c omplaint its elf a nd not as supplemented by plaintiffs’ subseque nt submissi ons, is not confined to the B ond Direc tive pe r se . Count three of the complaint expressly challeng es not only

the B ond Direc tive but also the application of the B ond Direc tive to plaintiffs. First Am. Compl. ¶ 28 (“The Bond D irec tive, and CBP’s application of the Bond Di re c tiv e to P lai nti

ffs , is [ sic ] ar

bit ra ry , c a pr ic iou s, an a

bu se of dis c re tio n, and

oth e rw ise no t in
acc ordanc e with law . . . .” (empha sis added)) . Plaintiffs alleg e else wher e in the complaint that they beg an re ceivingbond insufficienc y notices fr om Custom s shortly afte r the publication of the antidumping duty

order on shrimp from India. Id. ¶ 19. They alleg e that they

consistently

wer eCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 17

advised by

Customs that the B ond Direc tive was be ing a dminist ere d pursuant to a nationwide

“ Pilo t B on d Ce ntr a lizatio n Pr og ra m” su c h th a t Cu sto ms, in a pp lyingthe B on d D ir e c tiv e to plaintiffs, would exercise no discr etion to adjust the minim um bond amounts resulting f rom the formula in the B ond Direc tive. Id. ¶ 21. They further alleg e that the infle x ible application by Cus tom s o f t

he B on d D ir e c tiv e to p la int if fs fo rc e d p la int if

fs to s e c ur e bo nd s w ithsu bs tanti a lly incre ased limits of liabilit y , which in many case s require d plaintiffs to provide 100 per cent collater al, or e lse discontinue their importations of shrimp subject to the a ntidumping duty

order
. Id. ¶ 2 2. Th e y

sp e c if ic a lly a lle g e that pl a int if

f G F F wa s in fo rm e d b y

Cus tom s th a t in

or de r t o continue importing merc handise it would be re quired to re place its ex isting bond, which ha d a limit of liability

of $50,000, with a ne w bond with a liability limit of $2.8 million. Id. ¶ 20. B a se d o n th e se a lle g atio ns , th e y se e k d e c larator

y re lie f t hat th e ame nd e d B on d D ir e c tiv e , b y its e lf and as a pplied, is contrar

y to law, as we ll as permane nt injunctive relief. See id. at 14. Def endants’ r eliance on Calif ornia Motor Trans

port Co. is m isp la c e d. Th e Sup re me Court held in Calif

ornia Motor Trans

port Co. that a

c omp la int

a lle g inga

c on sp ir a c y

by c e rt a in motor car riers to monopolize the transport of g oods in violation of the Clay ton Act, despite the ri g ht t o p e tit ion

g ua ra nte e d b y the F ir st A me ndme nt, wa s n ot p ro pe rl y dis mis se d f

or fa ilure to state a c ause of

action, whe re that complaint alleg ed a c onspiracy of the motor ca

rrier s to weake n or eliminate c ompetition by initiating state a

nd fede ral proc eeding s alleg edly intended to def

eat attempts of competitors and pote ntial competitors to acquire operating r ights. 404 U.S. at 509, 515. Def endants dire ct our attention to the Supreme Court’s statement in the opinion that, for purposes of the motion to di smiss, “[ w]e must, of course, take the a lleg ations of the complaint at fac e value [.] ” Id. at5 1 5 -1 6 (c i t i n g W alker Proc ess Equip. v. Food M ach. &Chem. Corp. , 382Court No. 05- 00347 P age 18

U. S. 1 72 , 1 74 -7 5 ( 19 65 )) ; seeDef s.’ Reply Br . 2. When considere d in the context of the Supreme Court’s opinion, this sentence is not a limi tation on a cour t’s ability to consider, at the pleadingstag e, submissions other than the complaint; it is ins tead a restate ment of the e stablished principle that for

purposes of r

uling on a motion to di smiss for failure to state a c laim on which relief can be g rante d, the cour

t assumes that a plaintiff’ s fac tual alleg ations are true. In this case, the cour t must t ake the alleg ations in plaintiffs’ complaint at fa ce va lue, and doe s so, in ruling on the mot ion

to d ism iss
. In deter mining ripe ness for judicia l review , a cour t is to “evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial de cision and the ha rdship to the parties of

withholding cour

t consideration.” Abbott Labs. v. Gardner , 3 87 U. S. 1 36 , 1 49 (1 96 7) ; se eals o Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. W atkins , 11 F.3d 1573, 1581 ( Fe d. Cir. 1993). The c omplaint, by alleg ing va

rious direc t and sig nificant conseque nces stemmingfrom the a pplication to plaintiffs of the B ond Direc tive, and by basing its demand for r elief on those a lleg ations, satisfies both fac tors. Plaintiffs alleg e in substance that the y a lr e a dy have e xpe ri e nc e d c on c re te and ha rm fu l e ff e c ts f ro m th e B on d D ir e c tiv e a s a pp lie d to the m. F ir st A m. C omp l. ¶ ¶ 2 0, 22 . T he y

