Opinion ID: 478841
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade.

Text: 13 The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1581(a) (1982) over a civil action to contest the denial of a protest under 19 U.S.C. Secs. 1514, 1515 (1982). Pagoda's May 24, 1982, protest was timely filed within 90 days of the February 26, 1982, liquidation asserted by Customs. The May 24, 1982, protest was based on two grounds of objection under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1514(a): 14 (1) the appraised value of the merchandise; [and] 15 (2) the classification and rate and amount of duties chargeable[.] 16 On June 18, 1982, Pagoda filed a supplement to the protest asserting that a deemed liquidation had occurred 1 year after each entry, and that Customs' classification and appraisement, as effected by the February 26, 1982, liquidation, were invalid. The trial court found that Pagoda filed the supplement shortly after the time for filing a protest had expired, but prior to disposition of the protest as required by section 1514. 17 In asserting the deemed liquidation issue, the supplement raised a new ground of objection under the following category of 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1514(a): 18 (5) the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry, or any modification thereof[.] 19 In Old Republic Insurance Co. v. United States, 6 the importer protested the duties resulting from a liquidation and later filed a supplement alleging that liquidation was improper because of Customs' failure to send a notice of extension of liquidation. The Court of International Trade held that the supplement was permissible because (1) the original protest was sufficient to advise Customs that the liquidation was being protested and (2) new grounds may be presented in support of objections raised by a protest at any time prior to the disposition of the protest. 7 20 Here, the trial court found that Pagoda's supplement (raising the new ground of deemed liquidation) was timely because it related to the original protest of the classification and appraisement decisions and because the new ground was raised prior to the disposition of the protest. 8 The Government has failed to show that the court's findings were clearly erroneous or that the court erred as a matter of law. 9 21 The trial court also was correct in holding that the supplement filed by Pagoda challenged the same decisions as those challenged in the original protest. Since the supplement did not challenge a different decision, but merely raised a new ground in support of the objections in the original protest, the supplement did not have to be filed within the 90-day period after the February 26, 1982, liquidation asserted by Customs. 10 22 The present case is distinguishable from Computime, Inc. v. United States, 11 involving entries of watches composed of a watch module and case attached to a watchband. Computime filed a timely protest on the classification of the watch modules only. After Customs rendered a favorable decision on the first protest, Computime then filed a second protest on the classification of the watchband. The Federal Circuit held that the second protest was impermissible because a decision already had been rendered on a protest involving a separate item in the same entry. 23 Here, Pagoda was permitted to file the supplement raising [n]ew grounds in support of objections raised by a valid protest    at any time prior to the disposition of the protest. 12 (Emphasis supplied.) Pagoda's supplement related to the original protest in that it objected to the same classification and appraisement decisions effected by the February 26, 1982, liquidation asserted by Customs. The trial court found that the supplement was timely filed with Customs prior to the disposition of the protest, and the Government has failed to show clear error in this finding. 24 The deemed liquidation issue was properly and timely raised before Customs during the section 1514 protest and the section 1515 review. Therefore, the Court of International Trade correctly exercised jurisdiction to decide the deemed liquidation issue in the ensuing civil action contesting the denial of the protest. 13 25