With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 15, 526 F.2d 560 (1975); Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. United States, 47 C.C.P.A. 52, 275 F.2d 472 (1959); Marianao Sugar Trading Corp. v. United States, 29 Cust. Ct. 275, 283-86, C.D. 1481 (1952), aff'd, 41 C.C.P.A. 236, C.A.D. 557 (1954). Furthermore, cases plaintiff cites which forgive or deem satisfied exhaustion of administrative remedies when exhaustion is futile, are distinguishable. They address decision making outside Customs’ § 1514 jurisdiction and/or discretionary exhaus tion principles. These cases do not stand for the proposition that applicable statutorily-mandated exhaustion requirements, such as those found in 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a), may be deemed futile. The only issue remaining is whether U.S. v. U.S. Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360, 365-66, 118 S.Ct. 1290, 140 L.Ed.2d 453 (1998) (<HOLDING>), by finding jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

A: holding political discharges were unconstitutional
B: holding hmt on exports unconstitutional
C: holding section 61137 unconstitutional on its face
D: holding export provision severable from other hmt provisions
B.