a lle g e that th e se e ff

e c ts a re c on tin uin g and wi ll continue abse nt the judicial reme dy they seek, which is a dec laratory judgme nt that the Bond Direc tive is contrar

y to law and a

perma nent injunction ag ainst its continued application. Id. at 14. The fa cts pleade d by plaintiffs are distinguishable f rom those of va

rious case s upon which de fe nd ants re ly

fo r t he ir argume nt t

hat th is c a se is n ot r ipe fo r j ud ic ia l r e vie w. Se ve ra l of the se
case s involve ref

usal by the Court of International Trade to reviewclaims that wer e conside red premature be cause the re sult of the administrative proc eeding s was unknown at the time of filing.Court No. 05- 00347 P age 19

De fs
. ’ M o t
. t o Di s m i s s 7 -8 (c i t i n g Intercargo I ns. Co. v. United States , 1 9 C I T 1 43 5, 91 2 F. Sup p. 54 4 ( 19 95 ); Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. United States , 13 CI T 732, 720 F. Supp. 1014 (1989) ; and Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States , 12 CI T 455, 688 F. Supp 617 (1988) ). Def endants c hara cter ize these ca ses as supportingdismiss al in this case. Id. In defe ndants’ view, the c a se is p re matur e be c a us e a dmi nis tr a tiv e pr oc e e din g s a re c on tin uin g and have no t r e su lte d in a fina l decision. Id. The c ourt is unable to ag ree with this conclusion. Plaintiffs’ case is not premature . Plaintiffs demand re lief base d on alleg ations of conseque nces, pa st and prese nt, of bond insufficienc y deter minations and relate d actions by Customs that alre ady

have oc curr ed. That the policies and proc edure s addre ssed in the B ond Direc tive have e volved over time and still m ay

be evolvingis not a basis to preclude judicial revie w in this case, whe re Customs is alleg ed to have issued insufficienc y notices to plaintiffs pursuant to those policies and pr ocedur es. Were the court to ac cept de fenda nts’ argument, the plaintiffs in this case a

nd other potential, similarly situated plaintiffs would have to await a mor e de fi nit ive state me nt b y

Cus tom s o f t

ho se po lic ie s a

nd pr oc e dure s b e fo re br ing inga su it, reg ardle ss of the past and c urre nt effe cts of the a pplication of the B ond Direc tive as it has exist ed and exists t oday . Def

endants’ r ipeness ar g ument, if ac cepte d by the cour t, would prec lude, for a

n indefinite time, any

judicial revie w of the a ctions taken by Customs to apply

the B ond Direc tive to s pe c if ic imp or te rs , d e sp ite the ha

rm that th os e a c tio ns are a lle g e d to have c a us e d, or to
c on tin ue to c a us e , to a ff e c te d im po rt e rs and

the ir bu sin e ss a c tiv iti e s. De fe nd ants ne ve rt he le ss contend that “ [n] o undue har dship has been imposed upon pla intiffs, and they should await final ag ency action bef

ore se ekingjudicial revie w.” Id. a t 12 . T his state me nt o f d e fe nd ants is conjec tural and me ritless. Reg ardle ss of the evolvingCustoms policies, demands by Customs forCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 20

Under 19 C.F.R. § 113.13(b), the por t director 5 should at least consider : (1) The prior re cord of the principa l in tim ely

pay ment of duties, tax es, and c harg es with respe ct to the transa ction(s) involving such pa y me nts ; ( 2) Th e pr ior

re c or d o f t

he pr inc ipa l in

c omp lyingwi th C us tom s de mand s f

or re de liv e ry , th e ob lig a tio n to ho ld u ne xami ne d me rc ha

nd ise int a c t, and other require ments relatingto enforc ement and a dminist ration of Customs and other law s and re g ulations; (3) The va lue and nature of the merc handise involved in the transac tion(s) to be sec ured; (4) The de g ree and ty pe of supe rvision that Customs will ex erc ise over the transac tion(s); (5) The prior re cord of the principa l in h on or ingbo nd

c omm itm e nts , in c lud ingthe pa y me nt o f l iqu idate d d ama g e s; and (6) Any

additional information containe d in any application for

a bond. 19 C.F.R. § 113.13(b). bonds with high limits of liabili ty may well impose signif

icant har dships on importers. See Nat’l Fisheries Inst. Inc

. , 30 CI T at __, __, Slip Op. 06-166 at 18-21, 31-39. The holdingin Carolina T obacco Co. , to which def endants a lso cite, does not re quire dismiss al of the c omplaint in thi s case . See Carolina T obacco Co. v . United States Customs Serv. , 28 CI T __, Slip Op. 04-20 (2004), aff’d , Carolina T obacco Co. v . Bureau of Customs and Bo rd e r Pro t. , 402 F.3d 1345 ( Fe d. Cir. 2005). The plaintiff in Carolina T obacco Co. ha d s ue d in the Court of International Trade to enjoin Custom s from re quiring it to replace its ex isting continuous bond of $80,000 with a continuous bond havinga limit of liabili ty of $3 million wi tho ut f ir st c on sid e ri ngthe six f

