With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". have been brought in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii). According to the Government, because 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) could have been invoked, and was not a manifestly inadequate means to obtain relief, plaintiffs cannot now invoke residual jurisdiction under § 1581(i). Plaintiffs respond that application of the Reseller Policy is a decision separate from the administrative review, despite the fact that it is reflected in boilerplate in a periodic review determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a). According to plaintiffs, application of the Reseller Policy is a decision which relates to the liquidation instructions, and can be challenged only under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). See Consol. Bearings Co. v. United States, 348 F.3d 997, 1002 (Fed.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In this case, plaintiffs cannot bring suit

A: recognizing a challenge to jurisdiction as a viable claim
B: holding that a challenge to liquidation instructions falls under  1581i jurisdiction
C: holding that tennessee court exceeded its statutory jurisdiction when it ordered liquidation of assets outside tennessee
D: holding that a challenge to the proper weight of the evidence is a question of fact outside this courts jurisdiction
B.