Task: Text Completion
Input (English): 90-day window. The court is not persuaded that this proposed alternative approach constitutes^ an adequate remedy for Plaintiffs. First, § 1501 simply authorizes Customs, in its discretion, to revisit a liquidation within 90 days of the notice. It does not confer any rights on Plaintiffs and therefore does not constitute a “remedy” for Plaintiffs that would preclude injunctive relief. See Canadian Lumber, 30 CIT at _, 441 F.Supp.2d at 1266 (“a cognizable alternative remedy must rest on more than the whim or discretion of a defendant”). Second, monitoring the liquidation of entries subject to an anti-dumping duty order is a serious challenge even for importers who have access to complete information regarding an entry. See, e.g., Juice Farms, Inc. v. U.S., 68 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>). Defendant-Intervenors were themselves 
 Holding statements: (A) holding weintraub rational inapplicable to liquidations because corporation ceases to exist after liquidation order (B) holding defendant cannot establish prejudice merely by alleging court held probation revocation hearing after defendants period of probation expired (C) holding hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by reforming indefinite suspension to temporary suspension of 92 days in excess of 15day statutory period for temporary suspensions (D) holding that the oneyear period begins to run after the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari has expired (E) holding customs violation of statutory suspension of liquidation not actionable by importer who discovered improper liquidations after protest period had expired
Output (English): (E)