refund requests, alleged a controversy ripe for judicial resolution. We therefore reverse the Court of International Trade’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of Ford’s claims concerning entries that CBP liquidated post-complaint. B We next turn to the Court of International Trade’s dismissal of certain Ford claims for lack of case or controversy. The court concluded that Ford “abandoned” certain claims with a dispositive concession in one of its briefs. Dismissal Op., 716 F.Supp.2d at 1310-11. Although the Court of International Trade did not use the term, we view this dismissal as rooted in the well-recognized rule that if its underlying controversy disappears, a case is moot and non-justieiable. See, e.g., Kaw Nation v. Norton, 405 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). On appeal, Ford argues that it made no such
holding when a party fails to provide arguments or supporting authority for his assertion the party is deemed to have abandoned the issue holding case moot where one party voluntarily abandoned its arguments holding in counseled appeal that an issue was abandoned where it was referred to in the statement of the case but no arguments on the merits were raised holding that arguments not briefed are abandoned holding that petitioners had abandoned arguments not raised below