19 C.F.R. § 159.11
Entries liquidated by operation of law
(a) Time limit generally. Except as provided in § 159.12, an entry not liquidated within one year from the date of entry of the merchandise, or the date of final withdrawal of all merchandise covered by a warehouse entry, will be deemed liquidated by operation of law at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duties asserted by the importer of record. Notice of liquidation will be given electronically as provided in §§ 159.9 and 159.10(c)(3) of this part. CBP will endeavor to provide a courtesy notice of liquidation in accordance with § 159.9(d).
(b) Applicability. The provisions of this section and § 159.12 will apply to entries of merchandise for consumption or withdrawals of merchandise for consumption made on or after April 1, 1979.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: United States v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 229 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
United States v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 229 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “See 19 C.F.R. § 159.11 (“Notice of liquidation will be given on a bulletin notice of liquidation .”
Am. Permac, Inc. v. United States, 642 F. Supp. 1187 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986). “See 19 C.F.R. §§ 159.11 (a) and 159.12(f); Detroit Zoological Society v.”
Int'l Light Metals v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 2d 281 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998). “” 19 C.F.R. § 159.11 (b) (1986). Additionally, defendant points to subsequent legislative history that specifically states, “there is no statutory time limitation for the liquidation of drawback claims.”
Nat'l Corn Growers Ass'n v. Baker, 623 F. Supp. 1262 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1985). “§ 1504 and 19 C.F.R. § 159.11 . 60 . Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rehearing of Denial of Preliminary Injunction and Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, p.”
Wolff Shoe Co., Plaintiff-Cross v. United States, 141 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “” 19 C.F.R. § 159.11 (a). The regulations thus equate the duties asserted by the importer with the estimated duties listed on the importer’s entry papers and deposited at the time of entry with those papers.”
United States v. Ford Motor Co., 395 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “” 19 C.F.R. § 159.11 . However, Customs may extend liquidation for an additional period of time if “[Information needed by Customs for the proper ap-praisement .”
United States v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp., 496 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “” 19 C.F.R. § 159.11 (a). Under 19 C.F.R. § 159.”
Wolff Shoe Co. v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1038 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996). “Defendant argues that pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 159.11 (a) (1995), the time for determining the rate and amount of duty asserted by the importer is the “time of filing an entry summary for consumption in proper form, with estimated duties attached.”
United States v. Great Neck Saw Mfrs., Inc., 2018 CIT 42 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). “Similarly, GNSM maintains that where an entry was liquidated by operation of law pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 159.11 , and the time for filing a protest or voluntarily reliquidating the entry has run, Customs cannot recover additional duties under 19 U.”
United States v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2015 CIT 129 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). “19 C.F.R. § 159.11 (“Notice of liquidation will be given on a bulletin notice of liquidation .”
In re Kalvar Microfilm, Inc., 208 B.R. 819 (Bankr. D. Del. 1997). “” 19 C.F.R. § 159.11 (b). In their briefs, the parties have written about 40 pages on the proper scope of section 504, not including affidavits and other attachments to those briefs.”
FAG Holding Corp. v. United States, 744 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “See § 1504(a); 19 C.F.R. § 159.11 . However, in order to preserve the rights of the parties in certain situations, liquidation may be suspended by court order or during an administrative review of an antidumping duty order.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 159.11(b) — 1 case
Int'l Light Metals v. United States, 24 F. Supp. 2d 281 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998). “” 19 C.F.R. § 159.11 (b) (1986). Additionally, defendant points to subsequent legislative history that specifically states, “there is no statutory time limitation for the liquidation of drawback claims.”
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.