United States Court of International Trade

Case No. 21-2176

Before the Court in ARP Materials, Inc., v. United States, Case No. 21-2176 (September 6, 2022) was an appeal from the United States Court of International Trade’s (“CIT”) decision to dismiss ARP Materials, Inc. (“ARP”) and Harrision Steel Casting Co. (“Harrision”); (collectively “appellants’”) claim “seek[ing] refunds of estimated duties they deposited with the United States Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) for tariffs that the United States Trade Representation rescinded” for lack of jurisdiction. Id at 2. Appellants bought the under the CIT’s 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) residual jurisdiction. The CIT dismissed the case because protest jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1581(a) was available. Id at 2. The Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s dismissal on the basis for lack of jurisdiction. Id at 16.

Section 1581(i) jurisdiction cannot be invoked if there is jurisdiction under another subsection of §1581. Id at 10. If there was another section where jurisdiction was available, the court then examines if “the remedy provided is manifestly inadequate”. Id at 11. Some products are excluded from Section 301 duties based on Customs determination. ARP made five entries of merchandise, which were liable for Section 301 duties. Id at 6. However, the USTR “granted exclusion requests that covered products of the same category of products as ARP’s merchandise”. Id. The exclusions were applied retroactively until August 23, 2018 and stayed in effect through July 31, 2020. Id at 7. After ARP protested Customs’ assessment on their entries, Customs denied the request due to untimeliness. Id. Harrison Steel Casting Co., also had Section 301 exclusion protest denied as untimely. The court held “these classification decisions are necessarily protestable decisions under 19 U.S.C. §1514 because proper classification of goods under the HTSUS requires the agency to first ascertain the meaning of specific terms in the tariff provisions and then determine whether the subject merchandise comes within the description of those terms.” Id. at 12-13. The court also holds that there would have been a remedy available under § 1581(a) but for the untimely protests. Id at 14. However, “a remedy is not inadequate simply because the importer failed to invoke it within the time frame that is prescribed.” Id. Therefore, the Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s decision and “dismiss[es] ARP’s and Harrison’s amended complaints for lack of jurisdiction.” Id at 16.