a c tor s sp e c if

ie d in the g uid e lin e s se t f

or th at 19 C.F .R. § 113.13(b) a

nd from dema

nding a new c ontinuous bond in an amount ex cee ding that nece ssary to e ns ur e c omp lia

nc e wi th c us tom s la

ws and re g ulatio ns . Id. The Court of International Trade ,

5 in gr anting the g overnme nt’s motion for judgme nt on the ag ency rec ord, upheld the de cision by Customs to require repla ceme nt of Carolina Toba cco Co.’s $80,000 c ontinuous bond with a $3 milli on continuous bond. See id. at 3, 6-7. Customs had made that de termination based onCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 21

rec ord evide nce de monstrating that Carolina Tobac co Co.’s imports of tobacc o products had incre ased to $13.8 million in 2001-2002 from $8.2 milli on in 2000-2001 and that for the y ear prior to the new

bond deter

mination, the duties, tax es, and f ees pa id to Cust oms by

Carolina Tobac co Co. had be en appr ox imately $26 milli on. Id. at 3-4. Application of the ten per cent formula in B ond Direc tive 99-3510-004, whe n rounded, r esulted in a $3 million bond require ment. Id. The Court of International Trade conclude d in Carolina T obacco Co. that “the r egulatory framework Customs has established,” which consisted of 19 C.F.R. § 113.13 and B ond Direc tive 99-3510-004, a

nd specific ally

the re quirement in B ond Direc tive 99-3510-004 f or a minimum bond of ten pe rce nt of the pre vious y ear ’s duties, taxes, and fee s, “[wa]s not unreasonable g iven the discre tion ceded to it by Congr ess in 19 U.S.C. § 1623(a).” Id. at 7. Carolina Toba cco Co. had ar g ued in the Court of International Trade that 19 C.F.R. § 113.13 require d Customs to give Caro lin a To ba c c o Co . a

n “ ind ivi du a lize d a sse ssm e nt” ba se d o n th e six f a c tor s sp e c if

ie d th e re in rathe r than simply

resor t to the ten perc ent minimum requirement in B ond Direc tive 99-3510-004. Id. at 5-6. The Court of International Trade , reje cting this argument, stated that “[t] he Court is satisfied with Customs ’ explanation that, due to the lagtime before it could stop an importer f

rom withdrawingmerc handise for consumption, a 10 perc ent bond is a nec essar y minimum amount of protec tion for the re venue.” Id. at 6. The Court of A ppeals, re jectingthe
same a rgument of Carolina Toba cco Co., a ffirme d the judg ment of the Court of International Tr a de , f ur the r o bs e rv ingthat “ [e]v e n if the Se c tio n 1 13 .1 3( b) re g ulatio n r e qu ir e d s ome individualiz ed conside ration by Customs of the six factors bef ore se tting the amount of the bond, Carolina has not shown that Customs failed to g ive such c onsideration in this case.” CarolinaCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 22

Tobacco Co. , 402 F.3d at 1350. The Court of Appe als in Carolina T obacco Co. aff

irmed the conclusions of the Court of I nternational Trade that the par ticular bond de termination at issue was supporte d by

rec ord evide nce a

nd was made acc ordingto a re g ulatory framework that was
rea sonable. Id. Nothing in the opinion of the Court of Appea ls in Carolina T obacco Co. convince s the court that a party may not bring a cha lleng e to the B ond Direc tive as it was specific ally

modified and a

pplied to bond determinations in the circ umstances of this case. Def endants a lso rely

on U.S. Ass’n of Importers of Textiles &Apparel v. United States , 413 F.3d 1344 ( Fe d. Cir. 2005) (“ US A- IT A ”), a rguing that mere thre shold determinations are not ri pe fo r r e vie w, that pl a int if fs me re ly fa c e bu sin e ss u

nc e rt a int y , a nd that bu sin e ss u

nc e rt a int y is insufficient to conve rt a thre shold determination into a final a g ency action. SeeDe fs .’ Mo t. t o Dismiss 11-12. US

A- IT A , howeve r, involved a judicia l challeng e to an a g ency action in a proce dural posture that is not analog ous to this case. In US A- IT A , the Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit concluded that the a cce ptance by the Commit tee f

or the Implementation of Texti le Ag ree ments (“CI TA”) of twelve petitions filed by the domestic texti le industry to beg in a proce ss of consultations with China on tex tile imports was not a final ag ency action that wa s ripe for judicial r eview. US

