N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 U.S. 164, 173, 114 S.Ct. 1439, 128 L.Ed.2d 119, (1994)). Marck has not alleged, nor has it offered any evidence to show, that the mugs used by Mugworld were declared a violation of the Tariff Act through the administrative procedures set forth under 19 C.F.R. §§ 12.42-12.44. Int’l Labor Rights Fund v. U.S., 391 F.Supp.2d 1370, 1370-71 (Ct. Int’l Trade.2005); Assoc. Imports, Inc., 609 F.Supp. at 598. Therefore, it cannot have standing to assert the claims it makes here. Moreover, even if it were able to show that the Peng Companies’ actions were declared violations of the Tariff Act, Marck has not shown how it is the sort of entity who has a cognizable interest under the Tariff Act’s provisions. See McKinney, 614 F.Supp. at 1235 (<HOLDING>). As noted by the Court of International Trade,
holding that standing of a qui tam plaintiff under the false claims act requires an injury to the united states holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act holding denial of entry into a void contract not cognizable under  1981 holding that because tariff act does not provide a legally cognizable interest to consumers to prevent the entry of forced labor goods into the united states consumer plaintiffs did not have standing to bring claims under it holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring securities claims relating to funds that plaintiffs did not own