## Facts

- An importer filed multiple actions in the Court of International Trade (CIT) contesting the tariff classification of synthetic silica.
- The CIT decided a designated “test case” in the importer’s favor, holding the merchandise duty-free under the claimed tariff item, and that decision became final.
- Twelve related actions were suspended pending the test case and then placed on the CIT’s suspension disposition calendar.
- The clerk issued a notice setting a “suspense date” for removing the cases from the calendar that was earlier than the period permitted by the court’s rule.
- When the cases were not removed by the suspense date, the clerk dismissed them.
- Thirty-three days after the dismissal orders, the importer moved under CIT Rule 60(b)(1) to vacate the dismissals, citing grounds consistent with mistake or excusable neglect.
- The CIT indicated it would grant relief on equitable grounds if it had authority, but denied the motion based on a perceived lack of “jurisdiction,” relying on precedent from the former Customs Court era and the 30-day limit in 28 U.S.C. § 2646.
- The importer appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the CIT, given its statutory grant of powers in law and equity comparable to a federal district court, has authority to vacate clerk-entered dismissals under CIT Rule 60(b).
2. Whether prior precedent limiting the former Customs Court’s equitable authority barred Rule 60(b) relief in the modern CIT.
3. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2646’s 30-day limit for motions for retrial or rehearing bars a Rule 60(b) motion filed more than 30 days after entry of dismissal orders.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded.
- The court held the CIT possesses equitable authority to grant relief under CIT Rule 60(b) and therefore may vacate the clerk’s dismissal orders and restore the actions.
- The court concluded the earlier Customs Court precedent did not control because it rested on the absence of equitable powers that Congress later conferred on the CIT.
- The court held § 2646 governs motions for retrial or rehearing, not Rule 60(b) motions, and thus did not bar the requested relief.

## Legal Principles

- The CIT has “all the powers in law and equity” of a United States district court, including authority to grant relief from judgments or orders under Rule 60(b).
- Limits on equitable relief applicable to the former Customs Court do not restrict the CIT where Congress has expanded the CIT’s remedial powers by statute.
- Subject-matter jurisdiction over the underlying action is distinct from the court’s authority to grant a particular remedy; mislabeling remedial authority as “jurisdiction” is error.
- The 30-day limit in 28 U.S.C. § 2646 applies to statutory motions for retrial or rehearing and does not, by its terms, preclude Rule 60(b) relief.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that the Court of International Trade may use Rule 60(b) to provide equitable relief from clerk-entered dismissals and that § 2646’s 30-day deadline for retrial or rehearing does not bar Rule 60(b) motions, requiring reversal of the denial and remand for the trial court to exercise its authority.


Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 880 F.2d 401 (Fed. Cir. 1989)