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].’ "

Second, monitoring the liquidation of entries subject to an antidumping duty order is a serious challenge even for importers who have access to complete information regarding an entry. See, e.g., Juice Farms, Inc. v. U.S., 68 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding Customs' violation of statutory suspension of liquidation not actionable by importer who discovered improper liquidations after protest period had expired). Defendant-Intervenors were themselves apparently unaware that their entries had been prematurely liquidated until notified by Commerce.

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.

"Liquidation" is "the final computation or ascertainment [by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection] of the duties . . . accruing on an entry." 19 C.F.R. § 159.1 (2005); Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1995). As detailed more fully below, the Domestic Producers have failed to make the showing required to satisfy the classic "four factors" test for injunctive relief. Their application for a prospective preliminary injunction restraining liquidation of future, post-POR entries — relief which would be truly extraordinary — must therefore be denied.