Court Opinion

ID: 9368632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 14:00:40.282915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:09.866793
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1161   Document: 35     Page: 1    Filed: 02/06/2023

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

 ACQUISITION 362, LLC, DBA STRATEGIC IMPORT
                   SUPPLY,
               Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                   UNITED STATES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2022-1161
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of International
 Trade in No. 1:20-cv-03762-SAV, Judge Stephen A. Vaden.
                  ______________________

                Decided: February 6, 2023
                 ______________________

    HEATHER MARX, Cozen O'Connor, Minneapolis, MN,
 argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
 THOMAS G. WALLRICH.

      HARDEEP KAUR JOSAN, International Trade Field Of-
 fice, United States Department of Justice, New York, NY,
 argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN
 M. BOYNTON, AIMEE LEE, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, JUSTIN
 REINHART MILLER; PAULA S. SMITH, Office of the Assistant
 Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, United
 States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, United
Case: 22-1161    Document: 35     Page: 2    Filed: 02/06/2023

 2                                 ACQUISITION 362, LLC   v. US

 States Department of Homeland Security, Washington,
 DC.
                ______________________

     Before DYK, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 DYK, Circuit Judge.
     Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply
 (“Acquisition”) appeals a decision of the United States
 Court of International Trade (“CIT”) dismissing
 Acquisition’s complaint concerning protests to decisions of
 the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) as to
 certain entries of passenger vehicle and light truck tires.
 We conclude that the CIT lacked subject matter jurisdic-
 tion. Acquisition could have asserted jurisdiction by timely
 protesting the liquidations of these entries under 19 U.S.C.
 § 1514, on the theory that Customs had improperly liqui-
 dated them because the manufacturer of Acquisition’s
 goods was participating in an administrative review. Be-
 cause Acquisition did not timely protest the liquidations,
 the CIT lacked jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a)
 and (i). We affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
      In 2016, Acquisition imported several entries of pas-
 senger vehicle and light truck tires from the People’s
 Republic of China manufactured by Shandong Zhongyi
 Rubber Co., Ltd. (“Shandong Zhongyi”). Because importa-
 tion of tires manufactured by Shandong Zhongyi was sub-
 ject to a 2015 countervailing duty order (“CVD Order”) from
 the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”), 1 Acquisition

     1   See Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck
 Tires from the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final
 Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination and
Case: 22-1161     Document: 35      Page: 3    Filed: 02/06/2023

 ACQUISITION 362, LLC   v. US                                 3

 deposited estimated countervailing duties for the entries at
 a rate of 30.61%, the “all-others” rate established in the
 CVD Order. As discussed in detail below, normally, if an
 administrative review were instituted, liquidation of such
 entries (the final assessment of the duties owed) would con-
 tinue to be suspended until Commerce in the administra-
 tive review retroactively determined the final counter-
 vailing duty rate for the relevant entries imported during
 the period.
      At the request of various interested parties, including
 Shandong Zhongyi, Commerce initiated an administrative
 review of the CVD Order covering entries imported during
 the period of review from January 1, 2016, through
 December 31, 2016 (“Annual Review”). That period cov-
 ered all of the entries at issue here. 2 Upon initiation of the
 Annual Review, Commerce instructed Customs to continue
 suspending liquidation of entries subject to the review but
 to liquidate entries not subject to the review at the esti-
 mated deposit rate. 3 Liquidation of Acquisition’s entries
 was initially suspended because Shandong Zhongyi-
 manufactured products were subject to the Annual Review.

 Antidumping Duty Order; and Amended Final Affirmative
 Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing
 Duty Order, 80 Fed. Reg. 47902, 47907 (Aug. 10, 2015)
 (“CVD Order”). The 2015 CVD Order specifically directed
 Customs to suspend liquidation of entries covered by the
 order. Id.; see also Gov’t’s Suppl. Br. Ex. A, Message
 No. 5226310 (Aug. 14, 2015).
     2   See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
 Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 Fed. Reg. 48051, 48058
 (Oct. 16, 2017) (“Initiation Notice”).
     3   See Gov’t’s Suppl. Br. Ex. B, Message No. 7305313
 (Nov. 1, 2017), at ¶¶ 2–3.
Case: 22-1161     Document: 35     Page: 4    Filed: 02/06/2023

