CIT Tells Importer to Address Whether Court Can Review Protest If CBP Acting Ministerially
The Court of International Trade in a text-only order instructed importer Acquisition 362, doing business as Strategic Supply, to address "whether the court has jurisdiction to review the denial of a protest if the basis for the denial" is that CBP was "simply following" the Commerce Department's instructions (Acquisition 362 v. United States, CIT # 24-00011).
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 order came as the importer readies its response to the government's motion to dismiss the suit, which concerns 33 entries of passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China subject to a 64.57% antidumping duty rate. The U.S. said the lawsuit challenging the denied protests was untimely, the importer lacked standing to sue, and that the company failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted (see 2404180054).
Judge Mark Barnett asked the importer if CBP was acting ministerially in liquidating the entries and, if so, were such liquidations protestable.
The importer said CBP prematurely liquidated the entries and that they should have remained suspended at the 8.72% cash deposit rate pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in YC Rubber Co. v. U.S. The government said the injunction in YC Rubber doesn't extend to the importer's entries, since it only covers tire shipments imported by Sutong China Tire Resources, and the entries at issue were imported by Strategic Supply.