Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
661 F.3d 1343 (2011)
- Written by Gonzalo Rodriguez, JD
Facts
Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc. (Hitachi) (plaintiff) imported plasma televisions into the United States. United States Customs and Border Protection (customs) (defendant) liquidated those entries subject to a 5 percent duty. Hitachi filed numerous protests arguing that the televisions should have been liquidated duty-free. After more than two years passed without customs having ruled on the protests, Hitachi filed suit before the United States Court of International Trade. In its suit, Hitachi asserted that the court had jurisdiction under either 19 U.S.C. § 1515(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) because Hitachi’s protests were deemed denied after customs’ failure to rule within two years. The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, stating that 19 U.S.C. § 1515(a) created neither an automatic grant nor an automatic denial of a protest after two years, and thus jurisdiction was proper under neither that section nor § 1581(i), which allowed for jurisdiction if the remedy provided by another section would be manifestly inadequate. The court further noted that all that Hitachi had to do in order to establish jurisdiction was to file a request for accelerated disposition under § 1515(b), which required action from customs within 30 days. Hitachi appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Linn, J.)
Dissent (Reyna, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