 4                                  ACQUISITION 362, LLC   v. US

     However, before the Annual Review was completed,
 Shandong Zhongyi withdrew from the review. 4 Accord-
 ingly, Commerce ordered Customs to liquidate Shandong
 Zhongyi-manufactured entries imported in 2016, because
 Commerce concluded that those entries were no longer cov-
 ered by the Annual Review and would not be entitled to a
 countervailing duty rate different from the estimated de-
 posit rate. 5 The entries at issue in this appeal were liqui-
 dated according to Commerce’s instructions in October and
 November of 2018, with final countervailing duties as-
 sessed at the 30.61% deposit rate. Importers that wish to
 challenge the liquidation of their entries can do so by filing
 a protest within 180 days of the liquidation. 19 U.S.C.
 § 1514(a)(5), (c)(3)(A). Acquisition did not protest the liq-
 uidation of these entries within 180 days.
     Ultimately, in 2019, Commerce adopted final results of
 the Annual Review (“Amended Final Results”), setting the
 final countervailing duty rates for the 2016 entries of the
 companies under review. 6 The Amended Final Results

     4    See Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck
 Tires From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Re-
 sults of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and
 Rescission, in Part, 83 Fed. Reg. 45611, 45612 (Sept. 10,
 2018) (“Withdrawal Notice”).
      5   See Gov’t’s Suppl. Br. Ex. C, Message No. 8269302
 (Sept. 26, 2018), at ¶ 1.
      6   See Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Passen-
 ger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People’s Repub-
 lic of China: Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty
 Administrative Review; 2016, 84 Fed. Reg. 28011 (June 17,
 2019) (“Amended Final Results”). The Amended Final
 Results corrected a clerical error in the previously pub-
 lished final results of the investigation. See id. at 28011 n.
Case: 22-1161    Document: 35      Page: 5    Filed: 02/06/2023

 ACQUISITION 362, LLC   v. US                               5

 included an individual rate for certain companies as well
 as a rate of 15.56% for the remaining “non-selected compa-
 nies under review.” 7 Commerce instructed Customs to liq-
 uidate the entries that had remained suspended during the
 Annual Review and to assess final countervailing duties
 pursuant to the rates determined in the Amended Final
 Results. 8 For purposes of this appeal, we assume that if
 Acquisition’s entries had remained unliquidated,
 Acquisition would have been entitled to and would have re-
 ceived the 15.56% rate applicable to entries of other parties
 under review but not selected for the determination of in-
 dividual rates.
     In December 2019, following the publication of the
 Amended Final Results, Acquisition filed protests to
 Customs’ failure to refund the difference between the
 30.61% rate it had deposited and the 15.56% “non-selected
 companies under review” rate determined in the Amended
 Final Results. Acquisition argued that the 15.56% rate ap-
 plied because the manufacturer, Shandong Zhongyi, which
 withdrew from the Annual Review, is the same company as
 Dongying Zhongyi Rubber Co., Ltd., which remained in the
 Annual Review and is named as a company entitled to the
 “non-selected companies under review” rate. 9 Acquisition
 urged that its protests were timely because they were

 1 (citing Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Passenger
 Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from the People’s Republic of
 China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administra-
 tive Review; 2016, 84 Fed. Reg. 17382 (April 25, 2019) (“Fi-
 nal Results”)).
      7   See Amended Final Results, 84 Fed. Reg. at
 28011–12.
      8   See Gov’t’s Suppl. Br. Ex. D, Message No. 9184301
 (July 3, 2019).
      9   See Final Results, 84 Fed. Reg. at 17384.
Case: 22-1161    Document: 35      Page: 6    Filed: 02/06/2023

