of those final results.”); Shinyei Corp. of Am. v. United States, 355 F.3d 1297, 1304 (Fed.Cir.2004) (finding that the issuance of “clean up” liquidation instructions was not a decision specified in 19 U.S.C. § 1516a; therefore, jurisdiction was not available under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c)). These cases make clear that parties are not required to challenge substantive determinations un der § 1581(c), with which they agree, in order to preserve a challenge to instructions governing the liquidation of goods. Instead, parties are to file § 1581(i) suits to challenge liquidation instructions, particularly where they do not reflect Commerce’s underlying 19 U.S.C. § 1516a determination. Accord Canadian Wheat Bd. v. United States, Slip Op. 07-61, 2007 WL 1219687, at *5-*8 (CIT Apr. 24, 2007) (<HOLDING>). The general rule appears to be that
holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction   depends upon the district court finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 usc  1330a and proper service under 28 usc  1608 holding that plaintiffs claim properly belonged only in the court of federal claims under 28 usc  1491 holding that plaintiffs who prevailed before a nafta binational panel rather than this court could nevertheless challenge the terms of the resulting notice of revocation under 28 usc  1581i4 holding that jurisdiction to hear appeal from resolution of a rule 35 motion arises under 18 usc  3742 rather than 28 usc  1291 holding that the plain language of 42 usc  4654c precludes the court from including in its award to the plaintiffs any reimbursement for expenses incurred by the plaintiffs before they decided to file suit in the court of claims under 28 usc  1491