To give importers and sureties that option would create a gaping hole in the administrative exhaustion requirement of section 1514 and would be inconsistent with the underlying policy of section 1514, which is to channel challenges to liquidations through the protest mechanism in the first instance. See United States v. A.N. Deringer, Inc., 593 F.2d 1015, 1021 (CCPA 1979). Likewise, there is no force to ICS's claim that the decision of the Court of International Trade deprives an importer or surety of its statutory right to a trial in the Court of International Trade "upon the basis of the record made before the court" in collection actions brought by the government.

In creating the § 1514 protest procedure, Congress expressed a preference for administrative protest as a precursor to judicial review.See United States v. A.N. Deringer, Inc., 593 F.2d 1015, 1021 (C.C.P.A. 1979). Recognizing the import of § 1514, the courts rejected the proposition that, where a Customs decision violated an existing agency order, the decision was void and the party was able to bypass the requirements of the protest procedure.

Undoubtedly, suspension of liquidation is required pending the FDA decision on admissibility of imported food. 19 C.F.R. § 159.55. Defendant relies on United States v. A.N. Deringer, Inc., 66 CCPA 50, C.A.D. 1220, 593 F.2d 1015 (1979), where the court held that a liquidation is valid under this regulation if performed after the admissibility decision is made. However, a liquidation occurring prior to the admissibility decision is not void ab initio, in the absence of a timely protest, which challenges the correctness and legality of the liquidation.

The voidance doctrine, however, was eliminated by the Customs Courts Act of 1970. See 19 U.S.C. § 1500(d), 1514(a) (1982 Supp. 1984); United States v. A.N. Deringer, Inc., 66 CCPA 50, 56, C.A.D. 1220, 593 F.2d 1015, 1020-21 (1979). Congress has made it eminently clear that the "decisions of the appropriate customs officer, including the legality of all orders and findings" pertaining to the liquidation of an entry shall be final and conclusive unless a timely protest is filed. 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a) (emphasis added).

Section 1514 of title 19 "contemplates that both the legality and correctness of a liquidation be determined, at least initially, via the protest procedure." United States v. A.N. Deringer, Inc., 593 F.2d 1015, 1020 (CCPA 1979). Thus, all liquidations, whether legal or not, are subject to the timely protest requirement.

The government's argument that the purpose of these regulations is simply to save Customs the bother of assessing duties and later making a refund, and not in recognition of any legally significant finality of liquidation, is contrary to the body of customs law. The government itself calls the liquidation of Utex' shrimp "premature", using the word of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in United States v. A.N. Deringer, 593 F.2d 1015, 1020, 66 CCPA 50 (1979). The situation in Deringer was, in pertinent part, similar to that at bar.

The statute contemplates that both the legality and correctness of a liquidation be determined via the protest procedure, and any challenge to the propriety of a liquidation (not specifically excepted) must be through the statute. United States v. Deringer, Inc., 66 CCPA 50, 55, C.A.D. 1220, 593 F.2d 1015, 1020 (1979). The cardinal rule of administrative review is stated in 1 Feller, U.S. Customs and International Trade Guide § 4.03[1] (1981): "Once the administrative decision represented by a liquidation is made, the importer must file such a protest in order to secure further administrative review, as well as to preserve his right to judicial review [Emphasis added; footnote omitted]."

A decision to liquidate, including the legality of the liquidation itself, becomes final unless a protest of the decision is filed within 90 days of the entry of liquidation. 19 U.S.C. § 1514; see Juice Farms, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (parties bound by even erroneous, illegal liquidation not protested within 90 days); United States v. A.N. Deringer, Inc., 66 C.C.P.A. 50, 593 F.2d 1015, 1020 (1979) (any protest of liquidation, including a challenge to its legality, must occur within 90 days). This court may hear a challenge to a denied timely protest of liquidation.

Id. Juice Farms only learned of the liquidations after the administrative review concluded, and so failed to timely protest the liquidations. Id. Noting that § 1514 “contemplates that both the legality and correctness of a liquidation be determined, at least initially, via the protest procedure,” id. at 1346 (quoting United States v. A.N. Deringer, Inc., 66 C.C.P.A. 50, 593 F.2d 1015, 1020 (1979) ), we held that “the importer [ ] bears the burden to check for posted notices of liquidation and to protest timely,” and because Juice Farms did not, it “[could not] circumvent the timely protest requirement by claiming that its own lack of diligence requires equitable relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i),” id. at 1346.Shinyei is not to the contrary. In Shinyei, Commerce had issued erroneous instructions that did not match the final results of an administrative review, and Customs liquidated some entries pursuant to the instructions.

Id. at 1346. In sum, even though it is undisputed that Customs' 2005 reliquidations were erroneous, AHAC's failure to challenge those reliquidations in the Court of International Trade resulted in those liquidations becoming final and conclusive. Id.; see also Cherry Hill, 112 F.3d at 1559 (“this court does not recognize a distinction between ‘void’ and ‘voidable’ liquidations for purposes of determining the applicability of the protest requirement”); Omni U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 840 F.2d 912, 915 (Fed.Cir.1988) (same); United States v. A.N. Deringer, Inc., 66 C.C.P.A. 50, 593 F.2d 1015, 1020 (1979) (same). We therefore affirm the Court of International Trade's decision that AHAC is legally obligated to pay under its continuous bond.