Protest Woes

Here's something else that strikes me as interesting: Avecia, Inc. v. United States (CIT Slip Op. 07-41). Basically, the issue is whether a protest filed at and denied by the wrong port give the Court of International Trade subject matter jurisdiction to review the denial on the substance.

The regulations are clear that the protest should be filed with the port director whose decision is being protested. 19 C.F.R. sec. 174.12(d). The statute requires that "the appropriate customs officer" decide the protest, but it does not specify who that officer is. It could be an officer at another port.

Further, the jurisdictional statute giving the court the power to review denied protests doesn't say anything about where that protest had to be filed. From this, the court found that the place of filing regulation was beyond the "metes and bounds" of the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Customs, through its protest regulations, cannot modify the court's jurisdiction.

This is fundamentally right. The court's jurisdiction is set by statute. No Customs regulation can change it. The statute says that the CIT gets to review denied protests. That means that there needs to be a valid protest. The court seems to hold that there was a valid protest here. It was just filed at the wrong port and that violated the regulation. But, the regulation does not state the consequences of misfiling at the wrong port and does not say that the port director at the wrong port cannot act on the protest. If the regulation said something like that, the case would be a lot harder even though I suspect the decision would have been the same. Jurisdiction is the purview of Congress to be interpreted by the courts. Agency regulations don't really have any say in it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more