2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 145
Ct. Int'l Trade2011Background
- Ford imported automotive parts from Canada between 1997 and 1999; Entry No. 231-2787386-9 is the representative entry.
- Ford did not claim NAFTA eligibility at entry; Customs liquidated the goods as entered.
- Ford filed a post-importation NAFTA refund claim under § 1520(d) on May 13, 1998, seeking reliquidation and duty refund.
- Copies of NAFTA Certificates of Origin for the entry were filed November 5, 1998, more than one year after importation.
- Customs denied the claim as untimely; Ford protested, which was denied; 2010 ruling held lack of protestability; Federal Circuit remanded for proceedings.
- On remand, the court grants the United States’ summary judgment and denies Ford’s summary judgment, upholding the one-year filing and certificate requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1520(d) requires within-one-year certificates of origin | Ford argues certificates need not be filed within one year. | U.S. maintains all components, including certificates, must be filed within one year. | One-year filing and certificate requirement is imposed. |
| Whether §10.112 can excuse late certificate filing | §10.112 permits late filings if no willful neglect or fraud. | Regulation cannot override NAFTA and §1520(d) timelines. | §10.112 does not excuse late NAFTA certificates. |
| Whether §10.112 supersedes §§ 181.31–181.32 for NAFTA claims | §10.112 broad applicability could allow late filing. | Specific NAFTA-related regulations control; §10.112 cannot nullify them. | Specific regulations control; §10.112 does not excuse late filings for §1520(d). |
| Overall outcome on timeliness of Ford's §1520(d) claim | Ford timely filed the claim and documents within a year. | Ford failed to timely file the certificates within one year. | Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted; Ford's denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Xerox Corp. v. United States, 423 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (limits §10.112 to increase NAFTA claim time)
- Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. United States, 981 F. Supp. 654 (CIT 1997) (remedial §10.112 broad interpretation but not to defeat statute)
- Aviall of Tex., Inc. v. United States, 861 F. Supp. 100 (CIT 1994) (broad reach of §10.112 against other provisions)
- Corrpro Cos. v. United States, 28 CIT 1523 (2004 WL 2030260) (discussed §10.112 applicability to NAFTA claims; later reversed on jurisdictional grounds)