With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". pursuant to 28 U.S. C. 1292(a)(3) which permits interlocutory appeals of district court decrees that determine “the rights and liabilities of the parties” in admiralty cases. We are required to review the basis for this court’s jurisdiction sua sponte if necessary. Francis on Behalf of Francis v. Forest Oil Corp., 798 F.2d 147, 149 (5th Cir.1986). We hold that we do not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(3). The decision whether the $500 COGSA limitation on damages applies in this case is not a decision determining the rights and liabilities of the parties. In fact, if we were to hold that the $500 limit applies, we would still have to remand this case for a decision on whether the defendants were liable. See Ford Motor Company v. S.S. Santa Irene, 341 F.2d 564 (5th Cir.1965) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the appellants’ appeal is

A: holding that the rule 21 severance rendered the district court verdict a final and appealable judgment under 28 usc  1291
B: holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc  1291
C: holding that a pretrial order that the 500 cogsa limitation applied was not appealable under 28 usc 1292a3
D: holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391
C.