A- IT A , 4 13 F .3 d at 13 46 , 1 34 9- 50 . T he me re a c c e pta nc e of the pe tit ion s, without further a ction by

CI TA, did not result in any limit ations on tex tile or appa rel imports by the plaintiff and did not sig nify that any such limitations would occur. See id. In c on tr a st, Customs place d the amende d Bond D irec tive into effe ct by issuing insuffic iency

notices. Pla int if fs in t his c a se , b y

a lle g ingthat th e y

a lr e a dy have e xpe ri e nc e d c on c re te e ff e c ts o n th e ir businesses re sulting fr om the application of the Bond D irec tive, have a lleg ed ac tual conseque nces e x tending well beyond business uncer tainty
. SeeFirst Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19-22.Court No. 05- 00347 P age 23

B. D efe ndants’ Motion to Dismis s under USCI T Rule 12(b)( 5) for L ack of Standing In addition to moving to dismiss for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction, defenda

nts move to dismi ss under USCI T Rule 12(b)( 5) for failure to state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be g ra nte d. In mo vin g to d ism iss un de r R ule 12 (b )( 5) , d e fe nd ants re ly so le ly on the ir argume nts perta ining to standing . Def s.’ Mot. to Dismis s 4-5, 12-18. F or the re asons discussed be low, the court c oncludes that a ll three plaintiffs have standingto maintain this action. Dismissal for failure to state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be g rante d is proper only when a plaintiff “ can pr ove no set of f acts in support of his cla im which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. G ibson , 3 55 U. S. 4 1, 45 -4 6 ( 19 57 ); Leider v. United States , 301 F.3d 1290, 1295 ( Fe d. Cir. 2002). In decidinga Rule 12(b) (5) motion, the cour t assumes that all well-plea ded fa ctual alleg ations in the complaint are true a nd draw s all rea sonable infe renc es in the plaintiff' s favor
. Leider , 3 01 F .3 d at 12 95 ; Un ite d S tates v . I sli p , 22 CI T 852, 854, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 1051 (1 9 9 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Gould, Inc. v . United States , 935 F.2d 1271, 1274 ( Fe d. Cir. 1991)). Plaintiffs
are no t r e qu ir e d to se t out in de ta il the fa c ts u

po n w hic h th e c la im i s b a se d b ut r a the r m us t me re ly alleg e fa cts sufficie nt to give “ fair notice of what the plaintiff[s’] claim is and the g rounds upon which it rests.” Conley , 355 U.S. at 47. Plaintiffs have standingto bring an ac tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) if they are “adve rsely

aff ecte d or ag g rieve d by

ag ency action within the meaningof sec tion 702 of titl e 5.” 28 U. S.C. § 2 63 1( i) (2 00 0) . Se c tio n 7 02 of Ti tle 5 s e ts f

or th t he APAsta

nd ingre qu ir e me nt, providing that “[a] person suffe ringleg al wrongbeca use of a g ency

action, or a dverse ly

aff ecte d or ag g rieve d by

ag ency action within the meaningof a r eleva nt statute, is entitled to judi cial revie w there of.” 5 U .S.C. § 702 (2000). To have sta nding to c halleng e an a g ency action underCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 24

the APA, a plaintiff must alleg e an “ injury in fac t,” a r equire ment g rounded in Ar ticle I I Iof the United States Constit ution, which limit s the exercise of the judicial power

to “ca ses” a

nd “contr oversies.” See Ass’n of Data Processing Serv . Orgs., Inc. v . Camp , 397 U.S. 150, 151-52 (1 97 0) . F ur

the r, to h ave sta

nd ingun de r t

he APA , a

pla int if f m us t a sse rt an inte re st that is “ar g uably within the zone of interests to be prote cted or regulated by

the statute or c onstitut ional g uara ntee in question.” Id. at 153. De fe nd ants argue that pl a int if fs la c k s tand ingbe c a

us e the y “ are no t pe rs on s a dv e rs e ly aff ecte d or ag g rieve d by

ag ency action within the meaningof 19 U.S.C. §§ 1623(a) [ o r] 1 6 7 3 e( a) (3 )[
. ] ” D ef

s . ’ M o t
. t o Di s m i s s 1 2
. Ac co rd i n g t o d ef en d an t s , p l ai n t i ff

s fa i l t o al l ege
an in jur y in f a c t and me re ly make va g ue and

g e ne ra lize d a lle g a tio ns of inj ur y or a lle g e d s pe c if

ic injuries that are not cog nizable, such as a ba rrier to export. Id. a t 13 , 1 5. De fe nd ants a lso c on te st plaintiffs’ standingon the g round that plaintiffs fa iled to assert a n interest within the zone of interests protec ted by

applicable statutes. See id. a t 16 -1 8. De fe nd ants a sse rt that th e a pp lic a ble statutes do not protect the r ight to export, which def endants submit to be plaintiffs’ stated interest. Id. at 16, 18.

