Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Juice Farms, Inc. v. U.S.

68 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Juice Farms, Inc. v. U.S.

4 Citing cases

  1. Fujitsu General America, Inc. v. U.S.

    283 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that there must be "an unambiguous and public starting point for the six-month liquidation period"

    We have held that the Court of International Trade's authority to hear a claim under section 1581(a) depends upon the importer raising the claim in a valid protest filed with Customs within the prescribed 90-day period, or alternatively, in a protest coming within an exception that excuses a failure to meet the deadline. See Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Section 1581(i) provides in pertinent part as follows:

  2. U.S. v. Cherry Hill Textiles, Inc.

    112 F.3d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding in government enforcement action deemed liquidation in favor of the importer is a final, unalterable event, which cannot be undone by a later "liquidation"

    The court expressly rejected the argument that "voidable" liquidations must be protested, but "void" liquidations do not. The decision in Deringer was followed by this court in Omni U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 840 F.2d 912 (Fed. Cir. 1988), and Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1995), both of which confirmed that this court does not recognize a distinction between "void" and "voidable" liquidations for purposes of determining the applicability of the protest requirement of section 1514. In the Omni case, Customs was supposed to hold the liquidation of the entries in suspense, but instead liquidated the entries prematurely.

  3. Ford Motor Co. v. U.S.

    435 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006)   Cited 2 times

    One of the necessary elements of a valid protest is that it is timely. See Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3), the time period within which a protesting importer must file its protest varies according to the circumstances of the protest.

  4. SKF USA Inc. v. United States

    316 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)   Cited 20 times
    Stating "the public interest may be best maintained by `the procedural safeguard of an injunction pendente lite to maintain the status quo of the unliquidated entries until a final resolution of the merits.'"

    Liquidation of a party's entries is the final computation or ascertainment of duties accruing on those entries. See Juice Farms v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing 19 C.F.R. § 159.1). Once liquidation occurs, it permanently deprives a party of the opportunity to contest Commerce's results for the administrative review by rendering the party's cause of action moot.See Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806, 809-10 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The Court of International Trade possesses "all the powers in law and equity of, or as conferred by statute upon, a district court of the United States."