With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.2d 832, 837-38 (Fed. Cir. 1993), recognized a Tucker Act remedy (see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (1994)) for recovery ofpenalties paid in mitigation proceedings under 19 U.S.C. § 1592. It did not determine whether there was a remedy with respect to duties tendered to obtain prior disclosure treatment or in which court suits for such a remedy may be commenced. Shiepe v. United States, 866 F. Supp. 1430, 1432-33 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), and Miami Free Zone Corp. v. United States, 17 CIT 687, 692, 826 F. Supp. 526, 530 (1993), both seem to conclude that Trayco limits importer-initiated penalty refund suits to the district courts or the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. Shiepe, in addition, makes clear that the Carlingswitch v. United States, 500 F. Supp. 223, 227 (Cust. Ct. 1980) (<HOLDING>), aff’d, 651 F.2d 768 (C.C.P.A. 1981), line of

A: holding that in rem civil forfeitures under 21 usc  881a7 are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause
B: holding that neither importers voluntary tender of mitigated penalty nor customs subsequent refusal to refund monies tendered was an exaction under 19 usc  1514 for purposes of establishing jurisdiction
C: holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment
D: holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims because the court may review neither criminal matters nor the decisions of district courts
B.