## Facts

- A trade association of licensed customs brokers and freight forwarders challenged Customs’ administration of 19 U.S.C. § 1484 governing who may file entry documentation for imported merchandise.
- The dispute arose from consolidated shipments transported by international courier services, where a courier would designate a broker to clear a consolidated load even if individual owners had designated different brokers for their own packages.
- The association sought an order compelling Treasury and Customs to issue regulations establishing a priority hierarchy among entities permitted to make entry for consolidated courier shipments.
- The association argued that a courier-selected broker was not “appropriately designated” under § 1484(a)(2)(C) unless designated by the owner, purchaser, or consignee, and that an owner’s broker designation should prevent a different broker from filing entry as part of a consolidated entry.
- The government defended its existing practices and the agency’s discretion in structuring entry procedures.
- The case was presented on cross-motions focusing on whether the association stated a legally sufficient basis for mandamus-type, injunctive, or declaratory relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the association showed a legally protected, “colorable” statutory right or injury sufficient to challenge Customs’ practices and seek court-ordered rulemaking.
2. Whether 19 U.S.C. § 1484 imposes a nondiscretionary duty on Treasury/Customs to promulgate regulations establishing a hierarchy of parties permitted to make entry.
3. Whether Customs acted unlawfully by allowing a consignee (including a courier in consolidated-shipment contexts) to designate a broker to file entry even when an owner had designated a different broker.

## Decision

- The Court of International Trade dismissed the association’s claims and denied the requested relief.
- The court held the association failed to identify a legally protected, colorable right under § 1484 to require the regulatory hierarchy it demanded.
- The court held § 1484 did not impose a clear, ministerial duty to promulgate the specific hierarchy-creating regulations sought, making mandamus-type relief unavailable.
- The court declined to displace Customs’ interpretation of who may designate a broker (including the role of a consignee in consolidated shipments) absent a clear statutory command.

## Legal Principles

- To obtain judicial relief compelling agency action, a plaintiff must show a legally protected, colorable right affected by the challenged action; competitive or business-expectation injuries, without a statutory entitlement, are insufficient.
- 19 U.S.C. § 1484 authorizes entry filing by the owner or purchaser, or by a licensed customs broker “appropriately designated” by the owner, purchaser, or consignee; the statute does not grant any particular broker a right to be selected.
- General statutory authority to regulate does not, without specific statutory direction, create a judicially enforceable duty to adopt particular substantive regulations.
- Courts will not mandate a restructuring of customs entry procedures where Congress has left policy and administrative choices to the agency and the statute lacks an explicit directive.

## Conclusion

The Court of International Trade refused to compel Treasury and Customs to adopt regulations prioritizing who may make entry for consolidated courier shipments, holding that § 1484 confers no broker entitlement to be designated and that rulemaking content remained within agency discretion absent a clear statutory mandate.


National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. United States, 731 F. Supp. 1076 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990)