No Protests If Liquidation Hasn't Happened Yet, Lumber Importer Says
The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over an importer’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) because it has previously ruled that an administrative protest against an entry’s liquidation cannot be brought before the liquidation has occurred, that importer said in a brief contesting the U.S. motion to dismiss (Fraserview Remanufacturing Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00063).
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.
The government has argued that importer Fraserview’s case should be dismissed because Fraserview hasn't yet exhausted its administrative remedies -- a protest the company submitted to CBP is currently suspended. Even though that protest hadn't been resolved, the importer filed its complaint in 2023 to litigate a liquidation notice mistakenly put up by CBP for entries also still suspended for other reasons.
If liquidation hasn't yet occurred, the court has ruled in a previous case involving Fraserview, Fraserview I, a protest against that liquidation cannot be lodged with CBP, the importer said. Although it admitted it did file a protest prior to this case “pursuant to CBP’s insistence that administrative protest was not only permitted but was Fraserview’s only avenue for relief,” that protest was invalid, it said.
Fraserview I and this case are substantively the same because both regard mistaken liquidation notices, the importer said: one about its 2017 entries of softwood lumber from Canada, and one about its 2019 entries. Fraserview said it had even attempted to designate Fraserview I as a test case for all its similar claims, but that that motion was denied by the court.
The only difference between the two cases was that Fraserview filed an administrative protest before the current one, it said; the legal question is the same, it said.
It also said that if it had waited until the suspension on its administrative protest was lifted, it might have been barred from court relief by the statute of limitations.