Julie Mendoza, Partner, recently spoke to Law30 regarding a case involving a foreign importer fighting to recoup $74 million in tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. MMM represents the client, Borusan Mannesmann, in this case brought before the U.S. Court of International Trade.
The dispute over estimated tariffs escalated when Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) refused their request for a refund of estimated duties the importer paid on the shipments of steel pipe. Mendoza states that, “Once they issued a denial and told us that they were not granting it, that gave rise to our obligation to protest. If Borusan had waited until CBP liquidated the entries — which could still be years away as the shipments remain tied up in other litigation — to challenge the agency's refund decision, it risked being told that its claims were time-barred.”
In addition, Mendoza referenced a litany of trade court precedent, stating “they all say a refusal of a demand for a refund is an exaction, and when you have an exaction, that is protestable and it's protestable … before liquidation."
Read the full article here. Law360 membership required.
