With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: 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
C: holding that plaintiffs claim properly belonged only in the court of federal claims under 28 usc  1491
D: holding that jurisdiction to hear appeal from resolution of a rule 35 motion arises under 18 usc  3742 rather than 28 usc  1291
A.