Consequently, the court dismissed JVC's suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.See id. at 915. As further justification for dismissing JVC's claim, the Court of International Trade cited the case of Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1995). See US JVC Corp., 15 F. Supp.2d at 912-13 n. 10.

This jurisdictional grant is not unqualified, however, and must be read to incorporate the requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1514. Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Section 1514(a) provides that "decisions of the Customs Service, including the legality of all orders and findings entering into the same, as to . . . the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry . . . shall be final and conclusive upon all persons (including the United States and any officer thereof) unless a protest is filed in accordance with this section.

Because a remedy would have been available under § 1581(a) had the importers timely protested Customs' classification decisions, ARP and Harrison cannot invoke the Court of International Trade's residual jurisdiction under § 1581(i) unless they show that the relief in § 1581(a) would have been manifestly inadequate. Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States , 68 F.3d 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1995). But neither ARP nor Harrison can meet this burden because "a remedy is not inadequate ‘simply because [the importer] failed to invoke it within the time frame [that is] prescribe[d].’ "

Without timely protest, all liquidations become final and conclusive under 19 U.S.C. § 1514." Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In Juice Farms, Customs erroneously liquidated twenty entries of orange juice while suspension orders were in effect.

We review the CIT's “decision to grant the Government's motion to dismiss [for lack of subject matter jurisdiction] de novo as a question of law.” Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States , 68 F.3d 1344, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[T]he party invoking [the CIT's] jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it.” Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v. United States , 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

It is axiomatic that a party's failure to timely invoke a remedy does not make it inadequate. Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Omni U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 840 F.2d 912, 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). ARP's moot claim (due to its successful protest) as to entry '7552-2 and Harrison's successful protests as to two entries not included in its complaint amply demonstrate that far from being exercises in futility, timely protests on their part as to the remaining entries at issue in these suits were opportunities for picking low-hanging fruit.

Rather, defendant argues that plaintiff was required to protest the purported deemed liquidation that was announced in the Bulletin Notice, and only if the protest were denied could the matter be heard in this Court. According to defendant, this is the holding in Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (" Juice Farms"). In Juice Farms, the plaintiff importer's entries were subject to a suspension of liquidation pending an antidumping review.

Without a timely protest, all liquidations become final and conclusive under 19 U.S.C. § 1514." Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Suspending liquidation until an administrative review concludes gives Commerce and future tribunals the benefit of applying the post-review, final countervailing duty rate when entries are ultimately liquidated.

We review the CIT's grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States , 68 F.3d 1344, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1995). This court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the claimant.

We review de novo the Trade Court's decisions to grant the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hutchison Quality Furniture, Inc. v. United States , 827 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States , 68 F.3d 1344, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ). The party invoking the Trade Court's jurisdiction, here the plaintiff, bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.