 6                                  ACQUISITION 362, LLC   v. US

 brought within 180 days of the Amended Final Results. 10
 Customs denied the protests as untimely because they
 were filed more than 180 days after the liquidations of the
 relevant entries, without deciding whether Shandong
 Zhongyi and Dongying Zhongyi were the same entity.
     Following the denial of its protests, Acquisition
 brought this action at the CIT challenging the denial of the
 protests. The CIT dismissed the complaint for lack of sub-
 ject matter jurisdiction because Acquisition did not file
 timely protests of the liquidations of the entries pursuant
 to 19 U.S.C. § 1514. Acquisition then moved for reconsid-
 eration and leave to amend its complaint, arguing in the
 alternative that it should be given leave to amend its com-
 plaint to assert jurisdiction under § 1581(i). That provision
 gives the CIT jurisdiction over claims that could not have
 been brought under another subsection of § 1581 or for
 which any remedy under another subsection would be man-
 ifestly inadequate. See Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 892
 F.3d 1186, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The CIT denied the mo-
 tion as futile. This appeal followed.
     Following oral argument on November 2, 2022, we or-
 dered supplemental briefing to clarify whether the liquida-
 tion of Acquisition’s entries had been suspended at the time

     10  Before the CIT, Acquisition argued its protests
 were timely because they were brought within 180 days of
 the message to Customs implementing the Amended Final
 Results. On appeal, Acquisition argues that because the
 protests were brought within 180 days of the Amended
 Final Results, they would necessarily have been brought
 within 180 days of any “protestable decision made by
 [Customs]” after the Amended Final Results, without spec-
 ifying when exactly that decision occurred. Appellant’s
 Br. 18.
Case: 22-1161    Document: 35     Page: 7    Filed: 02/06/2023

 ACQUISITION 362, LLC   v. US                                7

 they were liquidated. 11 Supplemental briefing was com-
 pleted on December 6, 2022. We have jurisdiction under
 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).

    11  The supplemental briefing order directed the gov-
 ernment to answer eight questions, and Acquisition to re-
 spond to the government’s brief. The questions were:
    (1) Whether the August 10, 2015, Countervailing
    Duty (CVD) Order suspended liquidation of im-
    ports subject to the administrative review for the
    period of review from January 1, 2016, to December
    31, 2016 (2016 POR).
    (2) Whether any other order suspended such liqui-
    dation during the administrative review for the
    2016 POR. If so, the government shall provide a
    copy of any such order and indicate whether the or-
    der was a public document.
    (3) Whether any statutory provision or regulation
    provides for automatic suspension of liquidation
    upon the initiation of an administrative review of a
    CVD order.
    (4) Whether the liquidation of plaintiff’s entries on
    October 19, 2018, October 26, 2018, and November
    9, 2018, violated any order suspending liquidation.
    (5) Whether plaintiff’s entries were subject to the
    administrative review for the 2016 POR.
    (6) If liquidation of plaintiff’s entries was not sus-
    pended during the 2016 POR, whether plaintiff
    could have sought suspension from some agency,
    such as Commerce or Customs, having authority to
    grant it, whether on the ground that a pending
Case: 22-1161     Document: 35     Page: 8    Filed: 02/06/2023

 8                                  ACQUISITION 362, LLC   v. US

                         DISCUSSION
                               I
     Before turning to the merits, we note that Commerce’s
 failure in its orders and initial brief to clearly set out the
 provisions governing suspension of liquidation in the coun-
 tervailing duty context in general, and in this case in par-
 ticular, created confusion that necessitated supplemental

     administrative review might affect the proper duty
     or on any other ground. If so, indicate what statu-
     tory provision or regulation provides such author-
     ity and when the agency (e.g., Commerce or
     Customs) would be obligated to grant such a re-
     quest and when it would have discretion to grant
     it.
     (7) Explain the relationship between Acquisition
     362, LLC, Shandong Zhongyi Rubber Co., Ltd., and
     Dongying Zhongyi Rubber Co., Ltd. Explain the ef-
     fect and relevance of Shandong Zhongyi Rubber
     Co., Ltd. withdrawing from the review due to its
     relationship with Dongying Zhongyi Rubber Co.,
     Ltd. See J.A. 3 (“Plaintiff submits [Shandong
     Zhongyi Rubber Co., Ltd] withdrew its request for
     review because it was a non-selected company un-
     der review under an alternate company name,
     Dongying Zhongyi Rubber Co., Ltd.”).
     (8) Whether Shandong Zhongyi Rubber Co., Ltd.
     withdrawing its individual request for administra-
     tive review affected when and why plaintiff’s en-
     tries were liquidated.
 Suppl. Br. Order, Acquisition 362, LLC v. United States,
 No. 2022-1161, Docket No. 32 (Nov. 8, 2022) (modifications
 in original) (citation omitted).
Case: 22-1161    Document: 35        Page: 9   Filed: 02/06/2023

