(a) By the appropriate Executive Director, Office of Trade. Upon the denial of an application for a license, the applicant may file with the appropriate Executive Director, Office of Trade, in writing, additional information or arguments in support of the application and may request to appear in person, by telephone, or by other acceptable means of communication. This filing and request must be received by the appropriate Executive Director, Office of Trade within sixty (60) calendar days of the denial.
(b) By the Executive Assistant Commissioner. Upon the decision of the appropriate Executive Director, Office of Trade, affirming the denial of an application for a license, the applicant may file with the Executive Assistant Commissioner, in writing, a request for any additional review that the Executive Assistant Commissioner, deems appropriate. This request must be received by the Executive Assistant Commissioner within sixty (60) calendar days of the affirmation by the appropriate Executive Director, Office of Trade, of the denial of the application for a license.
(c) By the Court of International Trade. Upon a decision of the Executive Assistant Commissioner affirming the denial of an application for a license, the applicant may appeal the decision to the Court of International Trade, provided that the appeal action is commenced within sixty (60) calendar days after the decision date by the Executive Assistant Commissioner.
[CBP Dec. 22-21, 87 FR 63314, Oct. 18, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case:
Bell v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1220 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).
Bell v. United States, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1220 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).
· cites it 2× “On May 16, 1991, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 111.17 (a) (1993), plaintiff appealed his license denial to the Commissioner of Customs.”
O'Quinn v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
· cites it 3× “2 Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 111.17 (a), Plaintiff wrote a letter to Customs on May 13, 1998, requesting a review of his examination and challenging six of the test questions.”
Allen v. Regan, 9 Ct. Int'l Trade 615 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985).
· cites it 5× “Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that *616 plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under 19 C.F.R. § 111.17 (a) and (b) (1985). As a preliminary matter, the court finds it must clear up a…”
Kenny v. Snow, 2004 CIT 60 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
· cites it 3× “Kenny to Deputy Director, Office of Trade and Tariff Affairs of 2/20/ 02; 19 C.F.R. § 111.17 (b) (“Upon the decision of the Assistant Commissioner affirming the denial of an application for a license, the applicant may file with the [Secretary], in writing, a request for any…”
O'Quinn v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
· cites it 3× “2 Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 111.17 (a), Plaintiff wrote a letter to Customs on May 13, 1998, requesting a review of his examination and challenging six of the test questions.”
Chen v. United States, 2025 CIT 117 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2025).
“§ 1641 (e)(1) and 19 C.F.R. § 111.17 . See Admin. R. at 191; see also Pl.”
Tarnove v. Bentsen, 17 Ct. Int'l Trade 1324 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1993).
· cites it 2× “1 Tarnove appealed to the Commissioner of Customs on May 18, 1992 pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 111.17 (a) (1992), and the Acting Director of the Office of Trade Operations later affirmed the license denial.”
Harak v. United States, 2006 CIT 106 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
“§ 1641 (e)(1); 19 C.F.R. § 111.17 (c). This action arises out of Plaintiff’s petition to this Court by letter dated May 10, 2005 pursuant to 19 U.”
Valdez v. United States Sec'y of the Treasury, 2004 CIT 69 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
“Valdez appealed the denial pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 111.17 . On July 24, 2002, Customs informed Valdez that it was unable to approve his application upon review by the Broker Licensing Review Board.”
Rudloff v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 1072 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).
“In this case, Customs provided Rudloff with a forum, pursuant to 19C.F.R. § 111.17 (1994), 12 in which she was able to (1) present information and arguments in support of her application, (2) receive additional review of her application from the Secretary of the Treasury, at…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.