715 F.3d 906
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- NAFTA allows duty-free admission for origin-qualifying goods and refunds for overpaid duties if a one-year claim is filed with copies of the Certificate of Origin.
- Statute 19 U.S.C. § 1520(d) mirrors NAFTA, requiring a written declaration and COs within one year, plus supporting documentation; regulations add additional certifications.
- Customs can waive CO filing requirements under NAFTA Article 503(c) and via the reconciliation program, which coexists with § 1520(d) procedures.
- Ford filed numerous post-entry refund claims starting in the late 1990s; for the Entry at issue, Ford filed the refund claim within one year but did not submit COs until after the deadline.
- The COs for the Entry were submitted November 1998, over a year after import; Ford had not obtained a waiver under § 181.22(d)(1) for that Entry.
- Trade Court initially held the CO deadline jurisdictional; on appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded to examine Customs’ treatment of reconciliation program claims versus traditional § 1520(d) claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must COs be filed within one year under § 1520(d)? | Ford argues COs may be late if timely claim notice is filed. | Customs and the statute require COs within one year, with exceptions only via waiver. | COs must be filed within one year; late COs can defeat jurisdiction unless waived. |
| Does § 10.112 permit late filing of COs for NAFTA § 1520(d) refunds? | Section 10.112 should allow late COs if filed before liquidation. | § 10.112 cannot override the one-year CO deadline in § 1520(d). | § 10.112 does not excuse late COs for § 1520(d) NAFTA refunds. |
| Is Customs’ reconciliation program a permissible basis to differ in waiver treatment from traditional § 1520(d) claims? | Customs’ waiver in reconciliation should apply to Ford’s traditional § 1520(d) claims to avoid inconsistent interpretations. | Waiver in reconciliation is separate and not applicable to traditional § 1520(d) claims. | Record insufficient to justify differing interpretations; remand to assess a reasonable explanation for distinct treatments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Xerox Corp. v. United States, 423 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (unambiguous one-year deadline governs NAFTA § 1520(d) claims)
- Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 550 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (addresses waiver and reconciliation program context for NAFTA claims)
- Corrpro Cos. v. United States, 433 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (affirms § 10.112 applicability to NAFTA matters in certain contexts)
- Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (treats inconsistent agency interpretations with need for explanation)