 ACQUISITION 362, LLC   v. US                                9

 briefing to resolve questions that should have been
 straightforward. Commerce’s theory is that the 2015 CVD
 Order suspended liquidation of entries after its issuance
 and that the institution of the Annual Review in the 2017
 Initiation Notice continued that suspension as to entries
 within the scope of the review. Thereafter, specific mes-
 sages to Customs continued the suspension of liquidation
 during the Annual Review for companies under review,
 and, in 2018, lifted the suspension with respect to Acquisi-
 tion’s entries following Shandong Zhongyi’s withdrawal
 from the Annual Review. None of this was apparent from
 Commerce’s brief. In its initial brief, Commerce failed to
 cite or discuss the Initiation Notice, Withdrawal Notice, or
 any of the relevant messages instructing Customs to liqui-
 date specific entries and suspend liquidation of others. In
 the future, we expect Commerce will be both more specific
 and complete than it was initially about the sequence of
 government and party actions leading to the challenges
 presented to the CIT and on appeal.
                                II
     Turning to the merits of the case, we review de novo a
 dismissal by the CIT for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
 Carbon Activated Corp. v. United States, 791 F.3d 1312,
 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
     Countervailing duties are imposed when Commerce de-
 termines another country is providing “a countervailable
 subsidy with respect to the manufacture, production, or ex-
 port” of merchandise imported into the United States.
 19 U.S.C. § 1671(a)(1). When merchandise is subject to a
 countervailing duty order, the liability to pay countervail-
 ing duties accrues upon entry into the United States, but
 the actual amount of liability is determined later:
     [T]he United States uses a “retrospective” assess-
     ment system under which final liability for anti-
     dumping and countervailing duties is determined
Case: 22-1161     Document: 35      Page: 10    Filed: 02/06/2023

 10                                  ACQUISITION 362, LLC   v. US

      after merchandise is imported. Generally, the
      amount of duties to be assessed is determined in a
      review of the order covering a discrete period of
      time. If a review is not requested, duties are as-
      sessed at the rate established in the completed re-
      view covering the most recent prior period or, if no
      review has been completed, the cash deposit rate
      applicable at the time merchandise was entered.
 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(a). The “final computation or ascer-
 tainment of duties,” including countervailing duties, on en-
 tries of such merchandise is known as the “liquidation” of
 those entries. Id. § 159.1; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1500(d). To
 facilitate this retrospective assessment system, a counter-
 vailing duty order (here, the 2015 CVD Order) suspends
 the liquidation of entries covered by the order until such
 time as the final countervailing duty rate is determined.
 See 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(c).
      At least once a year, if an interested party requests it,
 Commerce is required to review the countervailing duty or-
 der for a given retrospective period (known as an adminis-
 trative review, periodic review, or annual review). See
 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(1); 19 C.F.R. § 351.213(e)(2). Pursuant
 to its regulations, Commerce only reviews the countervail-
 ing duty rate for merchandise “covered by the request.”
 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(c)(2). If a review is not timely re-
 quested, Commerce “without additional notice” will in-
 struct Customs to liquidate entries at the cash deposit rate
 collected at the time of entry. Id. § 351.212(c)(1), (c)(2). For
 merchandise covered by a request for review, Commerce
 will continue suspending liquidation until the final coun-
 tervailing duty rate is determined in the review. See
 Ambassador Div. of Florsheim Shoe v. United States, 748
 F.2d 1560, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
     Upon the publication of the final results of an adminis-
 trative review, Commerce will lift the suspension of
Case: 22-1161    Document: 35     Page: 11   Filed: 02/06/2023

