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

A: holding that arguments not briefed are abandoned
B: 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
C: holding when a party fails to provide arguments or supporting authority for his assertion the party is deemed to have abandoned the issue
D: holding case moot where one party voluntarily abandoned its arguments
D.