C.B. Imports Transamerica Corp. v. United States, 2011 WL 6189484

Importer in Puerto Rico challenged CBP liquidation of an entry of Chinese automotive safety glass; entry 261-0419198-1 liquidated with apparent doubling then corrected; duty deposit based on 124.50% antidumping rate, deposit of $51,250.43.
Antidumping order for automotive safety glass from China revoked June 5, 2007; revocation notice published in Federal Register June 5, 2007.
CBP deposited cash and later refused refund after revocation; CBP stated the entry had already been liquidated.
CBP denied refund request on August 26, 2009; suit filed February 17, 2011 seeking §1581(i) jurisdiction.
Court must decide whether §1581(i) jurisdiction is time-barred and whether APA provides an independent basis for jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1581(i) claim is time-barred	CB Imports assumes accrual at revocation, seeks timely review	Accrual at revocation, limitations 2 years from 2007	Yes, time-barred
Whether APA provides an independent jurisdictional basis	APA §702 claim viable independently	APA not jurisdictional; must have timely §1581 claim	No independent APA jurisdiction available
Whether tolling/notice affects timeliness	Lack of notice tolls limitations	Federal Register notice gives constructive notice; tolling not available	No tolling; limitation runs from revocation date

Sky Tech. LLC v. SAP AG, 576 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (jurisdiction question treated as law)
Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. United States, 31 CIT 233, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1385 (CIT 2007) (1581(i) not available when §1581(a) remedy adequate)
Royal United Corp. v. United States, 714 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (CIT 2010) (APA claim requires independent §1581 basis)
Shah Bros. v. United States, 770 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (CIT 2011) (1581(i) not available if traditional means are manifestly adequate)
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 544 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (limits on circumventing prerequisites of §1581(a))