C.F.R. » Title 19 » CHAPTER I—U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY › PART 174—PROTESTS › Subpart C—Review and Disposition of Protests

19 C.F.R. § 174.28

Consideration of additional arguments

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

In determining whether to allow or deny a protest filed within the time allowed, a reviewing officer may consider alternative claims and additional grounds or arguments submitted in writing by the protesting party with respect to any decision which is the subject of a valid protest at any time prior to disposition of the protest. In any case in which alternative claims or additional grounds or arguments are submitted orally, they shall be considered in the allowance or denial of the protest only if submitted in writing in conjunction with, or no later than 60 days after, such oral submission.

(R.S. 251, as amended, secs. 514, 624, 46 Stat. 734, as amended, 759; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1514, 1624) [T.D. 71-15, 36 FR 778, Jan. 16, 1971]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2000–2017 · leading case: Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. v. United States, 441 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. v. United States, 441 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). · cites it 5× “14 and 19 C.F.R. § 174.28 .” PL’s Br. 37. This skeletal protest, though, does not meet the statutory requirements.”
Cisco Sys., Inc. v. United States, 2011 CIT 140 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011). · cites it 2× “” 19 C.F.R. §§ 174.28 ,174.14(a). In a protest “[technical precision is not required; but the objections must be so distinct and specific, as, when fairly construed .”
Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “; see also 19 C.F.R. § 174.28 (1997) (“[A] reviewing officer may consider alternative claims and additional grounds or arguments submitted in writing by the protesting party with respect to any decision which is the subject of a valid protest at any time prior to disposition of…”
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 2017 CIT 139 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). · cites it 2× “1; see 19 C.F.R. § 174.28 . 6 . The penal sum or penal value on an SEB is the dollar amount which the surety is obligated to cover in the event that the importer, as principal on the bond, fails to pay Customs’ demands.”
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.