Ford Motor Co. v. United States
635 F.3d 550
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- Ford imported Canadian-origin parts 1997–1999 and sought NAFTA post-entry duty refunds under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d).
- Ford filed a § 1520(d) claim May 13, 1998, within one year of import but did not submit Certificates of Origin until November 5, 1998.
- Customs denied the claim because the certificates were not furnished within one year of importation.
- Ford protested Customs' denial; Customs Headquarters denied the protest in 2002, and Ford sued in the Trade Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a).
- The Trade Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding the certificate filing within one year was a jurisdictional prerequisite.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that timely notice of the § 1520(d) claim is nonjurisdictional and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is timely §1520(d) claim filing jurisdictional? | Ford: timely filing is jurisdictional; the deadline governs jurisdiction. | United States: §1520(d) timing is jurisdictional. | Timely filing is nonjurisdictional. |
| Is certificate-of-origin filing within one year jurisdictional or nonjurisdictional? | Ford: certificates are nonjurisdictional content requirements with waivers available. | United States: certificate timing is a jurisdictional prerequisite. | Certificate timing is nonjurisdictional; waivers exist. |
| If nonjurisdictional, did Customs render a protestable decision? | Ford: denial within §1581(a) suffices as protestable decision. | United States: no protestable decision unless merits adjudicated. | Customs denial constituted a protestable decision; jurisdiction exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Xerox Corp. v. United States, 423 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (timely §1520(d) claim required for protestable decision)
- Corrpro Cos., Inc. v. United States, 433 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (timely §1520(d) claim required for protestable decision)
- U.S. Shoe Corp. v. United States, 114 F.3d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (protestable decision analysis framework)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court 2006) (jurisdictional labeling; threshold requirements not always jurisdictional)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (Supreme Court 2007) (timely filing as jurisdictional requirement; strict adherence explained)