Protest Needed to Challenge Liquidation Extension Decision, US Tells CIT
The Court of International Trade "should not entertain" importer Greentech Energy Solution's challenge to CBP's extension of the liquidation deadline for the 19 entries at issue since it doesn't appear in Greentech's amended complaint, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply brief Dec. 22, the government said that even if the claim was in the complaint, the trade court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear it since Greentech should have filed a protest with CBP to first challenge the decision (Greentech Energy Solutions v. United States, CIT # 23-00118).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Greentech brought the case to challenge the assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties on its solar cell imports from Vietnam, arguing that the lack of a dumping, subsidization or injury finding by way of any investigation on solar cells from Vietnam made the assessment of the duties illegal (see 2306130025). In response to a question from the court on why the entries hadn't been liquidated after a year had passed, DOJ said the statute allowed CBP to extend the liquidation deadline.
The importer argued that CBP had to have a reason to extend the deadline were this law to apply (see 2312210070). In response, the U.S. argued that extensions of the liquidation deadline "are merged into the liquidation," meaning that an importer must protest liquidation if it wishes to challenge this decision, "exhaust administrative remedies, and pursue any judicial review," the government said. Greentech failed to do this and "has not shown that the protest process would be manifestly inadequate to resolve its new claim," which would have established jursidiction under Section 1581(i).