(a) Request for accelerated disposition. Accelerated disposition of a protest filed in accordance with section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1514) may be obtained at any time after 90 days from the filing of such protest for entries made before December 18, 2004, or at any time concurrent with or following the filing of the protest for entries made on or after December 18, 2004, by filing by registered or certified mail a written request for accelerated disposition with the port director, Center director, or other CBP officer with whom the protest was filed. Accelerated disposition of a protest is not available for protests involving eligibility for USMCA preferential tariff treatment of a covered vehicle if the protest relates to the Department of Labor's analysis of the high-wage components of the labor value content (LVC) requirements as described under § 182.105(e) of this chapter.
(b) Contents of request. A request for accelerated disposition of protest shall contain the following information:
(1) The name, address, and importer number of the protestant, i.e., the importer of record or consignee, and the name and address of his agent or attorney if filed by one of these; and
(2) The date of filing and number of the protest for which accelerated disposition is requested.
(c) Review following request. The Center director shall review the protest which is the subject of the request within 30 days from the date of mailing of a request for accelerated disposition filed in accordance with the provisions of this section, and may allow or deny the protest in whole or in part.
(d) Failure to allow or deny protest within 30-day period. If the Center director fails to allow or deny a protest which is the subject of a request for accelerated disposition within 30 days from the date of mailing of such request, the protest shall be deemed to have been denied at the close of the 30th day following such date of mailing.
(e) Multiple protests. If several protests by different persons are timely filed and treated as part of a single protest pursuant to § 174.15, a request for accelerated disposition filed by any one of the protesting parties shall be treated as a request for accelerated disposition by all the parties.
[T.D. 70-181, 35 FR 13429, Aug. 22, 1970, as amended by CBP Dec. 11-02, 76 FR 2578, Jan. 14, 2011; CBP Dec. 24-18, 90 FR 6483, Jan. 17, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Zojirushi Am. Corp. v. United States, 2016 CIT 78 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
· cites it 2× “§ 1515 (b); see 19 C.F.R. § 174.22 (a). If a protest allowance or denial does not occur within 30 days following such mailing, the protest “shall be deemed denied” on the thirtieth day following the mailing “[f]or purposes of section 1581 of Title 28.”
Forest Prods. Nw., Inc. v. United States, 453 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
“19 C.F.R. § 174.22 (2004). If Customs denies a protest, the importer may appeal to the Court of International Trade within 180 days of the denial.”
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. United States, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
· cites it 2× “On October 6, 1993 it requested accelerated disposition of its protest pursuant to 19 C.F.R § 174.22(a). After receiving no decision for 30 days, the protest was deemed denied pursuant to 19 C.”
Inner Secrets/Secretly Yours, Inc. v. United States, 869 F. Supp. 959 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
· cites it 2× “Defendants argue that plaintiff may not claim that § 1581(a) review would be manifestly inadequate when it has not sought an accelerated review pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.22 (1994). Id. at 16 . Defendants also argue that plaintiffs contention that its potential for lost sales…”
Andrtiz Sundwig GMBH v. United States, 2018 CIT 74 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
· cites it 2× “Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") on June 15, 2018 and requested an accelerated disposition in the matter pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.22 . See Protest, June 17, 2018, ECF No.”
Hitachi Home Elec. (Am.), Inc. v. United States, 661 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “The related regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 174.22 (d), provides (emphases added): If the port director fails to allow or deny a protest which is the subject of a request for accelerated disposition within 30 days from the date of mailing of such request, the protest shall be deemed to…”
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 1020 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
· cites it 2× “§ 1515 (b) and 19 C.F.R. § 174.22 , HAL Antillen requested accelerated disposition of its protest claim on October 6,1993.”
Takashima U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 673 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs Evidence Asserting Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Plaintiff maintains that after filing a letter with Customs requesting accelerated disposition of the protests pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.22 , the protests were deemed denied thirty days thereafter.”
Hitachi Home Elec. (Am.), Inc. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).
“” 19 C.F.R. § 174.22 (d). 8 . The corresponding regulation also explicitly provides for deemed denial of protests of certain merchandise but does not provide for any similar consequence for failure to allow or deny a protest within two years.”
Thyssen Steel Co. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 202 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).
“§§ 1514 and 1515, would cause its business irreparable harm due to the delay inherent within that procedure, even if it used the expedited schedule available in 19 C.F.R. § 174.22 and 19 U.S. C. § 1515.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 174.22(a) — 1 case
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. United States, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
“On October 6, 1993 it requested accelerated disposition of its protest pursuant to 19 C.F.R § 174.22(a). After receiving no decision for 30 days, the protest was deemed denied pursuant to 19 C.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 174.22(d) — 2 cases
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. United States, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1296 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2002).
“On October 6, 1993 it requested accelerated disposition of its protest pursuant to 19 C.F.R § 174.22(a). After receiving no decision for 30 days, the protest was deemed denied pursuant to 19 C.”
Takashima U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 673 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995).
“Plaintiffs Evidence Asserting Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Plaintiff maintains that after filing a letter with Customs requesting accelerated disposition of the protests pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.22 , the protests were deemed denied thirty days thereafter.”
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.