Acquisition 362, LLC v. United States, 517 F.Supp.3d 1318

Commerce issued a countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China in 2015 that included Zhongyi Rubber Company.
Plaintiff (Acquisition 362, LLC dba Strategic Import Supply) imported Zhongyi tires in 2016 and paid duties at the then-applicable rate of 30.61% when Customs liquidated the entries (Oct–Nov 2018).
Commerce initiated an administrative review, later issued Amended Final Results on June 17, 2019 reducing the CVD rate to 15.56%, and the ITA sent liquidation instructions to Customs on July 3, 2019.
Plaintiff filed protests to Customs on December 12–13, 2019 challenging Customs’ failure to apply the amended rate to already-liquidated entries; Customs denied the protests as untimely on April 24, 2020.
Plaintiff sued in the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) to contest denial of the protests; the United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court dismissed, holding (1) Plaintiff invoked the wrong jurisdiction—rate determinations are Commerce decisions and challenges belong under § 1581(c)—and (2) Plaintiff’s protests were untimely because they were filed more than 180 days after liquidation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the 180‑day protest clock start for challenging liquidation that applied a CVD rate: at liquidation or upon Customs’ receipt of Commerce’s amended-liquidation instructions?	The 180‑day period should run from Customs’ receipt of Commerce’s amended instructions (so protests filed Dec 2019 were timely).	The 180‑day period runs from liquidation; Plaintiff filed beyond 180 days and protests are untimely.	Held for Defendant: the clock began at liquidation; Plaintiff’s protests were untimely.
Can a protest under § 1514(a) to Customs be used to challenge Commerce’s countervailing‑duty rate decision (i.e., is § 1581(a) the proper jurisdiction)?	Plaintiff framed the dispute as Customs ignoring Commerce’s Amended Final Results and sought review under § 1581(a).	Rate determinations are Commerce decisions; challenges to Commerce determinations belong in § 1581(c), not § 1581(a).	Held for Defendant: Plaintiff invoked the wrong jurisdiction; rate determinations are Commerce decisions and cannot be litigated via a § 1514(a) protest.

Mitsubishi Elecs. Am., Inc. v. United States, 44 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Commerce sets duty rates; Customs’ role is ministerial in applying those rates)
Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (§ 1581(a) jurisdiction limited to protestable Customs decisions listed in § 1514(a))
Capella Sales & Servs. Ltd. v. United States, 878 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Customs may liquidate entries at original order rate when no review applies)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (subject‑matter jurisdiction is essential and defines a court’s power)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction requires dismissal)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1980) (waivers of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal)
Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1983) (statutory waivers of immunity construed strictly)