No Protesting NAFTA, Really!

For years, Customs has said that importers can't seek a refund of duties paid on NAFTA-originating merchandise via standard refund. The reason for this is that if the importer failed to make a claim at the time of entry and Customs liquidates it accordingly, it made no mistake that can be challenged. At least that has been Customs' take on the question. If you want a post-entry refund, you need to apply for it via a request for reliquidation under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d). These requests must be filed within one year of the date of importation.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now had the opportunity to weigh in on this in a case called Xerox Corp.Vv. United States. Xerox filed protests to seek NAFTA refunds and Customs denied all but one of the protests finding them to be untimely. This is because all but one of the protests was filed more than a year after the date of entry. Customs treated the remaining protest as a request for reliquidation.

The Federal Circuit look at the law, regulationss, and legislative history and found that the one-year limit is a strict requirement. More important, the Court also held that the lack of a NAFTA claim at the time of entry means that Customs made no decision regarding the NAFTA status of the goods. As a result, there was no protestable decision and, therefore, there could be no valid protest of the NAFTA status of the merchandise. Obviously worried about how far this holding might apply, the Court was clear that is did not mean to imply that when Customs liquidates merchandise "as entered," there is no protestable decision. Mainly, this seems to be because 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d) specifically addresses this question. But, it seems to be a dangerously slipper slope. We'll have to see.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl...
Read more

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more