See Compl. ¶ 1. For this Court to exercise jurisdiction over a claim under § 1581(a), the party filing suit must have filed a valid protest against Customs in a timely manner. See U.S. Shoe Corp. v. United States, 114 F.3d 1564, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997), aff'd, 523 U.S. 360 (1998); Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Atari Caribe, Inc. v. United States, 16 CIT 588, 592, 799 F. Supp. 99, 104 (1992). To qualify as valid, a

In the event of late-filed submissions, equitable tolling is available only when the lateness is attributable, at least in part, to misleading governmental action. See Bailey, 160 F.3d at 1365 (noting that if the government misled the claimant into missing the filing deadline, such inducement by a government adversary may allow equitable tolling of the limitations period even absent trickery or governmental misconduct); see also Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (noting that equitable tolling would be allowed if the government tricked the plaintiff into missing the filing deadline). The requirements for equitable estoppel are even more stringent; equitable estoppel requires affirmative governmental misconduct.

Compl. of Alcan at para. 1. Accordingly, Alcan has the burden of establishing the basis for the Court's jurisdiction.See Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). At the same time, "the Court assumes `all well-pled factual allegations are true,' construing `all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant.'"

Finally, relative to summary judgment, Intercargo insists that in any event there are numerous genuine material issues of fact for trial, and consequently, the government's motion must be denied and this action proceed to a trial by jury, as demanded. Citing United States v. Utex International, Inc., 857 F.2d 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Omni U.S.A v. United States, 840 F.2d 912, 913 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 817, 109 S.Ct. 56, 102 L.Ed.2d 34 (1988); United States v. A.N. Deringer, 66 CCPA 50, 55, 593 F.2d 1015 (1979), SCA Int'l Inc. v. United States, 14 CIT 59, 1990 WL 13547 (1990), Computime, Inc. v. United States, 9 CIT 553, 557, 622 F. Supp. 1083 (1985), Juice Farms Inc. v. United States, ___ CIT ___, Slip Op 94-172, 1994 WL 631649 (Nov. 9, 1994), appeal docketed, CAFC Dec. 8, 1994, and Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. v. Unites States, ___ CIT ___, ___, 865 F. Supp. 877 (1994), the government maintains, correctly that even if the October 28, 1988 liquidation is illegal, because the period in which to liquidate the entry was not timely suspended or extended, such liquidation is not void, bu merely voidable; that pursuant to § 1514 even a voidable liquidation is "final and con elusive" unless contested by a timely protest that Intercargo's failure to file at the administrative level a protest against either the liquidation or the demand for payment under its bond leaves the liquidation of October 28 1988 final and conclusive against the surety precluding judicial review of Intercargo's affirmative defenses; and that Intercargo's failure to file a protest constitutes a waiver of all claims or defenses that could have been raised by protest and administratively reviewed by Custom