Cite as: 523 U. S. 360 (1998)
Opinion of the Court
general support of government, but exclusively for the facilitation of commercial navigation.
Numerous cases challenging the constitutionality of the HMT as applied to exports are currently pending in the CIT and the Court of Federal Claims.2 We granted certiorari, 522 U. S. 944 (1997), to review the Federal Circuit's determination that the HMT violates the Export Clause.
II
As an initial matter, we conclude that the CIT properly entertained jurisdiction in this case. The complaint alleged exclusive original jurisdiction in that tribunal under 28 U. S. C. § 1581(a) or, alternatively, § 1581(i). App. 26. We agree with the CIT and the Federal Circuit that § 1581(i) is the applicable jurisdictional prescription. The key directive is stated in 26 U. S. C. § 4462(f)(2), which instructs that for jurisdictional purposes, the HMT "shall be treated as if such tax were a customs duty."
Section 1581(a) surely concerns customs duties. It confers exclusive original jurisdiction on the CIT in "any civil action commenced to contest the [Customs Service's] denial of a protest." A protest, as indicated in 19 U. S. C. § 1514, is an essential prerequisite when one challenges an actual Customs decision. As to the HMT, however, the Federal Circuit correctly noted that protests are not pivotal, for Customs "performs no active role," it undertakes "no analysis [or adjudication]," "issues no directives," "imposes no liabilities"; instead, Customs "merely passively collects" HMT payments. 114 F. 3d, at 1569.
Section 1581(i) describes the CIT's residual jurisdiction over
2 According to the Government, some 4,000 cases raising this claim are currently stayed in the CIT, with more than 100 additional cases stayed in the Court of Federal Claims. See Brief for United States 4.
365
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007