1. Plaintiffs GFF and I CF Have Established Standingto Sue The c omplaint alleg es that plaintiffs GF F a nd I CF ar e U.S. importers of subje ct frozen
war mwater shrimp from India and that they are “‘a dverse ly

aff ecte d or ag g rieve d’ by

the unauthorized and unlaw ful ac tions of CBP in requiringincre ased c ontinuous entry bonds pursuant to the Bond D irec tive.” F irst Am. Compl . ¶ 9 (quoting5 U.S.C. § 702 and 28 U.S.C. § 2631(i)). As no te d p re vio us ly , th e c omp la int a lle g e s sp e c if

ic a lly that G F F wa s in fo rm e d b y Cus tom s th a t it would need to r eplac e its $50,000 bond with a $2.8 milli on bond in order to c ontinue importing.Court No. 05- 00347 P age 25

Pla int if fs a lso argue that th e ir

c a us e of a c tio n a ri se s und e r, and

that th e y have int e re sts 6 wi thi n th e zon e of

int e re sts pr ote c te d b y , 1 9 U .S. C. § 16 73 e (a )( 3) , w hic h p ro vid e s f or c a sh de po sit s o f e sti mate d a

nti dumpi ngduty

lia bil ity pe nd ingliq

uid a tio n o f t

he e ntr ie s. F ir st A m. Compl. ¶ 24. The parties a ddresse d this iss ue in their brie fs. Def s.’ Mot. to Dismis s 16-18; Pls.’ Op p’ n 1 4- 18 . T he pr ov isi on at § 1 67 3e (a )( 3) re g ulate s Co mme rc e , n ot C us tom s, and in t his respe ct is not as direc tly

involved in plaintiffs’ claims as is § 1623. See19 U.S.C. § 1623. B e c a us e of the c ourt ’s c on c lus ion s c on c e rn ingri pe ne ss a nd sta nd ingwi th r e sp e c t to c la ims Id. ¶ 20. The c omplaint is notsimil arly specific with respec t to I CF but contains alleg ations that pla int if fs su ff e re d a nd c on tin ue to s uf fe r e c on omi c inj ur ie s in

the fo rm of highe r b on d p re miums, inc re a se d c oll ate ra l r e qu ir e me nts a s h ig h a s 1 00 pe rc e nt, and the los s o f b us ine ss, e ith e r b e c a us e of the inability

to meet the hig her bond pr emiums and collater al re quirements or be cause of the need to r educe their subject shrimp imports to stay within their curr ent bond liability limit s. See id. ¶¶ 19 -2 2. B e c a

us e the c omp la int

a lle g e s in jur y in f a c t oc c ur ri ngto G F F and

I CF in t he ir activities as importers, the court is unable to a g ree with defe ndants’ cha rac terization of the complaint as makingonly vague and g ener alized alleg ations of injury that are insufficient for p urp o s es o f s t an d i n g. In deter mining whe ther a

plaintiff’s intere sts fall within the z one of inter ests of a r eleva nt statute, the cour

t looks to “discern the inter ests ‘ar g uably . . . to be protec ted’ by

the statutory provision at issue; [ and] then inquire[s] whether the plaintiff’s inter ests aff ecte d by the ag ency action in question are among[t hose protec ted intere sts] .” Nat ’l Cre dit Un ion Ad

mi n. v . F irs t Nat’l Bank &Trust Co. , 5 2 2 U. S
. 4 7 9 , 4 9 2 (1 9 9 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Ass’n of Data Processing Serv . Orgs., Inc. , 397 U.S. at 153). As discussed pr eviously in this opi nion with respec t to subject matter jur isd ic tio n, pla int if

fs ’ c a se ari se s und e r 1 9 U .S. C. § 16 23 , in wh ic h Co ng re ss p ro vid e d Cu sto ms the authority

to require various bonds and the authority to set the form, c onditions, and amount of penalty of a bond. See19 U.S.C. § 1623(a), (b) (1). Subsec tion (a) of the statute, in authorizing 6Court No. 05- 00347 P age 26

arisingunder § 1623, a s prese nted in this opini on, the cour t does not rea ch the issues the pa rties have r aised c oncer

ning § 1673e (a) (3). Subsection (a) of 19 U.S.C. § 1623 provides that 7 [i ]n any case in which bond or other secur ity is not specifica lly

require d by

law, the Secr etar

y of the Tr easur

y may by regulation or specif

ic instruction require , or a u th o r i z e c u s t o m s o f

f i c e r s t o r e qu i r e , s u c hb o n d s o r o th e r s e c ur i ty a s h e , o r

th e y, may deem ne cessa

ry for the pr otection of the r evenue or to assure compliance with any provision of law, re g ulation, or instruction which the Sec reta ry of the Trea sury or the Customs Service may be author ized to enforce
. 19 U.S.C. § 1623(a). the re quirement of a

