Acquisition 362, LLC v. United States, 59 F.4th 1247

Acquisition 362 imported passenger-vehicle/light-truck tires from Shandong Zhongyi subject to a 2015 Commerce countervailing duty (CVD) order and deposited duties at the 30.61% "all-others" rate.
Commerce initiated an administrative (annual) review for the 2016 period, which generally suspends liquidation for entries covered by the review; liquidation was initially suspended for Shandong Zhongyi–made entries.
Shandong Zhongyi withdrew from the review; Commerce instructed Customs to lift the suspension for Shandong Zhongyi entries, and Customs liquidated Acquisition’s entries in Oct–Nov 2018 at the deposited 30.61% rate. Acquisition did not file protests within 180 days of those liquidations.
Commerce later issued Amended Final Results (June 2019) assigning a 15.56% rate to non-selected companies under review; Acquisition contended its entries should have received that rate (arguing Shandong Zhongyi is the same as Dongying Zhongyi) and filed protests in Dec 2019 seeking refunds.
Customs denied the protests as untimely; Acquisition sued in the Court of International Trade (CIT), which dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a); the CIT also denied leave to amend to invoke § 1581(i).
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed: because Acquisition could have protested the liquidations within 180 days, the CIT lacked jurisdiction under § 1581(a), and § 1581(i) was unavailable because an adequate remedy under § 1581(a) existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CIT has jurisdiction under §1581(a) over Acquisition's refund claim	Protests were timely only after Amended Final Results; could not challenge earlier because identity/rate unclear	Acquisition could have protested the entries’ liquidations within 180 days and sought relief under §1514	No jurisdiction under §1581(a); protests untimely so liquidations final
Whether liquidation dates were "inapplicable" so a different 180‑day trigger applies	Date of liquidation was inapplicable because final rate was unknown until administrative review results	Date of liquidation is the triggering date for §1514; timely protest to erroneous liquidation was available	Liquidation date applies; Acquisition should have protested within 180 days of liquidation
Whether §1581(i) residual jurisdiction applies because other remedies were inadequate	Alternative remedy unavailable; allow amendment to assert §1581(i) jurisdiction	Adequate remedy existed (timely protest under §1514), so §1581(i) not available	§1581(i) claim barred; amendment denied as futile
Whether Acquisition’s entitlement to the 15.56% rate (identity of manufacturers) excused failure to protest	Shandong Zhongyi is the same as Dongying Zhongyi, so Acquisition could not know rate until Amended Final Results	Even if true, Acquisition still could have protested premature liquidation	Identity dispute did not excuse failure to protest; remedy by timely protest was available

Carbon Activated Corp. v. United States, 791 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (importer must timely protest erroneous/liquidated entries; §1514 protest is available remedy)
Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (liquidations are final and conclusive unless timely protested)
Ambassador Div. of Florsheim Shoe v. United States, 748 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (administrative review suspends liquidation for covered entries)
Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explains scope of §1581(i) as residual jurisdiction when other subsections unavailable or inadequate)
ARP Materials, Inc. v. United States, 47 F.4th 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (§1581(i) available only if no other adequate subsection remedy exists)