this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction could be decided promptly and without undue expense. See H.R.Rep. No. 96-1235, at 20 (1980), as reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3729, 3731 (stating that the Customs Courts Act was intended to provide a “comprehensive system [that] will ensure greater efficiency in judicial resources and uniformity in the judicial decision making process”). Arguments about whether these cases should be decided pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) or (i) do nothing to fulfill this purpose. Taking a broader and statutorily consistent view of § 1581® jurisdiction, as did the courts in Consolidated Bearings, 348 F.3d at 1002, Shinyei, 355 F.3d at 1309, and Mukand Int’l, Ltd. v. United States, No.2006-1258, 2007 WL 571026, at *3 (Fed.Cir. Feb.6, 2007) (non-precedential) (<HOLDING>), better serves the purpose of the statute.
holding that an order dismissing a claim without prejudice is a final appealable order if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired holding that a developers claim for breach of fiduciary duty was actually a contract action properly brought in the court of claims holding that a claim for reliquidation of entries found not subject to an antidumping duty order was properly brought under  1581i4 holding that trial court properly found that claim was timebarred when the gravamen of claim for breach of fiduciary duties was an alleged failure to correctly read an ultrasound and reach proper diagnosis and accordingly the claim amounted to a claim of negligence that went to the propriety of the defendants medical skill and judgment holding a claim originally brought by a person who subsequently filed bankruptcy under chapter 11 was not subject to the automatic stay