19 C.F.R. § 173.4

Correction of clerical error, mistake of fact, or inadvertence

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Authority to review and correct entries of merchandise made, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, before December 18, 2004. Even though a valid protest was not filed, the Center director, upon timely application and for entries of merchandise made, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, before December 18, 2004, may correct pursuant to section 520(c)(1), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, a clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, by reliquidation or other appropriate action.

(1) Transactions that may be corrected. Correction may be made to any entry, liquidation, or other customs transaction made before December 18, 2004, if the clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence:

(i) Does not amount to an error in the construction of a law;

(ii) Is adverse to the importer; and

(iii) Is manifest from the record or established by documentary evidence.

(2) Limitation on time for application. A clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be brought to the attention of the Center director or other appropriate CBP officer within 1 year after the date of liquidation or exaction. The party requesting reliquidation under this section must state, to the best of his or her knowledge, whether the entry for which correction is requested is the subject of a drawback claim, or whether the entry has been referenced on a certificate of delivery or certificate of manufacture and delivery so as to enable a party to make such entry the subject of drawback (see §§ 181.50(b) and 191.81(b) of this chapter).

(b) Entries of merchandise made, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after December 18, 2004. For merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after December 18, 2004, CBP does not have the authority, in situations where a valid protest has not been filed, to reliquidate an entry to correct a clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence. For merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after December 18, 2004, and except as provided for in sections 501 (relating to voluntary reliquidations), 516 (relating to petitions by domestic interested parties), and 520 (related to refunds) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, a CBP decision involving any clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence, whether or not resulting from or contained in an electronic submission, that is adverse to the importer in any entry, liquidation or reliquidation, may be corrected by protest only. See 19 CFR 174.11.

[CBP Dec. 11-02, 76 FR 2577, Jan. 14, 2011]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases, 1980–2006 · leading case: Zaki Corp. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 263 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Zaki Corp. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 263 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). · cites it 11× “19 C.F.R. § 173.4 (1992). Case law is clear that “[sjection 1520(c)(1) does not afford a second bite at the apple to importers who fail to challenge Customs’ decision within the 90-day period set forth in § 1514* * *.”

Taban Co. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 230 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997). · cites it 11× “19 C.F.R. § 173.4 (1992). Case law is clear that “[s]ection 1520(c)(1) does not afford a second bite at the apple to importers who fail to challenge Customs’ decision within the 90-day period set forth in § 1514.”

Chrysler Corp. v. United States, 87 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). · cites it 5× “For Customs to reliquidate an entry to correct such a mistake, § 1520(c)(1) and 19 C.F.R. § 173.4 (b)(3) require a party to either (1) show that the alleged error is manifest from the record, or (2) establish the alleged error by documentary evidence.”

Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 157 F.3d 849 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “See 19 C.F.R. § 173.4 (b) (1985). Title 19 thus allows the correction of errors made not only by employees of Customs, but also by employees of an importer.”

G & R Produce Co. v. United States, 281 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 1520 (c)(1); 19 C.F.R. § 173.4 (1994). However, section 1520(c)(1) does not provide a remedy for all mistakes, and only offers limited relief to the importer in the situations described in the statute.”

Black & White Vegetable Co. v. United States, 125 F. Supp. 2d 531 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). · cites it 3× “See 19 C.F.R. §§ 173.4 (b)(l)-(3) (1992). 1 Black & White Did Not Make an “Error in the Construction of a Law.”

Itt Corp. v. United States, 24 F.3d 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “19 C.F.R. § 173.4 (b) (1993). Reliquidation under § 1520(c)(1) thus requires both notice and substantiation.”

Executone Info. Sys. v. United States, 96 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “19 C.F.R. § 173.4 (b) (1996). 5 . At oral argument, counsel for the United States contended that Aviall II was not applicable because it did not present a 19 U.”

Century Importers, Inc. v. United States, 205 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Mistakes of law occur where the facts are known but their legal consequences are not, or are believed to be different than they really are.”

Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 116 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “correct- (1) a clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence not amounting to an error in the construction of a law, adverse to the importer and manifest from the record or established by documentary evidence, in any entry, liquidation, or other customs transaction,…”

AT&T Int'l v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 721 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994). “] Regulations of the Secretary, in particular, 19 C.F.R. § 173.4 (1985), incorporate the substance of this statute.”

Brother Int'l Corp. v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “§ 1520 (c)(1); 19 C.F.R. § 173.4 (Customs regulation implementing § 1520(c)(1))).”

Show all 21 citing cases →

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.