Carillo

We hold that an importer may not bring a Bivens action to recover consequential damages against Customs agents who assessed import duty at an incorrect rate. Bivens actions do not lie when Congress has created an alternative remedial scheme — such as exists for the protest of an erroneously assessed duty — even though the scheme does not permit the recovery of all elements of damage the importer claims to have suffered.

I. Background

In August 1994, Libas imported 32 bales of rolled cotton fabric from India. Using a new test designed by the Customs Service Laboratory in Los Angeles, 1 Customs analyzed the fabric and determined it to have been “power-loomed.” According to the tariff schedule then in effect, power-loomed cotton was subject to duty at an II.4% ad valorem rate and also subject to certain quotas. In contrast, hand-loomed cotton fabric was subject to duty at a 6% ad valorem rate.

Libas filed a protest pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514 (a)(4). When the protest was denied, Libas filed suit in the Court of International Trade, which upheld the imposition of the duty at the higher rate. Libas, Ltd. v. United States, 20 C.I.T. 1215 , 944 F.Supp. 938 (1996). On appeal to the…