Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. v. United States
661 F.3d 1343
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Hitachi imported plasma flat panel TVs made in/assembled in Mexico (2003–2005); liquidated under HTS 8528.12.72 at 5% duties.
- Hitachi protested to CBP under 19 U.S.C. §1514; sought NAFTA-duty-free treatment.
- CIT dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Hitachi appealed under 28 U.S.C. §1295(a)(5).
- Hitachi argued protests unacted within two years are deemed allowed, giving §1581(i) jurisdiction; alternatively §1581(a).
- CIT held §1515(a) does not auto-approve by inaction; §1515(b) provides the accelerated-disposition path; no automatic deemed-allowance.
- Dissent (Reyna, J.) would treat §1515(a) as mandatory, deeming protests allowed and permitting §1581(i) jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1515(a) creates a deemed allowance after two years | Hitachi: inaction = deemed allowed | Hitachi lacks deemed-allowance; no automatic consequence | No automatic deemed allowance under §1515(a) |
| Whether §1515(b) provides the exclusive remedy for deemed denial | Use §1515(b) to obtain jurisdiction | §1515(b) is separate, accelerates review; not a substitute for merits review | §1515(b) does not convert inaction into allowance; not exclusive for jurisdiction |
| Whether §1581(i) jurisdiction lies if protest not allowed/denied | If not allowed/denied, §1581(i) provides relief | §1581(i) only available when §1581(a) cannot provide jurisdiction | No §1581(i) jurisdiction where §1581(a) could apply via §1515(b) |
| Whether the two-year deadline in §1515(a) is mandatory or directory | Mandatory; creates consequence of allowance after two years | Directory; no automatic loss of agency power | Two-year deadline is mandatory; failure to act does not automatically allow under the statute |
| What is the proper interpretation of the statutory history of §1515(a) | Leg history supports deemed allowance | Leg history does not support deemed allowance; adheres to plain text | Legislative history does not override plain text to create deemed allowance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (1993) (timing provisions and agency discretion; no automatic loss of power in some deadlines)
- Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253 (1986) (mandatory timing vs. agency power; avoids coercive loss of jurisdiction)
- Regions Hosp. v. Shalala, 522 U.S. 448 (1998) (noncompliance with timing provisions; consequences not always jurisdictional)
- Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 711 (1990) (shall be held immediately; time limits do not always negate authority to act later)
- Liesegang v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 312 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (statutory timing; absence of consequences indicates directory provision)
- Canadian Fur Trappers Corp. v. United States, 884 F.2d 563 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (time limits treated as directory where no explicit consequence appears)
- U.S. Tsubaki, Inc. v. United States, 512 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (directory vs mandatory timing in customs contexts)
- Gilda Indus., Inc. v. United States, 622 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (interpretation of timing provisions in protest context)
- Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490 (1935) (mandatory vs discretionary in constitutional/statutory timing)