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.

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].’ "

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.

Thus, section 1514(a) precludes the CIT from reviewing a challenge to-and ordering reliquidation based on-an erroneous decision by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs" or "CBP") unless the statutory protest requirements are met. See, e.g., Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Mitsubishi Elecs. Am., Inc. v. United States, 18 CIT 167, 172, 848 F.Supp. 193, 197 (1994). In litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) seeking to challenge an antidumping or countervailing duty determination, the finality of liquidation is governed by a different statutory provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a.

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.

Customs did not have the discretion to exempt Industrial Chemicals from the deadline set by Congress. See Extension Act § 201 (providing "retroactive application" of the GSP, so long as the importer filed a request with Customs "not later than" December 28, 2015); cf. Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States , 68 F.3d 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (explaining that an importer "cannot circumvent" a statutory filing deadline "by claiming ... its own lack of diligence"). Accordingly, the CIT properly dismissed Industrial Chemicals’ Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

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).

Even if the implementation of a remedy for the erroneous liquidations had to await a final decision by the Trade Court in the antidumping proceeding (as the government contends), the protest remedy would have been adequate because it would have ultimately resulted in reliquidation at the proper rate.Under our decision in Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344 (Fed.Cir.1995), Carbon's ability to protest the liquidation pursuant to § 1514 bars resort to § 1581(i). In Juice Farms, Commerce had suspended liquidation of Juice Farms Inc.'s (“Juice Farms”) orange juice entries pending investigation and administrative reviews of an antidumping duty order.

Id. at 1347, 1349. The court concluded that, under our decision in Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344 (Fed.Cir.1995), the 2005 reliquidations became final, “whether legal or not,” once AHAC failed to challenge them in court. Am. Home, 964 F.Supp.2d at 1347 (quoting Juice Farms, 68 F.3d at 1346).