19 C.F.R. § 174.11

Matters subject to protest

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

The following decisions of CBP, including the legality of all orders and findings entering into those decisions, may be protested under the provisions of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1514):

(a) Clerical errors, mistakes of fact, and other inadvertences. 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), 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 is subject to protest. In addition, any entry, liquidation, or other CBP transaction that occurred prior to December 18, 2004, also may be the subject of a reliquidation request made pursuant to the terms set forth in § 173.4 (19 CFR 173.4).

(b) Administrative decisions. CBP administrative decisions involving the following subject matters are subject to protest:

(1) The appraised value of merchandise;

(2) The classification and rate and amount of duties chargeable;

(3) All charges or exactions of whatever character, including the accrual of interest, within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of the Treasury;

(4) The exclusion of merchandise from entry, delivery, or a demand for redelivery to CBP custody under any provision of the customs laws except a determination that may be appealed under 19 U.S.C. 1337;

(5) The liquidation or reliquidation of an entry, or any modification of an entry;

(6) The refusal to pay a claim for drawback;

(7) The refusal to reliquidate an entry made before December 18, 2004, under section 520(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1520(c)); or

(8) The refusal to reliquidate an entry under section 520(d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1520(d)).

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

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 1987–2018 · leading case: Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, & U.S. Magnesium LLC, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, & U.S. Magnesium LLC, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 174.11 (g). II. Facts and Proceedings Below The material facts are undisputed.”

Commodities Exp. Co., a Michigan Corp. v. U.S. Customs Serv., an Agency of the U.S. Gov't, 888 F.2d 431 (6th Cir. 1989). · cites it 4× “§ 1514 (a), 19 C.F.R. § 174.11 . This procedure includes provision for further review of an adverse initial decision on the protest, 19 C.”

Sandvik Steel Co. v. United States, Fujitsu Ten Corp. of Am. v. United States, 164 F.3d 596 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “See 19 C.F.R. §§ 174.11 (b), 174.12(e). If Customs denies the protest, the importer may challenge the classification by filing suit in the Court of International Trade.”

Thyssenkrupp Steel N. Am., Inc. v. United States, 886 F.3d 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “§ 1514 ]," 19 C.F.R. § 174.11 , and include among the listed decisions "administrative decisions involving .”

Am. Fiber & Finishing, Inc. v. United States, 2015 CIT 117 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). “§ 1514 (20Í2), 1 and 19 C.F.R. § 174.11 (2012), by the'Bureau of Customs and Border Protection' (“CBP” or “Customs”).”

Kairali Decan, Inc. v. United States, 789 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011). · cites it 3× “) Finally, Kairali Decan asserts that it could not have filed a protest because identity theft is not one of the grounds for protesting a Notice to Redeliver given in 19 C.F.R. § 174.11 , which only permits, in relevant part, protests of the legality of orders excluding…”

Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. United States, 843 F. Supp. 728 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994). “§ 1514 (a); 19 C.F.R. § 174.11 (c) (1991). 7 . The Court expressly declines to consider whether 19 C.”

Inner Secrets/Secretly Yours, Inc. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 281 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995). “On or about November 10, 1994, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.11 (1994), plaintiff protested Customs’ denial of entry and classification of its merchandise under HTSUS 6204.”

Chrysler Corp. v. United States, 11 Ct. Int'l Trade 453 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1987). “19 C.F.R. § 174.11 (1983). Accord 19 U.S.”

United States v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp., 2006 CIT 90 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “§ 1520 (c)(1) (reliquidation permitted within one year in order to correct clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence and is protestable event); 19 C.F.R. 174.11(e) (matters subject to protest include “liquidation or reliquidation of an entry, or any modification…”

Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 174.11 (g). II. Facts and Proceedings Below The material facts are undisputed.”

Shinyei Corp. of Am. v. United States, 2011 CIT 69 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011). “It does not limit the documentation that can be filed with a protest under 19 C.F.R. § 174.11 et seq. 15 SCA alleges, in the alternative, the court should find that the markings on the side of the cartons and the U.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— 19 C.F.R. § 174.11(e) — 1 case

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.