 ACQUISITION 362, LLC   v. US                             11

 liquidation for the entries covered by the review and in-
 struct Customs to liquidate those entries at the counter-
 vailing duty rate determined in the review. See 19 U.S.C.
 § 1675(a)(1); 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(b)(2). An importer will
 have to pay any shortfall if the final countervailing duty
 rate is determined to be higher than the cash deposit rate
 and will be entitled to a refund if the final rate is lower
 than the cash deposit rate. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.212(e). If
 the final rate is the same as the cash deposit rate, no fur-
 ther payments are required upon liquidation, and the cash
 deposit becomes the final countervailing duty.
     Suspending liquidation pending the determination of
 the final countervailing duties that ultimately will be as-
 sessed is essential to the operation of the retrospective
 countervailing duty system, because liquidation is the
 “final computation or ascertainment of duties.” 19 C.F.R.
 § 159.1; see Ambassador Div. of Florsheim Shoe, 748 F.2d
 at 1562. Parties have a limited window of 180 days to pro-
 test a liquidation. 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(5), (c)(3)(A). We
 have explained: “[A]ll liquidations, whether legal or not,
 are subject to the timely protest requirement. Without a
 timely protest, all liquidations become final and conclusive
 under 19 U.S.C. § 1514.” Juice Farms, Inc. v. United
 States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omit-
 ted). Suspending liquidation until an administrative re-
 view concludes gives Commerce and future tribunals the
 benefit of applying the post-review, final countervailing
 duty rate when entries are ultimately liquidated.
     When entries are improperly liquidated, an importer
 has a remedy—to protest the liquidation under § 1514. In
 Carbon Activated Corp., the appellant-importer discovered
 after the 180-day protest window had expired that its en-
 tries had been erroneously liquidated in contravention of a
 suspension order. 791 F.3d at 1314. We held that the im-
 porter could have earlier determined that the entries had
 been liquidated and “could have pursued a remedy under
Case: 22-1161    Document: 35        Page: 12   Filed: 02/06/2023

 12                                   ACQUISITION 362, LLC   v. US

 § 1514 by protesting those erroneous liquidations.” Id. at
 1316. Accordingly, although the entries would have been
 entitled to a later-determined duty rate lower than the one
 at which they were liquidated, we concluded that the im-
 porter could have asserted CIT jurisdiction under
 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) by timely protesting the premature liq-
 uidations under § 1514, and that it had no further remedy.
 Id. at 1316–17.
                               III
      Though Acquisition alleges that its goods were manu-
 factured by Shandong Zhongyi, which withdrew from the
 Annual Review, it argues it was entitled to the “non-se-
 lected company under review” rate in the Amended Final
 Results. That is so, it argues, because Shandong Zhongyi
 is in fact identical to Dongying Zhongyi, which did not with-
 draw from the Annual Review and was determined to be
 entitled to that rate. Under these circumstances, Acquisi-
 tion urges that it had no basis to protest until after the
 Amended Final Results were published, more than
 180 days after the liquidations.
     Acquisition contends that the CIT had jurisdiction over
 this refund suit. Acquisition’s theory is untenable. First,
 no statute or regulation has been called to our attention
 that authorizes or requires a refund of duties where they
 have been finally determined by liquidation, and the stat-
 ute is quite clear that liquidation of an entry finally estab-
 lishes the duties unless a protest to the liquidation is filed.
 See § 1514(a); see also 19 C.F.R. § 159.1. The only way
 Acquisition can obtain CIT jurisdiction under § 1581(a)
 over a claim for a refund is if it can bring itself within one
 of the provisions of § 1514(a).
      Second, in an attempt to demonstrate that its protests
 fell under § 1514(a)(2), as protests to the “rate and amount
Case: 22-1161     Document: 35      Page: 13     Filed: 02/06/2023

 ACQUISITION 362, LLC   v. US                                  13

 of duties chargeable,” 12 and were timely, Acquisition con-
 tends that it is not protesting the liquidations themselves
 and could not have done so. Instead, according to
 Acquisition, this is a “circumstance[] where [the dates of
 liquidation are] inapplicable,” § 1514(c)(3)(B), 13 and the
 180-day deadline for filing protests was triggered by
 Customs’ decision to deny Acquisition’s refund request, not
 by the liquidations themselves.         See also 19 C.F.R.
 § 174.12(e).
      This is not so. In general, duties are finally determined
 by liquidation. The date of liquidation is the applicable
 date under § 1514(c)(3) for filing a protest to the rate or
 amount of those duties. There is no other “date of the de-
 cision as to which protest is made.” § 1514(c)(3)(B). Ac-
 cordingly, a claim for a refund to duties assessed at
 liquidation must be filed within 180 days of liquidation,
 pursuant to § 1514(c)(3)(A).
     Acquisition’s theory can only work if the dates of liqui-
 dation are “inapplicable,” that is, if Acquisition could not

