Trade court - No jurisdiction for untimely liquidated, untimely paid entries or for entry protested at wrong port 

February 14:  The U.S. Court of International Trade today dismissed an importer’s suit challenging Customs and Border Protection (CBP)’s determination to apply a 3.7% tariff rate to lanthanum oxide imports because the shipments (entries) were untimely liquidated, untimely paid, or protested at the wrong port—all denying the court’s authority to decide the case. Netchem, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 14-16 (CIT February 14, 2014)

Read the trade court’s opinion [PDF 538 KB]


The importer (a Canadian company) between June and December 2011, entered 43 shipments of lanthanum oxide at three U.S. ports (Detroit, Port Huron, and Newark / New York) and initially classified these shipments under HTSUS subheading 2846.90.2010 for “rare-earth oxides except cerium oxide” for duty-free entry.

In October 2011, CBP reclassified the shipments under HTSUS 2846.90.8000 for “other” compounds or mixtures of rare-earth metals, for a 3.7% tariff rate. With this, 18 of the 43 shipments were subject to the 3.7% customs duty rate at entry, and 25 shipments previously classified as duty-free were charged 3.7% upon liquidation.

The company paid over $1.5 million in customs duties for the 43 entries.

With a document dated March 19, 2012, the company protested CBP’s classification, and filed the protest at the Port of Buffalo (the protest not only referenced the 43 entries but also covered 13 entries made at Buffalo during the same period). Of the total 56 entries, only 26 had been liquidated—with final customs duty being fully ascertained—when the protest document was filed. The remaining 30 entries (including the 13 entries at Buffalo) were liquidated after March 19, 2012.

The port director for Buffalo refused to rule on the claims, and returned the protest document to the importer. The importer, however, assumed that its petition was “deemed denied” because it believed CBP had failed to decide the merits of the document within 30 days. The importer then filed this suit with the trade court, listing its 43 entries at Detroit, Port Huron, and New York. As of May 4, 2012, the importer had only paid liquidated duties on 18 of these 43 entries.

Trade court

Today, the trade court found that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the classification of the 43 entries because:

  • 17 of 18 entries were not liquidated before being protested, divesting the court of authority to decide them
  • 25 entries were unpaid when this judicial action was filed

The court found only one entry was timely liquidated and paid; however, the court concluded that it could not consider this entry it because it was protested at the wrong port. The court thus dismissed the case in its entirety.

For more information, contact a professional with KPMG’s Trade & Customs practice:

Douglas Zuvich

(312) 665-1022

Andrew Siciliano

(631) 425-6057

John L. McLoughlin

(267) 256-2614

Todd R. Smith

(949) 885-5617

Luis A. Abad

(212) 954-3094

Amie Ahanchian

(202) 533-3247

Or your local KPMG Trade & Customs professional.

©2014 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International"), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International.

KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever.

The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.

Direct comments, including requests for subscriptions, to
For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at:

+ 1 202 533 4366

1801 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006.

Share this

Share this


Current and future KPMG clients may subscribe to TaxNewsFlash email alerts.

Email your contact information.

Other TaxNewsFlash publications

TaxNewsFlash-Trade & Customs by year