- While § 1491 doesn't mention customs, its broad language covering claims "founded upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress" has been interpreted to include illegal exactions.
- Case law (e.g., Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States[5]) recognizes Tucker Act jurisdiction for customs refunds when protest remedies are unavailable or inadequate.
- However, courts generally require exhaustion of protest procedures first, making Tucker Act claims a limited fallback option.
- § 1514 allows importers to protest CBP decisions on classification, valuation, duties, etc. within 180 days.
- § 1515 then provides that denied protests can be challenged by civil action in the Court of International Trade.
- These sections create the primary administrative exhaustion requirement for customs disputes.
28 U.S.C. § 1581[3] gives the Court of International Trade exclusive jurisdiction over customs matters.
- § 1581(a) specifically grants exclusive jurisdiction over § 1515 actions (denied protests).
- § 1581(i) provides residual jurisdiction over customs-related civil actions against the U.S.
- This exclusive jurisdiction means federal district courts generally cannot hear customs cases.
Tucker Act claims (28 U.S.C. § 1491[4]) allow recovery of improperly collected duties.
- While § 1491 doesn't mention customs, its broad language covering claims "founded upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress" has been interpreted to include illegal exactions.
- Case law (e.g., Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States[5]) recognizes Tucker Act jurisdiction for customs refunds when protest remedies are unavailable or inadequate.
- However, courts generally require exhaustion of protest procedures first, making Tucker Act claims a limited fallback option.
[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1514
[2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1515
[3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1581
[4]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1491
[5]: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/077/77.F3d....