Trayco Inc. v. U.S.

4 Citing cases

  1. Best Key Textiles Co. v. United States

    660 F. App'x 905 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    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). "Section 1581(i) provides the CIT with residual jurisdiction over civil actions that arise from import transactions."

  2. Randall v. U.S.

    95 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 1996)   Cited 268 times
    Holding that "Congress intended [in § 2000e-16] to include only civilian employees of the military departments, and not uniformed service members, within the reach of Title VII"

    The provision of 28 U.S.C. §(s) 1295(a)(2) is mandatory and cannot be waived by the parties, because it relates to the subject matter jurisdiction of this court. Trayco, Inc. v. United States, 967 F.2d 97, 100 (4th Cir. 1992).

  3. Trayco, Inc. v. U.S.

    994 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 39 times
    Finding that an importer who pays a penalty under protest in order to pursue administrative remedies does not forego its right to challenge in a judicial proceedings the legality of the underlying penalty

    The Fourth Circuit vacated its opinion and transferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Trayco, Inc. v. United States, 967 F.2d 97 (4th Cir. 1992). The Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over appeals where the district court jurisdiction is based in whole or part on the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (1988).

  4. Shiepe v. U.S.

    866 F. Supp. 1430 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1994)   Cited 1 times

    The district court found that the merchandise had been properly marked and that there was no factual basis to support the penalty and accordingly ordered a refund. The government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit Court affirmed the district court, but upon the government's petition for rehearing, the court vacated its opinion and transferred the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Trayco Inc. v. United States, 967 F.2d 97 (4th Cir. 1992). 19 C.F.R. § 171.33(c)(1).