US Says Importer Untimely Brought CIT Suit on Detained Honey Shipments
The U.S. moved the Court of International Trade to dismiss importer Tri State Honey's suit against CBP's detention of its 11 honey shipments, arguing that the case was untimely filed. The government said that since the case had to be brought 180 days from CBP's protest denial, which was April 25, and Tri State filed suit on April 29, "the case is untimely and therefore barred" (Tri State Honey v. United States, CIT # 25-00080).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Tri State argued in its lawsuit that CBP unlawfully detained the honey shipments and held them for nearly a year without explanation (see 2504300014). The importer is seeking at least $4 million in damages along with attorney's fees, since CBP violated its "due process rights" by failing to disclose the reasons for the detention of its honey and the evidence as to the honey's country of origin.
The government moved to toss the case on the grounds that CIT doesn't have jurisdiction under Section 1581(a), which requires lawsuits challenging denied protests be filed within 180 days after the denied protest.
Tri State sent its protest and "request for accelerated disposition" to CBP on Sept. 27, 2024. As a result, its protest was "deemed denied by operation of law on October 27, 2024, thirty days after mailing" the protest. Thus, the case should have been brought on or before April 25, 2025, the complaint said.
"In sum, Tri State voluntarily invoked the accelerated-disposition mechanism of section 1515(b) to force a faster denial of its protest by operation of law but failed to timely commence its suit to contest the denial of that protest," the U.S. said. "Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Tri State’s suit contesting the denial of its protest."