     12   As relevant here, § 1514(a) provides that: “[D]eci-
 sions of the Customs Service . . . as to— . . . (2) the classifi-
 cation and rate and amount of duties chargeable; [or] . . .
 (5) the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry . . . ; shall be
 final and conclusive . . . unless a protest is filed . . . .”
      13  Section 1514(c)(3) provides that:
     A protest of a decision, order, or finding described
     in subsection (a) shall be filed with the Customs
     Service within 180 days after but not before—
          (A) date of liquidation or reliquidation, or
          (B) in circumstances where subpara-
          graph (A) is inapplicable, the date of the de-
          cision as to which protest is made.
Case: 22-1161    Document: 35      Page: 14   Filed: 02/06/2023

 14                                 ACQUISITION 362, LLC   v. US

 timely challenge the liquidations. Acquisition’s contention
 that until the results of the Annual Review were published
 it was without a remedy to challenge the liquidation of its
 entries is not correct. If entries are improperly liquidated,
 importers can challenge the legality of the liquidations by
 timely filing a protest to the liquidation under § 1514(a)(5)
 even if the duty on the entries has not yet been finally de-
 termined. This was the exact situation in Carbon Activated
 Corp., 791 F.3d at 1316. A protest to the premature liqui-
 dation of the entries would not have been either “a sham”
 or “premature.” Appellant’s Br. 14. The protest would not
 have been to the refusal to grant a refund, but to the prem-
 ature liquidation of the entries.
     To be sure, the nominal manufacturer of Acquisition’s
 entries was no longer a party to the Annual Review. But
 in Acquisition’s view, that same entity was still a party to
 the review under a different name. Under this theory, the
 suspension of liquidation of Acquisition’s entries should
 have continued. Acquisition could thus have protested the
 liquidation as having been improper. If it is true, as
 Acquisition contends, that it was entitled to the counter-
 vailing duty rate assigned to Dongying Zhongyi because
 Dongying Zhongyi was the manufacturer of Acquisition’s
 imports and a party to the Annual Review, Acquisition
 would have been equally entitled to the suspension of liq-
 uidation of Dongying Zhongyi-manufactured entries dur-
 ing the pendency of the Annual Review. Since Acquisition
 had a remedy to challenge the liquidations of its entries
 within 180 days, the statutory language it cites in an at-
 tempt to establish a different timeframe is inapplicable.
 Acquisition’s protests were untimely, and the CIT lacked
 jurisdiction under § 1581(a).
                              IV
     In its motion for reconsideration, Acquisition sought
 leave to amend its complaint to assert jurisdiction under
Case: 22-1161    Document: 35      Page: 15    Filed: 02/06/2023

 ACQUISITION 362, LLC   v. US                               15

 the residual jurisdictional provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).
 Jurisdiction under § 1581(i) is appropriate only if there is
 no jurisdiction under another subsection of § 1581, or if the
 remedy under another subsection “would be manifestly in-
 adequate.” ARP Materials, Inc. v. United States, 47 F.4th
 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Because
 Acquisition could have obtained an adequate remedy under
 § 1581(a) by timely filing a protest of the allegedly prema-
 ture liquidations, it cannot resort to § 1581(i). Accordingly,
 the proposed amendment to the complaint would be
 futile. 14
                          CONCLUSION
     Acquisition could have asserted jurisdiction under
 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) by filing timely protests of the liquida-
 tion of its entries. Because its protests were untimely, the
 CIT correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
                          AFFIRMED

     14  In its reconsideration motion, Acquisition cited an-
 other protest that Customs had granted in part for an entry
 of Shandong Zhongyi-manufactured goods, applying a
 countervailing duty rate of 15.53%. See J.A. 74–75, 95.
 But that protest was timely because it was filed within
 180 days of the liquidation of the entry, unlike the protests
 at issue in this appeal.