Whether the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that Petitioner's protests concerning rate and refund determinations were untimely and the Court of International Trade lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) essentially eliminates one of the statutory means by which importers can file protests under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(8)(B) and 19 C.F.R. § 174.12(e)(2)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This petition asks the Court to consider the following questions: Whether the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that Petitioner’s protests concerning rate and refund determinations were untimely and the Court of International Trade lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) essentially eliminates one of the statutory means by which importers can file protests under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(8)(B) and 19 C.F.R. § 174.12(e)(2)? Whether the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Petitioner could have invoked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) by submitting timely protests of the liquidation of its entries even though Petitioner lacked the grounds to file protests at an earlier time? Whether the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Court of International Trade’s decision dismissing Petitioner’s action when newly discovered evidence demonstrated that, if subject matter jurisdiction did not lie under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), then there were clearly manifestly inadequate remedies available, thus establishing subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)?