Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 JULY 2010

When Shall Means Might – U.S. Court Decision Changes The Customs Protest Process

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
Contributor
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP

In an increasingly global and interconnected world, Hughes Hubbard sets itself apart as a robust...

View firm profile
Explore more from Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP

U.S. importers filing protests with U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") should take note of a recent decision in the U.S. Court of International Trade that could represent a significant change in the way protests need to be dealt with by U.S. importers and Customs.

United StatesInternational Law

U.S. importers filing protests with U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") should take note of a recent decision in the U.S. Court of International Trade that could represent a significant change in the way protests need to be dealt with by U.S. importers and Customs.1 The decision, which involves a protest filed by Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. ("Hitachi"), proffers a new interpretation of the word "shall" and the statutory timeframe by which Customs must make a decision on protests.

Background

Under U.S. law, when a U.S. importer disagrees with a Customs decision on an entry, it can file a protest challenging the decision. There are two paths to take when filing a protest – a normal protest and one requesting accelerated disposition. Under the first path,2 Customs has two years from the date of filing to rule on the protest and "shall allow or deny such protest in whole or in part" within that timeframe. Under the second path,3 if Customs

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from