bond or other se curity

when a bond is not specifica lly

require d by

law, conditions that authority

by providing that Customs office rs may require such bonds as a

re “nec essar y for the pr otection of the r evenue or to assure compliance with any provision of law, regulation, or instruction” which Customs is authorized to enforce
. Id. § 1 62 3( a ). Con g re ss 7 expressly authorized, in subsections (b)( 3) and ( b)(4) , execution of continuous (“te rm”) a nd consolidated bonds, re spectively , which provide cer tain convenie nces to fr equent importer s not provided by

single entry

bonds. See id. § 1 6 2 3 (b )( 3 )- (4 ). Un d en i ab l y , an i mp o rt er o b t ai n i n g a term bond to satisfy

its bonding oblig ations has an inter est in obtaining a term bond with a limit of lia bil ity that is no t g re ate r t

ha n n e c e ssa ry to p ro te c t th e re ve nu e and to e ns ur e c omp lia

nc e wi th tariff laws. The disc retion of Customs in establishing the re quirements for term bonds under

19 U.S.C. § 1623 is not unlimit ed. See Nat’l Fisheries Inst. Inc. , 30 CI T at __, __, Slip Op. 06-166 at 51 (c oncluding that the discre tion of Custom s to set the liability amount of a te rm bond is not unlimit ed and pote ntially is reviewa

ble under the “a rbitrar y and ca pricious” standa

rd of r eview)
. The c ourt conc ludes, there fore , that GFF and I CF have asser ted intere sts falling w ithin the z one ofCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 27

interests protec ted by

19 U.S.C. § 1623. S EAI has asse rted intere sts of its members who ar e importers that also fa ll within t his z one of inter ests. The c ourt next addresses pa rticular sta

nding issues arisingfrom SEAI ’s status as an a ssociation. 2. SEAIHas Repr esentational Standing The c ourt conc ludes that SEAIhas standingto participate as a pla intiff in this action. As discussed above , a par

ty may bringa ca se under

28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) if it is adversely aff ecte d or ag g rieve d by

ag ency action within the meaningof the APA standing provision. See28 U. S.C. § 2631(i). The APA provides that “[a] person suff eringleg al wrongbeca

use of a g ency

action, or
a dv e rs e ly a ff e c te d o r a g g ri e ve d b y

a g e nc y a c tio n w ith in t

he me anin g of

a re le va nt s tatut e , is entitled to judicial reviewthere of.” 5 U .S.C. § 702. The term “pe rson,” a s used in this provision, includes an a ssociation. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(2), 701(b)( 2) (2000)
. Plaintiff SEAIalleg es no injury occur ringto itself in its activities as an a ssociation. In s t ea d , th e c au s e o f a ct i o np l ea d edo nb eh al f o f S E AI de p en d s o n“r ep re s en t at i o n al ” s t an d i n g, i.e. , standing that relies solely on the status of SEAI

as a r epre sentative of its member s. SeeF ir st Am . Co mpl . ¶

1. An a sso c iatio n invo kin g su c h r e pr e se ntatio na l st and ing“ mus t a lle g e that it s members, or

any one of the m, are suffe ringimmediate or thre atene d injury as a r esult of the challeng ed ac tion of the sort that would make out a justiciable ca se had the members themse lves broug ht suit.” W

ar th v . S e ldi n , 4 2 2 U. S
. 4 9 0 , 5 1 1 (1 9 7 5 ) ( ci t i n g Sierra Club v. Morton , 4 05 U. S. 72 7, 73 4- 41 (1 97 2) ); see also Nat’l Customs Brokers &Forwarders Ass’n of Am., Inc. v . United States , 18 CI T 754, 758, 861 F. Supp. 121, 126-27 ( 1994) (holdingthat an assoc iation of licensed
c us tom s b ro ke rs ha s st and ingto c ha lle ng e an inte ri m Cu sto ms r e gulatio n a llo wi ngc on signe e s to make infor

mal entry of ce rtain low value merc handise).Court No. 05- 00347 P age 28

The c omplaint alleg es that “SEAI is an association that repre sents member c ompanies who
are exporters and U.S. importers of seaf ood products fr om I ndia, including shrimp that is subject to a n a nti dumpi ngduty

or de r o n c e rt a in f

ro zen wa rmwate r s hr imp fr om I

nd ia .” F ir st A m. C omp l. ¶ 1 . T he c omp la int , h ow e ve r, do e s n ot a lle g e sp e c if ic a lly that any me mbe r o f S EA Iis a

shri mp importer to which the B ond Direc tive, as modified by the Amendment, ha s actua lly been a pplied. Ins te a d, the c omp la int

va g ue ly a sse rt s th a t un sp e c if

ie d “ imp or

te rs ” have be e n r e qu ir e d to ob ta in
new c ontinuous entry

bonds as a r esult of application of the Amendment but does not state that those importers ar e included a mong the SEAImembership. Id. ¶ 9 . Co mpo un din g the va g ue ne ss of the c omp la int

