Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. v. United States
676 F.3d 1041
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- Hitachi filed protests under 19 U.S.C. § 1515 challenging duties and procedures.
- The protest statute imposes a two-year deadline for Customs to “review ... and shall allow or deny” a protest on the merits.
- The government argues most protests are resolved within two years; some remain undecided beyond that period.
- Hitachi’s protests were filed in 2005 and remained undecided for years past the two-year deadline.
- The majority denied panel rehearing and rehearing en banc; the dissent argues § 1515’s deadline is mandatory and must be enforced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 1515(a) two-year deadline is mandatory or aspirational. | Hitachi argues the deadline is mandatory. | Customs contention is that delay is permissible under some interpretations. | Mandatory deadline; delay beyond two years improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (short deadlines do not control all contexts; distinguish from two-year deadline of §1515)
- Hitachi Home Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 661 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (dissent on panel panel about mandatory nature of §1515 deadline)