CAFC Finds Jurisdiction if NAFTA Claim Timely, Even if Certificates Filed Later

In Ford Motor Company v. the U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a CIT decision, ruling that so long as an importer's claim for post-entry duty refunds for NAFTA preferential treatment of imports was timely filed within one year of importation, the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction to consider whether Customs should accept Ford’s late-filed NAFTA Certificates of Origin.

CBP Denied Ford's Duty Refund Claim as Certificates Were Submitted After 1 Year

Between January 1997 and January 1999, Ford imported shipments of automotive parts into the U.S. from Canada. Ford did not claim preferential treatment under NAFTA for these shipments at the time of entry. Instead, Ford electronically filed a post-entry duty refund claim pursuant to 19 USC 1520(d) (19 CFR 181.31), less than one year after the date of importation, asserting that it was entitled to reliquidation and a duty refund.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection denied Ford's claim, arguing that it did not include copies of pertinent NAFTA certificates of origin, and that Ford did not submit the relevant certificates of origin to CBP until over a year after the date of importation. Ford then filed a protest to contest CBP's denial of its refund claim, which CBP denied on the same grounds.

Ford Filed with CIT, Argued Claim Was Valid as Timely Filed in 1 Year & Before Liq

Ford appealed CBP's decision to the CIT arguing that even though it submitted its certificates of origin more than a year after importation, it had timely filed the 1520(d) claim within the one year deadline. According to Ford, under 19 CFR 10.112, such a certificate of origin is only required to be filed in connection with the entry (not at the time of entry) and before the liquidation of its entries had become final.

CIT Ruled Certificate Had to be Submitted Within 1 Year to Establish Jurisdiction

The CIT dismissed Ford's challenge to CBP's denial for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that the submission of NAFTA certificates of origin within one year was a jurisdictional prerequisite. CIT stated that because CBP denied Ford’s duty refund claim on the procedural ground that Ford failed to timely submit its certificates of origin, CBP never reached the merits of Ford’s 1520(d) claim and thus never rendered a protestable decision as required for CIT jurisdiction¹. Ford appealed.

CAFC Rules Timely Certificate Filing Not Needed for CIT Jurisdiction

The CAFC ruled that the CIT erred in dismissing Ford's 1520(d) duty refund claim for lack of jurisdiction. CAFC concluded that Ford’s failure to file its certificates of origin within one year of importation did not deprive the CIT of jurisdiction to review Ford’s 1520(d) post-entry duty refund claim, as it is not a jurisdictional provision.

Moreover, the certificate filing requirement is not a jurisdictional provision as CBP has the authority to waive its filing.

Also Ruled a Denied Claim Properly Filed Within 1 Year is a Protestable Decision

The CAFC additionally ruled that if an importer properly files a 1520(d) duty refund claim with CBP less than one year after importation, CBP renders a protestable decision if it denies the importers claim. The CAFC reasoned that CBP's position -- that any decision that does not expressly rule on the merits of a petitioner’s claim is not a protestable decision -- would leave parties without recourse even if CBP were to erroneously dismiss their claims, and that such a position is not the law.

Issue of Whether CBP Is Required to Accept Late-Filed Certificates Left to CIT

As it has been determined that the CIT has jurisdiction to hear this case, the CAFC stated that the final question is whether, as Ford contends, CBP was required to accept Ford’s late-filed certificates. The CAFC concluded that this issue would be best decided in the first instance by the CIT.

The CAFC reversed the CIT's decision and remanded it for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

(See ITT's Online Archives or 01/19/10 news, 10011940, for BP summary of CIT ruling it lacked jurisdiction to hear Ford's case.)

¹Provided for in 28 USC 1581(a).

(Appeal Number 2010-1238, dated 03/21/11)