“Jurisdiction is ... the authority conferred by Congress to decide a given type of case one way or the other.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 538 (1974). Without jurisdiction a court cannot hear a case, no matter how persuasive the plaintiff's substantive arguments. See Schick v. United States, 31 CIT 2017, 2020, 533 F.Supp.2d 1276, 1281 (2007) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)).
These rules compel the court to dismiss Netchem's action in its entirety. The court finds that Netchem's lanthanum oxide shipments or “entries” were untimely liquidated, untimely paid, or protested at the wrong port, depriving the court of authority to adjudicate Netchem's claims.
[...]
Seventeen of Netchem's entries were liquidated too late. Another twenty-five entries were paid too late. And the one entry remaining that was both timely liquidated and paid was not protested in accordance with relevant regulations. These deficiencies deprive the court of jurisdiction over Netchem's entries. The Government's motion to dismiss is granted and judgment will enter accordingly.
Netchem, Inc. v. United States, 12-00123, 2014 WL 563811 (Ct. Int'l Trade Feb. 14, 2014) (dismissing plaintiff's claims against U.S. concerning 3.7% tariff)
No comments:
Post a Comment