The Center director shall allow or deny in whole or in part a protest filed in accordance with section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1514) within 2 years from the date the protest was filed. If the protest is allowed in whole or in part the Center director shall remit or refund any duties, charge, or exaction found to have been collected in excess, or pay any drawback found due. If a protest of an exporter or producer under § 174.12(a)(5) or (a)(6) of this part is allowed in whole or in part, any monies found to have been collected in excess shall be refunded to the party who paid the monies even if such party did not file an appropriate and timely protest under this part. If the protest is denied in whole or in part the Center director shall give notice of the denial in the form and manner prescribed in § 174.30.
[T.D. 70-181, 35 FR 13429, Aug. 22, 1970, as amended by T.D. 94-1, 58 FR 69472, Dec. 30, 1993; CBP Dec. 24-18, 90 FR 6483, Jan. 17, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Under the Weather, LLC v. United States, 2024 CIT 99 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2024).
· cites it 3× “§ 1515 (a); 19 C.F.R. §§ 174.29 , 174.30(a). When Customs allows a protest, Customs need only “refund any duties .”
Labay Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 83 Cust. Ct. 152 (Cust. Ct. 1979).
· cites it 2× “The only requirements concerning the form of a denial of a protest are found in 19 CFR 174.29 and 174.30 (1974). 19 CFR 174.”
Mitel, Inc. v. United States, 782 F. Supp. 1567 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1992).
· cites it 2× “19 C.F.R. § 174.29 (1989). In addition, the Customs Regulations provide that a protest may be denied or allowed in whole or in part; and that if the protest is allowed in whole or in part, the district director shall, inter alia, pay any drawback refund found due.”
Erwin Hymer Grp. North Am. Inc. v. United States, 2017 CIT 151 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
· cites it 2× “§ 1515 (a) (providing for the administrative review of filed protests); 19 C.F.R. § 174.29 (2014) (directing the port director to allow or deny a protest, filed under 19 U.”
Dal-Tile Corp. v. United States, 116 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000).
“” Also, 19 C.F.R. § 174.29 (1994) requires, “[i]f a protest is allowed in whole or in part the district director shall remit or refund any duties .”
United States v. Desiree Int'l U. S. A., Ltd., 497 F. Supp. 264 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
“§ 1514 , for which specific procedures are mandated: protests are to be allowed or denied within two years of filing, 19 C.F.R. § 174.29 , and a notice of any denial is to be mailed to the protesting party, 19 C.”
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.