Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that actions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) are subject to the two-year statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2636(i)
• finding that Customs merely follows Commerce's instructions in assessing and collecting antidumping duties and thus does not make an antidumping decision protestable under section 1514
• finding that § 1581(a) jurisdiction was inappropriate because plaintiffs claim did not concern a protestable decision by CBP
• explaining that where no party makes a request for an administrative review, Commerce instructs CBP automatically to assess duties at the estimated rate
• addressing the prior version of 19 C.F.R. § 351.212 and explaining that where no party makes a request for an administrative review, Commerce instructs customs offic- ers to automatically assess duties at the estimated rate
• noting plaintiff had opportunity to request review through June 30,1987 and determin-ingplaintiff s “cause of action accrued, and the statute of limitations began to run, on July 1, 1987 when all the events necessary to state the claim had occurred”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).