Zojirushi America Corp. v. United States, 2016 CIT 78

Background

Zojirushi America imported vacuum bottles and jars from Thailand and made four consumption entries in 2013; Customs liquidated those entries "as entered."
On September 16, 2014 Zojirushi filed Protest No. 2704-14-101380 asserting for the first time that the merchandise qualified for duty-free treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).
On December 3, 2014 the CBP port director returned CBP Form 19 marking the protest "Rejected as non-protestable," citing Headquarters Ruling HQ H193959 that GSP claims are not protestable; the form did not check the boxes for "Denied."
Zojirushi sued seeking an order compelling CBP to allow or deny the protest and challenging the guidance/ruling as unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. It invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4) residual jurisdiction.
The government moved to dismiss under USCIT Rule 12(b)(6); the court instead addressed subject matter jurisdiction, concluding the entries were protestable under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a) and that CBP’s action was not a §1515 denial, leaving the statutory accelerated-disposition remedy available.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CBP-liquidations at issue were decisions protestable under 19 U.S.C. §1514(a)	Zojirushi: liquidations are protestable; GSP claim can be raised pre-liquidation, even post-entry	U.S.: GSP claim must be asserted at entry per 19 C.F.R. §10.172/§10.173; without an entry-time claim Customs made no protestable decision	Held: Liquidations were protestable under §1514(a); regulations and regulatory history permit post-entry GSP claims prior to liquidation
Whether CBP’s marking of the protest as “Rejected as non-protestable” constituted a §1515 denial (triggering §1581(a))	Zojirushi: CBP unlawfully refused to allow or deny the protest; merits relief and APA challenge available	U.S.: Rejection is effectively a denial that precludes judicial review under §1515	Held: CBP did not follow §1515(a) procedures for a denial; its action was not an allowance or denial for §1515 purposes, so §1515(b) accelerated-disposition remains available
Whether Zojirushi’s proper forum is residual §1581(i) or §1581(a) after invoking accelerated disposition	Zojirushi: invoked §1581(i)(4) for relief compelling agency action and APA claims	U.S.: dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) argued; jurisdictional point that protest was non-protestable	Held: Because §1515(b) accelerated-disposition remedy under §1581(a) was and is available, the court lacked residual jurisdiction under §1581(i)(4) and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Validity of CBP guidance and HQ ruling as agency action without notice-and-comment	Zojirushi: guidance and HQ ruling are unlawful under APA and interfere with §10.112 post-entry claims	U.S.: relied on HQ ruling to reject protest and argued regulations require entry-time claim	Held: Court treated these challenges as intertwined with the protest dispute but declined to reach merits because §1515(b)/§1581(a) provides the adequate procedural route; did not adjudicate APA merits here

Key Cases Cited

Miller & Co. v. United States, 824 F.2d 961 (Fed. Cir.) (residual jurisdiction under §1581(i) unavailable if another §1581 remedy exists)
Xerox Corp. v. United States, 423 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir.) (post-importation NAFTA preference claims and time limits do not support protest when statutory period missed)
Corrpro Companies, Inc. v. United States, 433 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir.) (similar NAFTA/§1520(d) context)
Hitachi Home Elecs. (America) Inc. v. United States, 661 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (protest remains pending if not allowed or denied and accelerated disposition not invoked)
United States v. Mead, 533 U.S. 218 (U.S.) (deference standard for agency interpretations of statutes/regulations)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S.) (framework for judicial review of agency statutory interpretations)
Int'l Customs Prods. v. United States, 467 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir.) (§1581(i) cannot be used when adequate §1581(a) remedy exists)