United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 21-46

Before the Court in Acquisition 362, LLC v. United States, Court No. 20-03762, Slip Op. 21-46 (April 21, 2021) was the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction regarding Plaintiff’s case contesting the denial of its protests over countervailing duties on the importation of certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China over the course of multiple entries throughout 2016. Although Plaintiff acknowledged it filed the protests with Customs later than 180 days after liquidation, it argued the 180-day clock should not have begun at the time of liquidation. Rather, Plaintiff argued its protests were timely because they were filed within 180 days of Customs’ receipt of instructions from Commerce. The Government responded that, “because Plaintiff’s protests were filed more than 180 days after liquidation, the protests are untimely and fail to meet the requirements necessary to establish jurisdiction before this Court. For the following reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

“To adjudicate a case, a court must have subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim presented.” Id. at 5. This Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) provides for “exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced to contest the denial of a protest, in whole or in part, under section 515 of the Tariff Act of 1930.” Id. at 6. A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. A protest must have been timely filed under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3) for this Court to obtain jurisdiction over a suit that contests its denial. Id. at 9. In this case, the Court explained that Plaintiff’s challenge failed for two reasons. Id. at 11. “First, by using a protest against Customs to dispute a determination made by Commerce, Plaintiff has invoked the wrong jurisdictional statute. Compare 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) (providing jurisdiction over denials of Customs protests) with 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (providing jurisdiction for challenges to determinations of countervailing duty rates by Commerce). Second, Plaintiff’s admission that it filed its protests more than 180 days after Customs liquidated its entries also proves fatal. Were Plaintiff’s protests permissible, they would be untimely and thus deprive the Court of jurisdiction. Either reason is sufficient to require dismissal.” Id. As such, the Court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss. Id. at 11.