Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided October 31, 2011No. 2010-1345Published

1DissentReyna, Circuit Judge

I believe that 19 U.S.C. § 1515(a) requires Customs to act on the merits of all protests within two years, and that all protests not expressly denied within that two-year period are allowed by operation of law. Because I would find Hitachi’s protests at issue were therefore allowed but its duties were not refunded, I would reverse the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) and find that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) to address Hitachi’s claims for refunds. I respectfully dissent.

I. Background

Hitachi commenced this action seeking to recover duties, plus interest, paid upon…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. United States v. James Daniel Good Real PropertySupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  4. Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & LerachSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  5. Escoe v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1935

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API