on thi s p oint is the a lle g a tio n th e re in t hat “ the me mbe r c omp anie s o f S EA I , th e ir aff iliated and unaf

filiated U.S. importers, and G FF and I CF ar e ‘a dverse ly aff ecte d or ag g rieve d’ by the unauthorized and unla wful ac tions of CBP in requiringincre ased c ontinuous entry bonds pursuant to the B ond Direc tive.” Id. (q uo tin g 5 U .S. C. § 70 2 a

nd 28 U. S.C. § 2 63 1( i) ). Th is statement leaves open to que stion whether the importe rs that ar e SEAI member c ompanies ar e actua lly importers that would have standing to challeng e the amended B ond Direc tive as applied. The issue pre sented by

the vagueness in plaintiffs’ ple adingis whether the complaint has alleg ed suff

icient fa cts from whic h the cour t could infer a

n injury in fac t to the members of SEAI that are imp or

tin g sh ri mp s ub

je c t to the anti dumpi ngduty or de r, su c h th a t at le a st o ne of the se SEA Ime mbe rs wo uld

have sta nd ingto s ue ind ivi du a lly . T he c ourt inf e rs , f ro m th e c omp la int

a s a whole, alleg ations of injury to one or more members of SEAI , based on a lleg ations in the complaint that “plaintiffs” suffe red a nd continue to suffe r fr om highe r bond pre miums, i ncre ased collater al re quirements as hig h as 100 per cent, a nd the loss of business. Se e id . ¶¶ 19- 20, 22. This infere nce is c onsistent with defenda nts’ own submission, which admits additional facts.Court No. 05- 00347 P age 29

Def endants in their r eply

brief, ma king a n appar ent re fer ence to Custom s, state that “ba sed upon
o ur e xami n a ti o no f

th e att a c h me n t t o th e ame n d e d c o mp la int [ li s ti n g SE A I ’ s me mb e r c o mp an ie s ],
we h av e a s ce rt ai n edth atth e S ea fo o d E x p o rt er s As s o ci at i o no f Ind i a ( “S E AI”), al th o u gh principally

an assoc iation of exporters, has seve n members who a re importer s whose bonds Customs has dete rmined to be insuffic ient.” De fs.’ Reply Br . 4. The c ourt conc ludes that SEAI has met the re quirement of a lleg ing “ that its members, or any one of the m, are suffe ring immediate or thre atene d injury as a r esult of the cha lleng ed ac tion of the sort that would make out a justiciable c ase ha d the member s themselves brought suit.” W ar th , 422 U.S. at 511. Plaintiff association SEAI , seekingto sue on beha lf of its members, a lso must s how that the intere sts that the association see ks to protect ar e g erma ne to the assoc iation’s purpose. Hunt v. W ashington Stat e Apple Adv er. Comm’n , 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). The court re adily can inf er fr om t he c omp la int

that SE AI

is a tr a de a sso c iatio n th at e xists to p ro mot e the bu sin e ss o f i ts member e x porters a

nd importers and that it is suing to prote ct intere sts ge rmane to its purpose; i.e. , th e int e re sts of

its me mbe rs in e xpor

tin g and imp or tin g wi tho ut t

he e nc umb e ri nge ff

e c ts alleg ed to re sult from the application of the Bond D irec tive. See First Am. Compl. ¶ 1 (stating that SEAIrepr esents member companies who are both exporters and U.S. importers of shr imp that is s ub je c t to the anti dumpi ngduty or de r o n c e rt a in f

ro zen wa rmwate r s hr imp fr om I

nd ia ); se e als o id. ¶ 10 (statingthat trade associations re prese nting inter ests of member s have standingunder 28 U.S.C. § 2631(i) and that SEAI acc ording ly

has standing ). Finally , plaintiff association SEAImust show that “neither the claim asser ted nor the r elief reque sted requir es the pa

rticipation of individual members in the law suit.” Hunt , 432 U.S. at 343;
se e als o W

ar th , 422 U.S. at 515 (“whether an assoc iation has standing to invoke the cour t’sCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 30

reme dial power s on behalf of its members depe nds in substantial measure on the nature of the relief soug ht.”). Thus, “ [t ]he org anization lacks standing to assert c laims of injunctive relief on behalf of its members whe re ‘ the fa ct and e x tent’ of the injury that g ives rise to the c laims for injunctive relief

