324. Contrary to SSI’s claims, the great weight of authority holds that “mere allegations of financial harm, or assertions that an agency failed to follow a statute, do not make the remedy established by Congress manifestly inadequate.” Int’l Custom Prods., 467 F.3d at 1327 (quoting Miller & Co., 824 F.2d 961, 964); see also F.T.C. v. Standard Oil, 449 U.S. 232, 244, 101 S.Ct. 488, 66 L.Ed.2d 416 (1980) (“the expense and annoyance of litigation is part of the social burden of living under government”); Gov’t of the PRC, 31 CIT -, 483 F.Supp.2d 1274, 1283 (“the cost associated with defending oneself in a trade remedy proceeding is not the type of burden with which this Court concerns itself’); Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT 714, 724, 437 F.Supp.2d 1352, 1362 (2006) (<HOLDING>). SSI has failed to demonstrate that adequate
recognizing that no guarantee of payment exists even if administrative expense allowed holding that the inconvenience and expense of the administrative and judicial review process cannot constitute manifest inadequacy holding that judicial review of decisions of military correction boards is review of the administrative record conducted under the administrative procedure act holding the applicable standard of review in addressing the sufficiency of the evidence is manifest error holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record