Court Opinion

ID: 9475523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:29:59.524189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:45.907185
License: Public Domain

*670BISSELL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion which holds that Pagoda’s protest was sufficient to establish jurisdiction for the court to decide the “deemed liquidation” issue. Although there is certainly merit to the majority’s view, I am not convinced of the soundness of its conclusory treatment of the term “decision” in 19 U.S.C. § 1514. The majority merely states, as if it is intuitively obvious, that “deemed liquidation” is a “new ground” under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(1) and that “liquidation” is not a separate decision from the “appraisement” or “classification” decisions.
Section 1514(a) provides that:
[DJecisions of the appropriate customs officer ..., as to—
(1) the appraised value of merchandise;
(2) the classification and rate and amount of duties chargeable; ...
(5) the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry, ...
shall be final and conclusive upon all persons unless a protest is filed____ [Emphasis added].
Section 1514(c)(1) provides:
“A protest of a decision under subsection (a) ... shall be filed in writing ... setting forth distinctly and specifically each decision described in subsection (a) of this section as to which protest is made____ A protest may be amended, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, to set forth objections as to a decision or decisions described in subsection (a) of this section which were not the subject of the original protest, in the form and manner prescribed for a protest, any time prior to the expiration of the time in which such protest could have been filed under this section. [Emphasis added].
It is my view that the supplement filed by Pagoda constitutes a challenge to the decision to “liquidate,” a § 1514(a)(5) decision, and is not merely a “new ground” to challenge the “appraisement,” a § 1514(a)(1) decision, or the “classification,” a § 1514(a)(2) decision.
It appears that the majority opinion holds that henceforth an importer may challenge any aspect of the Customs Officer’s entry determination at any time before disposition of the protest because only “one” administrative decision is actually made rather than separate and distinct administrative decisions regarding appraisement, classification, liquidation, etc. See 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(l)-(7). Restated, the decision to liquidate (legality of the act) is subsumed within a decision on appraisement or classification (correctness of the act). While this holding may be pleasing to sound notions of equity, it does not square with the statute’s delineation of “separate and distinct decisions” that are made by the Customs Officers at time of possible entry. See United States v. Deringer, 593 F.2d 1015, 1020 (CCPA 1979) (“The statute contemplates that both the legality and correctness of a liquidation be determined, at least initially, via the protest procedure. The wording of this statute makes it clear that any challenge to the propriety of a liquidation [not specifically excepted] must be through this statute.”) Cf. Computime, Inc. v. United States, 772 F.2d 874 (Fed. Cir.1985) (a protest must set forth distinctly and specifically the challenges to an entry).