165 F.3d 906 (Fed. Cir. 1999), 98-1141, Koike Aronson, Inc. v. United States

Docket Nº:98-1141.
Citation:165 F.3d 906
Party Name:KOIKE ARONSON, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:January 05, 1999
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Page 906

165 F.3d 906 (Fed. Cir. 1999)

KOIKE ARONSON, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,


UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-1141.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

January 5, 1999

Page 907

Carl R. Soller, Soller, Shayne & Horn, New York, New York, argued for plaintiff-appellant. On the brief was Melvin B. Lazar.

James A. Curley, Attorney, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, International Trade Field Office, U.S. Department of Justice, New York, New York, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Frank W. Hunger, Deputy Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director, Washington, DC; and Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Field Office, New York, New York. Of counsel on the brief was Chi S. Choy, Attorney, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs Service, New York, New York.

Before RICH, SCHALL, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.


Koike Aronson, Inc., filed an administrative protest against the liquidation of certain entries of imported goods. The Customs Service denied the protest, and Koike appealed the denial to the Court of International Trade, claiming that Customs had selected the wrong tariff classification for the subject goods. On the government's motion, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court noted that its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) is limited to appeals from denials of valid protests and held that Koike's protest was invalid under the relevant statutory and regulatory standards. We affirm.

Koike's protest was filed on May 31, 1995, on a standard Customs form entitled "PROTEST." Block number 9 on the form bore the following instructions:

With respect to each category of merchandise, set forth, separately, (1) each decision protested, (2) the claim of the protesting party, and (3) the factual material and legal arguments which are believed to support the protest. All such material and arguments should be specific. General statements of conclusions are not sufficient. If Further Review is applied for, set forth additionally, a justification for Further Review under the criteria in 19 C.F.R. 174.24 and 174.25.

Koike's entry under block 9 is set forth below in its entirety:

Protest is made against the assessment of duties, as classified under the HTSUS by the U.S. Customs Service, against the...

To continue reading