‘would re quire individualized proof[.] ’” Bano v. Union Carbide Corp. , 361 F.3d 6 9 6 , 7 1 4 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g W

ar th , 422 U.S. at 515-16). The org anization also lacks sta nd ing“ wh e re ‘t

he re lie f r e qu e ste d [w ou ld] r e qu ir e [] the pa rt ic ipatio n o f i nd ivi du a l me mbe rs in the lawsuit[.] ’” Id. (qu o t i n g Hunt , 4 32 U. S. at 34 3) ; se e als o W ar th , 422 U.S. at 515-16 (holding that the association of home builders lac ked standingto seek re lief in damag es for alleg ed injuries to its m ember s beca

use “whateve r injury

may have be en suff

ere d is peculiar to the individual member c oncer

ned, and both the f

act a nd extent of injury

would require individualiz ed proof .”). In contra st, where the org anization seeks a pur ely leg al rulingand equitable relief that does not require individualiz ed proof of the fa cts as to the mer its or the damag es sustained, the a ssociation has standing
. See Bano , 361 F.3d at 714. De fe n d an t s , ci t i n g Nat’l Fisheries Inst. Inc. , 30 CI T __, Slip Op. 06-166, argue that SEAI lacks standingbeca

use “sig nificant importer

participation may

indeed be nece ssary” to the resolution of this case . Def s.’ Resp. to Pls.’ Surreply 4. In Nat’l Fisheries Inst. Inc. , in which plaintiffs cha lleng ed the same B ond Direc tive at issue in this case, the c ourt consider ed individualiz ed proof

to be nec essar

y to a showingof irre para

ble har m for purpose s of pre liminary injunctive relief

. Nat’l Fisheries Inst. Inc. , 30 CI T at __, Slip Op. 06-166 at 40 (de clining to infe r ir re pa ra ble ha rm and the re fo re de nyingthe mot ion fo r p re lim ina

ry inj un c tiv e re lie f a s to tho se plaintiffs that did not present e vidence in the court’s he aringon the motion and instead re lied on the limited showing made in their pleading s). Plaintiffs in this case, howe ver, do not see k aCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 31

preliminary

injunction. I nstead, a s discussed pre viously , plaintiff association SEAI , like its copla int if fs , s e e ks de c larator

y re lie f t hat th e ame nd e d B on d D ir e c tiv e , b y its e lf and a s a pp lie d, is contra ry to law, and pe rmane nt injunctive relief a g ainst the application of the amende d Bond Direc tive by

Customs . First Am. Compl. 14. Many issues pertainingto whether , and on what g rounds, the ame nded B ond Direc tive is contrar y to law may

be adjudicated on the ag ency rec ord
a c c or din g to t

he “ arb itr ary

and c a pr ic iou s” sta

nd ard of re vie w a s p ro vid e d f

or by 28 U. S.C. § 2640(e) and 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A ). B ased on the claims plaintiffs have asser ted and the nature of the re lief they

are seeking , the cour

t concludes that neither these claims nor the f orm of re lief
so ug ht b y pla int if fs ne c essa ril

yre qu ir e s th e pa

rt ic ipa tio n o f i nd ivi du a l SE AI

me mbe rs . In challeng ing the standing of SEAI , defe ndants argue in the alter native that while plaintiff SEAImight mee t the repr esentational standing r equire ments as to those members who are importers, “SEAI

may not levera g e its importer member s’ standinginto a g ener al re prese ntation of its exporter members, whe re those me mbers themselve s lack standing .” De fs.’ Reply Br . 9. An a sso c iatio n, ho we ve r, satis fi e s th e re pr e se ntatio na l st and ingre qu ir e me nts a s lo nga s o ne of its members would have standingto bring the lawsuit in its own right. Hunt , 4 32 U. S. at 34 2; W ar th , 42 2 U .S. a t 51 1. SEA Iha s satis fi e d th os e re qu ir e me nts by sh ow ingthat on e or

mor e of its members would have had suc h standing . There fore , defe ndants’ ar g ument in the alternative does not establish that the court may ref use to rec og nize the repre sentational standingof SEAI
. III. C ONCL US I ON A ND O R D ER For the re asons discussed a

bove, the c ourt conc ludes that jurisdiction ex ists over the
su bje c t matte r o f t

his a c tio n a

nd , s pe c if ic a lly , th a t pl a int if

fs have de mon str a te d th a t th e ir c la ims
are ri pe fo r j ud ic ia l r e vie w. Pla int if fs a lso have de mon str a te d th a t th e y have sta nd ingto b ri ngthi sCourt No. 05- 00347 P age 32

a c tio n. Ac c or din g ly , u

po n c on sid e ratio n o f d e fe nd a nts ’ m oti on

to d ism iss thi s a c tio n p ur su ant t o USCI T Rule 12(b)( 1), for lack of subject matter jur isdiction, and USCI T Rule 12(b)( 5), for failure to state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be g rante d, plaintiffs’ re sponse there to, and all other
su bmi ssi on s and

pr oc e e din g s h e re in, it i s OR DE RE D that defe ndants’ motion to dism iss be, and her eby is, DENI ED.
/s/ Timot hy

C. St ance u Timothy C. St ance u J u d ge Dated: Marc h 13, 2007 New Y ork, Ne w York